Civil Discourse

[Rob Roy]

I agree in theory with your proposals. But, for example without some sort of regulating authority how do we have standards? Who makes sure when you buy one gallon of gas you get exactly 231 cubic inches? Who decides wiring codes so your house doesn't burn down? Who determines if there's proper support on a load bearing wall or if an added beam is necessary?

These at a minimum require a miniarchist government. Or else we end up in a shithole country Trump complains about where a moderate earthquake demolishes buildings. Even though America sucks in many areas our strict building codes* for buildings at least are quite sound.

*let's ignore the bridges that fall down all time.

The first hurdle to any use of force, Buddha, is to determine if it is defensive force or offensive force. If it is offensive force, or a threat of using offensive force against another person or their justly acquired property, then the things which ensue are hard to justify. Using (offensive) force as a primary means to make something happen, is a characteristic of a "shithead person" , therefore if it's magnified to the level of government practice, wouldn't that be aiding in the creation of a "shithole country" ?

Without a coercion based government who would determine that the ounce of weed you buy is really an ounce?

The individual consumers and the aggregate of individual consumers providing feedback are the mechanisms for regulation that are missing from a government controlled (or heavily influenced) economy.

Funny that you mention "codes" etc. Many codes douches I've run into, contradict other codes douches I've run into almost as if they use their imagined authority to intervene in others lives as some kind of psychological response to some inadequacy in their miserable lives. But, I'm digressing and refer you to my first paragraph as the thing you might ponder.

Where does the authority to tell other people what to do with their property come from ? How does it even exist ?

 

[Buddha2525]

The first hurdle to any use of force, Buddha, is to determine if it is defensive force or offensive force. If it is offensive force, or a threat of using offensive force against another person or their justly acquired property, then the things which ensue are hard to justify. Using force as a primary means to make something happen, is a characteristic of a "shithead person" , therefore if it's magnified to the level of government practice, wouldn't that be aiding in the creation of a "shithole country" ?

Without a coercion based government who would determine that the ounce of weed you buy is really an ounce?

The individual consumers and the aggregate of individual consumers providing feedback are the mechanisms for regulation that are missing from a government controlled (or heavily influenced) economy.

Funny that you mention "codes" etc. Many codes douches I've run into, contradict other codes douches I've run into almost as if they use their imagined authority to intervene in others lives as some kind of psychological response to some inadequacy in their miserable lives. But, I'm digressing and refer you to my first paragraph as the thing you might ponder.

Where does the authority to tell other people what to do with their property come from ? How does it even exist ?

Ok I agree, mostly. But how do I make sure my property doesn't fall down or I got exactly 231 cubic inches of gas? Just pray to Buddha you're not lying?

Government is bad enough but to me a 100% free for all wouldn't work. There needs to be some "governing" even if at the tribe level.

You need to read the Strength of the Strong by Jack London. It's where many writers like Wells got his Animal Farm ideas from and explains many of these concepts.

Be well.

 

[Rob Roy]

Ok I agree, mostly. But how do I make sure my property doesn't fall down or I got exactly 231 cubic inches of gas? Just pray to Buddha you're not lying?

Government is bad enough but to me a 100% free for all wouldn't work. There needs to be some "governing" even if at the tribe level.

You need to read the Strength of the Strong by Jack London. It's where many writers like Wells got his Animal Farm ideas from and explains many of these concepts.

Be well.

Yes, there needs to be some form of giving Peace a chance. I try to adhere to voluntary principles, many of which are described in the fundamentals at this website. voluntaryist.com . http://voluntaryist.com/

Thank you for the reading suggestion. Consider reading The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose. It's a bit ranty, but his arguments seem unassailable.

I'd suggest that using a system which is based in offensive force, (coercion based government) ensures the impossibility of creating peace. This is self evident since once an offensive thing is part of something, mathematically speaking it can't then be ignored when trying to solve the greater equation without skewing the process.

 

[Tangerine_]

Can you show me a "social contract" ?

If you want to defend the sacred, the first thing you would avoid is using offensive force to do it. A social contract, is a rationalization to use offensive force.

I liked your banana on the guys face meme, perhaps that's where your talent lies? Ahem.

I'm barely awake but ahh, biting wit isn't your strong suit is it.

The social contract has been explained to you over and over...dumbed down even.

