Official Lolbertarian thread. Discuss the benefits of No goverment

[Rob Roy]

We've been over this, it's called "consent of the governed", you refuse to acknowledge Rousseau's arguments put forth regarding this even though it has been well established for more than 2 centuries. The government has no authority unless we give it to them through consent.

If you expect a government official to come door to door asking everyone "Do you consent to _____ being discussed in congress this week?", then you're simply delusional. An efficient government cannot operate in that way, they knew that in the formation of the country, that's why we hold federal elections to elect people to represent us in government. You give your consent in the hopes that your elected representative will best serve your interests, sometimes people feel like they do, sometimes people feel like they don't, but that's how the system works in a representative republic. If you want direct democracy, you will need to explain how that would work effectively and be as efficient or more efficient than the system we have now.

The argument is invalid and relies on the meaning of the word "consent" to be changed from being what it really is, an INDIVIDUAL ACTION, to an action wherein other people can provide it for you. The word you are looking for is not consent, resignation is a more fitting term.

Are you saying that the meaning of the word consent changes when it applies to a government action ?

If a fallacy is repeated verbatim for 200 years is that the magic number that makes the fallacy become true?

Tacit consent is steeped in false dichotomy and rationalization.

Don't make me conjure up Lysander Spooner, cuz I will.

 

[Padawanbater2]

If only an individual can give consent, and individuals are capable of giving their consent "when they develop the wherewithal to give it", then how do you prevent infectious diseases in a libertarian society where children aren't old enough to give their consent to receive a vaccine, and their parents can't give their kids consent because only individuals can?

If you wait until each kid "develops the wherewithal" to give their consent to receive a vaccine to prevent an infectious disease, you're left with a lot of dead kids. So what do you do in that situation?

 

[Rob Roy]

No

So, if consent isn't an individual thing, you are okay with a stronger party "giving consent" for another person or telling them what they have erm "consented" to, like it or not ?

You sir, have just PROVEN that YOU are an advocate for nonconsensual individual relationships....Isn't that what rape and child molestation is ? A stronger party over riding a person that has no ability to refuse? A nonconsensual relationship?

Derp dee fucking durr!


I sometimes feel a little sympathetic towards you, when you display your meatheadedness(sic)...sometimes.

 

[ChesusRice]

If only an individual can give consent, and individuals are capable of giving their consent "when they develop the wherewithal to give it", then how do you prevent infectious diseases in a libertarian society where children aren't old enough to give their consent to receive a vaccine, and their parents can't give their kids consent because only individuals can?

If you wait until each kid "develops the wherewithal" to give their consent to receive a vaccine to prevent an infectious disease, you're left with a lot of dead kids. So what do you do in that situation?

Free market

 

[ChesusRice]

So, if consent isn't an individual thing, you are okay with a stronger party "giving consent" for another person or telling them what they have erm "consented" to, like it or not ?

You sir, have just PROVEN that YOU are an advocate for nonconsensual individual relationships....Isn't that what rape and child molestation is ? A stronger party over riding a person that has no ability to refuse? A nonconsensual relationship?

Derp dee fucking durr!


I sometimes feel a little sympathetic towards you, when you display your meatheadedness(sic)...sometimes.

No

 

[Rob Roy]

If only an individual can give consent, and individuals are capable of giving their consent "when they develop the wherewithal to give it", then how do you prevent infectious diseases in a libertarian society where children aren't old enough to give their consent to receive a vaccine, and their parents can't give their kids consent because only individuals can?

If you wait until each kid "develops the wherewithal" to give their consent to receive a vaccine to prevent an infectious disease, you're left with a lot of dead kids. So what do you do in that situation?

The love of power over others is the most dangerous disease, grasshopper.

 

[Rob Roy]

No

Oh, sorry. I see your brains AA battery is running low...(Rob Roy shakes head and quietly leaves the room)

 

[ChesusRice]

Oh, sorry. I see your brains AA battery is running low...(Rob Roy shakes head and quietly leaves the room)

I don't read your crap anymore
No is the probable answer

 

[Rob Roy]

I don't read your crap anymore
No is the probable answer

There's some good crap reading on the floor of Uncle Bucky's hometown Wendy's, 4th stall on the left.


