Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Racism and prejudice are certainly not things I'm cool with, good for you that you don't like it either.
If a racist remains on property he owns how are you deprived of anything you own though?
Where do you stand?
- Thread starter Flaming Pie
- Start date
Racism and prejudice are certainly not things I'm cool with, good for you that you don't like it either.
If a racist remains on property he owns how are you deprived of anything you own though?
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Racists don't stay on their property tho...
Are you suggesting we quarantine racists? Lol
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, I'm suggesting when anybody is using their own property or their body, it's not my right (or yours) to make them do anything.
When anybody, racist or otherwise, deprives you or me of our ability to use OUR body or OUR property they are in the wrong.
If a person has racists thoughts, I can disagree with them, but if their thought carries no disagreeable actions with it, I need to mind my own business.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Ok. So you are saying that our posts on RIU are just like posting what we think. But is that the same as having private thoughts?
When a thought is private, the target 9f your thoughts may be unharmed.
But when people of color read it, wouldn't it b3 seen as hurtful?
It bothers me when I see people rant angrily about christians.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
People should be free to practice their religion as long as the practice of it doesn't include forcing others to also.
People should be free to think what they want, but not to ENACT thoughts which deprive another person of that persons property or use of their own body etc.. Do you agree with that ?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I am OK with society "forcing" people not to murder or steal, yes because I don't consider that to be "force". If you want to live in society and have any reasonable expectation of safety or security it becomes necessary. The most important thing is for the government to ensure protection of its citizens, right? So in order to do that you can't really have everyone running around abiding by their own legal systems and justice codes, vigilante justice would be rampant. That's the evidence that society would be worse off without a central authority, look around at the different societies with strong federal governments - the US, the UK, western Europe, Japan - then compare them to the ones with weak federal governments - the majority of African nations, south and central American nations, middle eastern nations. That's the evidence. Where would you rather live - Lagos or Paris? Rio or Tokyo? Mogadishu or Madrid? Why? Because of the protections each of the central authorities provide.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Do you equate "society" as government?
Also you never answered why if it's wrong for you or I to use non defensive force against people, it's somehow okay for a government to do it....You seem uncomfortable with touching that one.
Murder and theft would be wrong whether they were legal or not and whether or not a government existed. By the way isn't war just a form of legalized murder? Wars are violence inflated to a large scale...because of the existence of a coercion based government. Care to refute that?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Government is made up of members of society
I don't consider things like collecting taxes or criminalizing theft and murder to be "nondefensive force", I consider them to be necessary for government to function and provide the benefits members of society need to enjoy happy and productive lives
War exists with or without government
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Which part of this do you disagree with? Also, you never answered my question from the previous posts.
1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people’s money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.
7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.
8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.
9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.
10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.
The Outdoorsman
Well-Known Member
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59
I was curious.
Not GOP
Well-Known Member
Are you the person who claims Trump hates Capitalism because he said he's going to put H&R Block out of business?
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
How is Trump as President going shut down H&R Block? And you say Obama is a totalitarian, your mental gymnastics are hilarious to watch.
Not GOP
Well-Known Member
lol. I knew it you were the one. He is not going to shut down H&R block. He was simply trying to make a point about how he is going to simplify the tax code. Didn't mean it literally. Try to put it in context
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Clearly I need coffee or something.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Clearly.
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
Sir Rob, yes indeed, I am still pretty good on the offensive boards. At least among the bums I play against at lunch every weekday.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What question?
Let's start with number 2
"2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order."
So what stops some entity from becoming so powerful they control said economic and social associations?
"4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group."
So what incentivizes businesses/corporations to invest in certain cities and create jobs, why should I sit idly by as my government does nothing to ensure the guy who "earned" his wealth through an injustice in acquisition pays little to nothing back in taxes while me and millions of others sit here with a 30-35% responsibility?
"5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves."
So what if implementing the seatbelt law saves me tax dollars? It costs less in medical coverage to the taxpayer if more people wear their seatbelt because the injuries sustained in auto accidents are less severe/serious if you're strapped in. How does that work? You're against all taxes so I'm guessing you're against the ambulance even picking people up when necessary, right?
How do you deal with something like this in your world?
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
You're not doing a very good job of baiting them.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
They do our taxes and I asked that question of the tax preparer, something like, "if we went to a flat tax, a one page form which anyone could fill out, would you be in favor of this flat tax knowing it would eliminate not only most if not all of the IRS and their branches but tax preparers such as yourself?"
Her answer was "yes".