Justice Department: NC bathroom bill violates Federal Civil Rights Law.

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
we tried that before.



you really think that is the best solution?

if that is the best solution the "free market" can muster, than your dogmatic love of the "free market" is pretty fucked.

A free market involves voluntary exchange as opposed to involuntary exchange sometimes orchestrated by third party interventions.

Given a choice between forced human relations (involuntary, coercive) or consensual human relations (voluntary, peaceful) which do you prefer?

If you think forced human interactions are the best kind, that's pretty fucked.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
A free market involves voluntary exchange as opposed to involuntary exchange sometimes orchestrated by third party interventions.

Given a choice between forced human relations (involuntary, coercive) or consensual human relations (voluntary, peaceful) which do you prefer?

If you think forced human interactions are the best kind, that's pretty fucked.
you are a raging dipshit who is plagued by delusion.

i just showed you the "free market" and "voluntary" and "peaceful" human interactions. to refresh your memory, this is what it looked like.










please go on about how this was all voluntary and peaceful, you shit rodent.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
you are a raging dipshit who is plagued by delusion.

i just showed you the "free market" and "voluntary" and "peaceful" human interactions. to refresh your memory, this is what it looked like.










please go on about how this was all voluntary and peaceful, you shit rodent.


That's a sad picture, but yet it doesn't rebut my argument. The gang of leering assholes and the douche pouring the stuff are in the wrong, IF they do not own the property AND assholes either way, but that is beside the point.

If you own property and somebody else decides how you will use it, or attempts to, you have the right to defend your property. You sometimes believe that, but then you disavow that belief when it suits you.

Also, it is fact that in forced segregation (legal segregation) and forced integration the element of government force is the primary means. Using force as a primary means to facilitate a human interaction is where the problem begins.

Your fixation on the emotion of a circumstance, doesn't give one party the right to determine how another person will use their property and their body.

So tell me who has the right to force a human interaction on property they do not own ? Do you?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member

Voluntaryist.com would do you some good, Comrade.


If one takes care of the means the ends will take care of themselves.

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political,non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.


Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight.

Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.
 
Last edited:

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
you are a raging dipshit who is plagued by delusion.

i just showed you the "free market" and "voluntary" and "peaceful" human interactions. to refresh your memory, this is what it looked like.










please go on about how this was all voluntary and peaceful, you shit rodent.


Also, you called something the free market when it wasn't. You do that often. I'd say it springs from your ignorance.

If a free market had been allowed, forced segregation (legally instituted) would not have occurred, people who wanted to interact could have.

So what is your solution? Again, the wrong one...

You then foolishly go to the same institution which implemented forced segregation, the nanny state, and seek a resolution. Of course the ONLY thing your favorite institution can do is use FORCE AGAIN.

In both instances, forced segregation and forced integration, the involved parties are stripped of their ability to peacefully interact or not on a basis that the involved chose, rather than a 3rd party whose only tool is force.

The means you use, force, is the problem, Poopy Pants.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
A free market involves voluntary exchange as opposed to involuntary exchange sometimes orchestrated by third party interventions.

Given a choice between forced human relations (involuntary, coercive) or consensual human relations (voluntary, peaceful) which do you prefer?

If you think forced human interactions are the best kind, that's pretty fucked.
I prefer you not have the legal ability to fuck children or discriminate based on race.
Why do you want to legally be able to fuck kids and discriminate based on skin color?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I prefer you not have the legal ability to fuck children or discriminate based on race.
Why do you want to legally be able to fuck kids and discriminate based on skin color?
I prefer human interactions occur on a voluntary, peaceful and consensual basis.

You do not.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Funny how they stopped calling that shit anarchocapitalism since they got tired of people saying how stupid it is.

It should be called neofeudalism.

Property rights come from gov't.
So, property did not exist prior to government granting the right you allege?

Also, you seem a little reliant on a central coercive authority to facilitate the things you like, why do you call yourself an anarchist if that is the case ?


 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
You are trying too hard to form a coherent argument. I can see you are trying though.

Might I suggest next time, you pick parents that will pass on a greater capacity for intelligent discourse, Prohibitionist?
Your position is not intelligent, moral or righteous
Society has deemed sick fucks like you not worthy of living.
FUCKING kids is never going to be an option. Hopefully someone in your institution gets to take you out. Protective custody won't protect you forever RR
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Your position is not intelligent, moral or righteous
Society has deemed sick fucks like you not worthy of living.
FUCKING kids is never going to be an option. Hopefully someone in your institution gets to take you out. Protective custody won't protect you forever RR
You are attempting to assign me a belief which I don't hold, so that your lame argument can take hold. I'm sorry you suck at forming cohesive and consistent arguments.