My point stands. We have a working tribal government and Russel Means work is about protecting a culture that was nearly lost. It has absolutely nothing to do with the bellyaching you do about paying your required property tax. Taxes you admit to have benefitted from.

So yeah, miss me with all that nonsense about offensive force. Your kids attended public school because you willingly sent them. You or your wife probably even took pictures on their first day riding the bus. I can assure you, the natives experience was far different.

You can continue your attempts at using the oppression of first nations to lend validity to your point but just know its not only ill-conceived, its disingenuous.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm barely awake but ahh, biting wit isn't your strong suit is it.

The social contract has been explained to you over and over...dumbed down even.

My point stands. We have a working tribal government and Russel Means work is about protecting a culture that was nearly lost. It has absolutely nothing to do with the bellyaching you do about paying your required property tax. Taxes you admit to have benefitted from.

Natives fully understand they have a deep responsibility to their people and you have no idea what it means or what it takes to defend that.
So yeah, miss me with all that nonsense about offensive force. Your kids attended public school because you willingly sent them. You or your wife probably even took pictures on their first day riding the bus. I can assure you, the natives experience was far different.

You can continue your attempts at using the oppression of first nations to lend validity to your point but just know its not only ill-conceived, its disingenuous.

So you like concepts formed from vaporous bullshit like "the social contract" eh ? Okay then, how about "manifest destiny" ?

Do you like that one too?

Our first responsibility to every person who isn't aggressing against us, is to not agress against them.

The so called "social contract" does not adhere to that principle and is a thinly disguised way of controlling people using offensive force as the primary means.

My kids attended government schools, because I was forced to pay for them, and other more peaceful alternatives were discouraged (purposefully...by government) Not to mention I had been indoctrinated into a state of ignorance, where most people remain today. For instance, you, banana face.

 

[Tangerine_]

So you like concepts formed from vaporous bullshit like "the social contract" eh ? Okay then, how about "manifest destiny" ?

Do you like that one too?

Our first responsibility to every person who isn't aggressing against us, is to not agress against them.

The so called "social contract" does not adhere to that principle and is a thinly disguised way of controlling people using offensive force as the primary means.

My kids attended government schools, because I was forced to pay for them, and other more peaceful alternatives were discouraged (purposefully...by government) Not to mention I had been indoctrinated into a state of ignorance, where most people remain today. For instance, you, banana face.

You weren't "forced". And no one came into your home and ripped your children away. They weren't stripped to the bone, down to their very name or forced to have their hair cut. They weren't forbidden to speak their native language or taught to be ashamed of their culture.
Your experience in no way aligns with a Natives experience. Not even close.

 

[Buddha2525]

Yes, there needs to be some form of giving Peace a chance. I try to adhere to voluntary principles, many of which are described in the fundamentals at this website. voluntaryist.com . http://voluntaryist.com/

Thank you for the reading suggestion. Consider reading The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose. It's a bit ranty, but his arguments seem unassailable.

I'd suggest that using a system which is based in offensive force, (coercion based government) ensures the impossibility of creating peace. This is self evident since once an offensive thing is part of something, mathematically speaking it can't then be ignored when trying to solve the greater equation without skewing the process.

He sounds like he got his ideas from thinkers such as Mikhail Bakunin — 'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the People's Stick."

 

[Rob Roy]

You weren't "forced". And no one came into your home and ripped your children away. They weren't stripped to the bone, down to their very name or forced to have their hair cut. They weren't forbidden to speak their native language or taught to be ashamed of their culture.
Your experience in no way aligns with a Natives experience. Not even close.

I believe the word that satisfies the situation I was in concerning my kids and government schools is "duped" .

Actually when I was being "corrected" I was strip searched by imagined authorities whose brethren did come into my home (with guns) and attempted (unsuccessfully) to shame me for my beliefs. Their imagined authority came from something you refer to as a "social contract" . Ironic eh?

I could regale you with the boatloads of "forbidden language" that wasn't allowed to be uttered in court too, but I'll leave that to your imagination.

 

[Rob Roy]

why would it be hysterical to call you a racist?

you think racial segregation should be legal again like it was before civil rights

You're stuck on the idea that it is okay to use force to prevent people who wish to associate from doing so and to also use force to insist people who do not want to associate be required to associate.

They are two sides to the same coin.


