WW3

[SB85]

Yup, many view these so called 'leaders' ink marks are the end all be all. The crap they jolt down only means anything because folks give it value. Its just another belief system.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yup, many view these so called 'leaders' ink marks are the end all be all. The crap they jolt down any means anything because folks give it value. Its just another belief system.

"God verment"

 

[SB85]

"God verment"

It's crazy how many really believe they need permits[permission] to fish/hunt/grow their own food and etc.

 

[Rob Roy]

It's crazy how many really believe they need permits[permission] to fish/hunt/grow their own food and etc.

...or their own weed.

 

[Fubard]

To be "free" you would be free to do what you like with yourself and your property.

When you do unsolicited and unwanted things to others, you aren't exercising freedom, you are taking it away from others.

Reciprocity of self determination is a necessary ingredient to freedom.

The problem then becomes one where you realise that, under your notion of freedom, persuading someone that your side of an argument is the correct side becomes that very imposition of will you describe, for, ultimately, that is what the act of persuasion is, you finding a way to impose your wish, your will, your belief, upon someone else or others, same as your belief, etc, has been shaped by others, you allowed them to impose their view, their will, upon you..

So when you can define "free", as your first attempt hardly does so here and that's before we think of how there are many in places like Russia, Belarus, DPRK, China and so on who are perfectly happy with the version of "free" they have according to their life, same as we cannot forget those in "the West" who are not happy with their version of "free" as there's always too much or too little interference from the State, I'll answer...

 

[SB85]

...or their own weed.

I hope folks wake up and realize these so called 'leaders" have no authority over them.

 

[Fubard]

I hope folks wake up and realize these so called 'leaders" have no authority over them.

Do you vote, pay taxes, etc?

 

[SB85]

Do you vote, pay taxes, etc?

I don't the stage show of politics myself . The taxes are being taken out of my earnings being as these 'leaders' feel they know/what's best for me.

 

[Rob Roy]

The problem then becomes one where you realise that, under your notion of freedom, persuading someone that your side of an argument is the correct side becomes that very imposition of will you describe, for, ultimately, that is what the act of persuasion is, you finding a way to impose your wish, your will, your belief, upon someone else or others, same as your belief, etc, has been shaped by others, you allowed them to impose their view, their will, upon you..

So when you can define "free", as your first attempt hardly does so here and that's before we think of how there are many in places like Russia, Belarus, DPRK, China and so on who are perfectly happy with the version of "free" they have according to their life, same as we cannot forget those in "the West" who are not happy with their version of "free" as there's always too much or too little interference from the State, I'll answer...

Actually persuasion isn't usually an imposition, since it lacks the application of offensive force.

The things you mentioned, "countries" like China, Russia, etc. aren't real in the tangible sense and they aren't real in a discussion of freedom, since their existence is reliant on offensive force.

Differentiating between offensive force and defensive force are important considerations when determining whether freedom is being abused or being protected.

 

[Fubard]

I don't the stage show of politics myself . The taxes are being taken out of my earnings being as these 'leaders' feel they know/what's best for me.

So you accept the system of government that does such a thing, therefore recognise the authority such people hold upon you.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[SB85]

So you accept the system of government that does such a thing, therefore recognise the authority such people hold upon you.

Thanks for clarifying.

There is a difference between accepting and having acts thrown on you by force/violence.

 

[Rob Roy]

I hope folks wake up and realize these so called 'leaders" have no authority over them.

 

[Fubard]

Actually persuasion isn't usually an imposition, since it lacks the application of offensive force.

The things you mentioned, "countries" like China, Russia, etc. aren't real in the tangible sense and they aren't real in a discussion of freedom, since their existence is reliant on offensive force.

Differentiating between offensive force and defensive force are important considerations when determining whether freedom is being abused or being protected.

Actually, it is an imposition. One of us might propose an argument which the other cannot disagree with, therefore nullifying the argument and persuading the other that the position, opion, etc, held by the first person is actually the valid one, we use argument and logic to erode the position of someone or a group to ensure only our position remains the valid one, imposing our opinion.

By definition, they are the same. Only the weapons used change.

 

[Fubard]

There is a difference between accepting and having acts thrown on you by force/violence.

Doesn't matter, you do accept the authority these "leaders" have upon you no matter what you say, therefore destroying your own argument.

 

[Rob Roy]

So you accept the system of government that does such a thing, therefore recognise the authority such people hold upon you.

Thanks for clarifying.

That's not a very persuasive argument. It relies on the idea that a person who is under threat in a given moment and who accedes to the demands of the threatening thug is somehow in agreement with the threatening argument.

You're free to have your own opinion, not free to have your own facts.

 

[Fubard]

That's not a very persuasive argument. It relies on the idea that a person who is under threat in a given moment and who accedes to the demands of the threatening thug is somehow in agreement with the threatening argument.

No, it isn't because you are failing to understand the position taken and are introducing spurious arguments in an attempt to get your head around why you invalidate your own position.

 

[Rob Roy]

Doesn't matter, you do accept the authority these "leaders" have upon you no matter what you say, therefore destroying your own argument.

If I held you down giving you a powerful newgie with my humongous hairy hand on your mullet topped noggin ....

and got you to admit that you wore dresses and pranced around listening to Burl Ives Christmas carols at home while having your poodle lick your genitals clean of the honey you applied there....

that wouldn't mean because you admitted to it while under duress that it was true now would it?

 

[SB85]

Doesn't matter, you do accept the authority these "leaders" have upon you no matter what you say, therefore destroying your own argument.

There is a difference between accepting and having acts force/by violence via an order follower in uniform coming to re-in force the demands/words of his master on persons

 

[Rob Roy]

No, it isn't because you are failing to understand the position taken and are introducing spurious arguments in an attempt to get your head around why you invalidate your own position.

We may be approaching the part where I ask you what property is and then you don't answer.

 

[SB85]

We may be approaching the part where I ask you what property is and then you don't answer.

By the notion, folks might as well say all the acts of violence/ mass murder/genocide/slavery were done willingly by persons acceptance and not by the force of some brain dead order follower/criminals with heavy tools acting on the word of his/her master.