I think human relations should occur on a peaceful, voluntary and mutually consenting basis or they should not occur. Which part of that do you disagree with, Prohibitionist ?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I said property rights, not property. Gov't did not invent property. Gov't was invented in order to secure property.

Stop distorting my arguments just because you don't understand them.
That's a reasonable distinction. Now, we are getting somewhere.

Speaking of distorting arguments, it is a good idea to agree on the meanings of terms and not fall into straw manning the other persons assertions.

So please tell me what your argument is....

What is property and who can own it?
 

CrocodileStunter

Well-Known Member
How can you privileged white folks keep comparing the black civil rights movement to transpeople in the bathroom with kids? Was malcom x talking about trans rights? hell no. Malcom would be talking about the systemic feminization of the black man that has been pushed lately. It's actually veiled racism to compare black civil rights with lgbt rights.

"Dr King responded: “Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired."
 

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
How can you privileged white folks keep comparing the black civil rights movement to transpeople in the bathroom with kids? Was malcom x talking about trans rights? hell no. Malcom would be talking about the systemic feminization of the black man that has been pushed lately. It's actually veiled racism to compare black civil rights with lgbt rights.

"Dr King responded: “Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired."
How is it veiled racism? Could you explain your position more?
 

CrocodileStunter

Well-Known Member
How is it veiled racism? Could you explain your position more?
Nevertheless, for the sake of this article, here are five strong but simple reasons why “…there is a difference” between the issues surrounding the civil rights movement and those surrounding the fight for certain LGBTQ rights. Here’s why the two don’t even belong in the same discussion:

  1. You have never seen–and won’t see–“heterosexual only” and “gay only” water fountains, diners, buses, schools, in light of 75 years of oppressive Jim Crow laws.

    Homosexual men/women will never see a society that makes it a point–IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE–to remind them that they’re lesser in creation and not deserving of life’s joys. The homosexual man/woman has never seen this day and never will.

  2. You have not–and won’t–see homosexuals snatched away from their families at birth for the purpose of division and dehumanization.

    Some may think this is unfair because it deals with something that happened pre-civil rights, but historians agree that this was the root of all that was combatted during the Civil Rights era. Society has never been set up to divide and conquer the homosexual from birth.

  3. Homosexual men/women have never endured a slave trade for generations and witnessed their ancestors dying by the numbers during a “Middle Passage” and being sold for raw goods.

    The Middle Passage is part of the African American legacy as it brought Africans to America–as property. Many died during the Middle Passage; and those that made it, with strong communal ties, were sold for raw material. They were seen not as a person but as valuable property at best–their value being determined by the trader, auctioneer, and families with the highest bid. Homosexual men/women in their struggle of “inequality” will never know of a day, month, year or decades that define them or their culture in this way.

  4. Homosexuals have never been–or will be considered–non-citizens by laws of the United States that rob them of inalienable rights.

    Dread Scott sued the federal courts for his freedom but lost 7-2 due to the fact that he, nor any other person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States. Homosexuals will never know a day where they are not considered citizens of the United States.

  5. Homosexuals will never face a societal norm that allows–and even promotes–them to be beaten because they are seen as property and treated like cattle with scripture as a basis for justification.
    I have seen him tie up a lame young woman, and whip her with a heavy cowskin upon her naked shoulders, causing the warm red blood to drip; and, in justification of the bloody deed, he would quote this passage of Scripture–“He that knoweth his master’s will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes (pg. 57).”

"To compare the struggle of homosexual men/women to that of African Americans is more than offensive. It’s wiping out 300 years of historical fortitude that saw a people fight to maintain the identity-legacy that was stolen from them on day one."

http://forthdistrict.com/5-reasons-gay-is-not-the-new-black/
 

CrocodileStunter

Well-Known Member
I am all for every single right for the lgbt crowd except the opposite sex going in the restroom with children. Maybe my views will change at some point. I just don't feel it's a good precedent to set.
 

JCS57

Well-Known Member
a man born a man will always be a man .no mater how much time gos by a man will be a man and also that man will go to hell for sticking his d up a nuther mans a8s..read the bible GOD destroyed a city over the same thing killing all.And your rite GOD will not let this crazey stuff go on much longer and he will come get his children and the gays will burn in hell,gays are sick people in the head and need help to try and get them out of there sickness..jmo and I will stick to it till the day I die...ky...there is no way gay people belive in the word of GOD...
But what if they are born hermaphrodite? Try looking up intersex. Your black and white diffinitions don't really fit the natural world.
 
Top