Oh? Your post... Yes, I see that you have flipped the checker board over and have your tail between your legs. You are quite incapable of mounting any kind of an argument . Sad, Prohibitionist, sad.

 

[ChesusRice]

There's some good crap reading on the floor of Uncle Bucky's hometown Wendy's, 4th stall on the left.


Oh? Your post... Yes, I see that you have flipped the checker board over and have your tail between your legs. You are quite incapable of mounting any kind of an argument . Sad, Prohibitionist, sad.

No

 

[Rob Roy]

No

Brilliant retort sir! A very convincing argument!

 

[Padawanbater2]

The love of power over others is the most dangerous disease, grasshopper.

There you have it

a. only individuals can give consent
b. individuals can give consent only when they develop the "wherewithal" to give it

So infants can't give their consent because they haven't developed the wherewithal to give it and their parents can't give their consent for them because only individuals can. So until kids develop the wherewithal to give their consent to receive a vaccine to prevent an infectious disease, they are susceptible to contracting whatever infectious diseases are present throughout the libertarian society. That's a window of 0-18 years depending on your definition of "wherewithal".

If a parent can't give consent for their kid to receive a vaccine to prevent an infectious disease, and the kid can't give their consent until they develop the wherewithal to give it, you will end up with a lot of dead kids.

Don't run away from this. Answer this criticism of the system of government you believe in honestly. You either have to give up some liberty to ensure the reasonable expectation of safety in society or accept that young kids will die because they aren't old enough to consent to receive a vaccine.

 

[Rob Roy]

There you have it

a. only individuals can give consent
b. individuals can give consent only when they develop the "wherewithal" to give it

So infants can't give their consent because they haven't developed the wherewithal to give it and their parents can't give their consent for them because only individuals can. So until kids develop the wherewithal to give their consent to receive a vaccine to prevent an infectious disease, they are susceptible to contracting whatever infectious diseases are present throughout the libertarian society. That's a window of 0-18 years depending on your definition of "wherewithal".

If a parent can't give consent for their kid to receive a vaccine to prevent an infectious disease, and the kid can't give their consent until they develop the wherewithal to give it, you will end up with a lot of dead kids.

Don't run away from this. Answer this criticism of the system of government you believe in honestly. You either have to give up some liberty to ensure the reasonable expectation of safety in society or accept that young kids will die because they aren't old enough to consent to receive a vaccine.

What makes you think in a universal way that "giving up liberty" can also provide universal safety?


Thank you for admitting that giving consent is by its nature an individual thing.

 

[ASCIIGHOST]

There you have it

a. only individuals can give consent
b. individuals can give consent only when they develop the "wherewithal" to give it

So infants can't give their consent because they haven't developed the wherewithal to give it and their parents can't give their consent for them because only individuals can. So until kids develop the wherewithal to give their consent to receive a vaccine to prevent an infectious disease, they are susceptible to contracting whatever infectious diseases are present throughout the libertarian society. That's a window of 0-18 years depending on your definition of "wherewithal".

If a parent can't give consent for their kid to receive a vaccine to prevent an infectious disease, and the kid can't give their consent until they develop the wherewithal to give it, you will end up with a lot of dead kids.

Don't run away from this. Answer this criticism of the system of government you believe in honestly. You either have to give up some liberty to ensure the reasonable expectation of safety in society or accept that young kids will die because they aren't old enough to consent to receive a vaccine.

Isnt this notion dependent upon the idea kids goto public school? Thats why everyone wants vaccines right? Because the dangers of being around other individual kids in public schools.

 

[heckler73]

The first part of your post is erroneous. A baby being born somewhere can give consent simply by being born there? Really? Is that like a woman can consent to being raped simply by going into a bad neighborhood?

A valid contract is not uni-lateral (you there in the back..."unilateral" in this context means formed by one side and stuck up the other parties ass...like a coercive government) , For a real contract (wherein both parties have consented) to exist, no form of duress should be present. You presuppose the existence of government EVERYWHERE is a default and that the only possibility is WHICH government, rather than IF government. Silly you.

Lysander Spooner may or may not have had bad breath, but that doesn't mean some of the things he said are erroneous, they should be judged on the merits of whether or not they are factual. Go piss on his grave, but that won't make his statements inaccurate if they are demonstrably true.

You did not answer the question about how Spooner defined NATURAL RIGHTS, fuzzy. Until that is resolved EVERYTHING he said is spurious reasoning--if not outright hokum--since it is the foundation of his diatribe!

 

[Rob Roy]

You did not answer the question about how Spooner defined NATURAL RIGHTS, fuzzy. Until that is resolved EVERYTHING he said is spurious reasoning--if not outright hokum--since it is the foundation of his diatribe!

No, blind squirrel those are not your nuts in your hand.

 

[Padawanbater2]

What makes you think in a universal way that "giving up liberty" can also provide universal safety?

Giving up some "liberty" is necessary to ensure the reasonable expectation of safety and security in society, for example, it's necessary to give up your "right" to drive a car without taking the driver's education and driver's training course to ensure my protection in society because you could kill me or hurt someone else if you don't know how to drive. Or it's necessary to give up your "right" to throw something off tall buildings in the middle of a city to ensure my safety from falling objects if I'm walking down below.

It's the responsibility of our government to ensure the protection of our natural rights, including the safety of the people.

Isnt this notion dependent upon the idea kids goto public school? Thats why everyone wants vaccines right? Because the dangers of being around other individual kids in public schools.

No, infectious diseases can be contracted anywhere in society, not just public schools

 

[Rob Roy]

Giving up some "liberty" is necessary to ensure the reasonable expectation of safety and security in society, for example, it's necessary to give up your "right" to drive a car without taking the driver's education and driver's training course to ensure my protection in society because you could kill me or hurt someone else if you don't know how to drive. Or it's necessary to give up your "right" to throw something off tall buildings in the middle of a city to ensure my safety from falling objects if I'm walking down below.

It's the responsibility of our government to ensure the protection of our natural rights, including the safety of the people.

No, infectious diseases can be contracted anywhere in society, not just public schools

Your examples describe two separate kinds of circumstances. The first one is a false dichotomy, it assumes that licensed drivers ARE safe and that all people without a license cannot be safe. It's unreasonable to assume that a coercive monopoly can keep anyone safe, since it hasn't happened yet despite the prevalence of their existence. Fail.

The second example is not a good one. None of us have the right to initiate aggression against another. That is not a "liberty" that is worth anything, since it violates the basic principles of the non aggression principle from the get go. People that are throwing shit off buildings are in the act of violating others liberties though..so why would THEY need to be protected ? Shouldn't they be apprehended?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Your examples describe two separate kinds of circumstances. The first one is a false dichotomy, it assumes that licensed drivers ARE safe and that all people without a license cannot be safe. It's unreasonable to assume that a coercive monopoly can keep anyone safe, since it hasn't happened yet despite the prevalence of their existence. Fail.

The second example is not a good one. None of us have the right to initiate aggression against another. That is not a "liberty" that is worth anything, since it violates the basic principles of the non aggression principle from the get go. People that are throwing shit off buildings are in the act of violating others liberties though..so why would THEY need to be protected ? Shouldn't they be apprehended?

"It is the responsibility of the government to ensure the reasonable expectation of safety and security in society."

 

[ASCIIGHOST]

It would seem if he showed anything that giving up an individual liberty to a trusted loved one, provides individual security.

No, infectious diseases can be contracted anywhere in society, not just public schools

Ah perhaps in my haste I didn't effectively communicate my point. Apologies. In order to attend public school it is required to have these immunizations. You'd agree to that right? It is by this means they apply force. If a parent wants to give their kids immunizations regardless of their individuals rights, i would say by natural law they are the first, and possibly only to do so. not some government....in a the libertarian utopia those fear, you'd be able to just buy them, and on your own free will administer them to your children......now will come the fears of "unregulated" immunizations, because big pharmaceutical corporations care so much for people not profits.....this notion will be defended elsewhere on a CANNABIS forum....ya know cannabis...that naturally occurring medicine...that thing??? Big Pharmaceutical will be praised for its strides on immunizations either directly or by marginalizing me.

how will things be regulated? had to ask didnt you? doctors have peer reviews. pretty common knowledge. doctors are in business for themselves. its a TRADE not a bureaucracy. Their main asset is their BRAIN. If they can do something better than their peers they will have more clients, regardless if their clients are sick people, or students developing their trade.

the differences between what we have now and more free market are drastic, but they are not doom and gloom. imagine. its easy if you try.