It should be "illegal" * to force people who are leaving you alone to do anything, since you've never addressed where you would get that right from.



*I used your term "illegal", not because I believe in the concept, I used it to mock you and to facilitate the concept of it being something which shouldn't be done, which you routinely equate with "illegal" as if the legality or illegality of a thing was a mirror image of the morality or immorality of that particular thing, Poopy Pants.

 

[londonfog]

Yes, I can see that you are not making an argument. You rarely do.

So if you think people should pay for that which they use, what is your opposition to exempting people who don't use a particular "government service" from paying for it ?


Since you so studiously read every gem I create, you, no doubt, picked up on the quotes regarding the oxymoronic term "government service" . How can an act which requires force as an integral part of it, be called a "service" ?

Are you saying when slaves were fed by their master, that created the reasoning behind maintaining their status as slaves? It's the same lame rationale you use regarding government schools. In both cases one party is denied an option and the other party sets the rules, which are backed by force. So you would be okay with a system which "allowed" slaves to buy their way out of slavery, rather than simply ending slavery promptly?

Share with me the service you don't use, but yet are still force to pay. Please tell the amount you pay for the service you do not use.
It is my thoughts you use wayyyyyy more then you pay.

 

[Rob Roy]

Share with me the service you don't use, but yet are still force to pay. Please tell the amount you pay for the service you do not use.
It is my thoughts you use wayyyyyy more then you pay.

I don't use the "Police service" when they shoot pot growers dogs or force people to give up their houses if they refuse to fund government schools.

I don't use the "defense system" when they murder people or maintain empire.

I don't use the TSA when they feel up children or the NSA when they peek in your windows and see where you hide your purloined underwear collection.

I'm not opposed to people paying for somebody to protect them, but can you tell me how an entity can force you to pay them, (even when you don't want to use them) and still be said to be protecting you?


Also, Is it possible you hit your head when you were young and that's what has prevented you from forming a coherent non contradictory argument?

 

[Buddha2525]

I don't use the "Police service" when they shoot pot growers dogs or force people to give up their houses if they refuse to fund government schools.

I don't use the "defense system" when they murder people or maintain empire.

I don't use the TSA when they feel up children or the NSA when they peek in your windows and see where you hide your purloined underwear collection.

I'm not opposed to people paying for somebody to protect them, but can you tell me how an entity can force you to pay them, (even when you don't want to use them) and still be said to be protecting you?


Also, Is it possible you hit your head when you were young and that's what has prevented you from forming a coherent non contradictory argument?

The simple answer is to justify them. When the police are more important than those being policed that's a red flag. The fact the police can lie to you but you can't lie back without going to jail is an imbalance of power.

I think if public school taught police are told to lie more would distrust them and their power over us would stop by the sheer number calling out bullshit.

 

[Ripped Farmer]

The fact the police can lie to you but you can't lie back without going to jail is an imbalance of power.

The balance in this particular situation is your right to not speak.

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

@michiganpissdrinker

napsalot is about the most civil person here so you've gotta know your sock puppet act is kaput after he tells you off like that

Maybe it would be, if it were an act. Turns out I'm a sincere person with no anger or hate. Y'all can call me whatever you want. Just dont call me late for dinner.

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

So you like concepts formed from vaporous bullshit like "the social contract" eh ? Okay then, how about "manifest destiny" ?

Do you like that one too?

Our first responsibility to every person who isn't aggressing against us, is to not agress against them.

The so called "social contract" does not adhere to that principle and is a thinly disguised way of controlling people using offensive force as the primary means.

My kids attended government schools, because I was forced to pay for them, and other more peaceful alternatives were discouraged (purposefully...by government) Not to mention I had been indoctrinated into a state of ignorance, where most people remain today. For instance, you, banana face.

Slow clap

 

[Herb & Suds]

Maybe it would be, if it were an act. Turns out I'm a sincere person with no anger or hate. Y'all can call me whatever you want. Just dont call me late for dinner.

No clap !

 

[potroastV2]

Slow clap

Just get a shot of penicillin.

 

[Rob Roy]

The balance in this particular situation is your right to not speak.

I think our individual right to be left alone when we are leaving others alone trumps any imagined right government operatives have to interact with us.

Police are, afterall, just human beings with no more right to do anything that would be wrong if you or I did it. Following orders to enforce a stupid law, isn't right, while it may be legal.

 

[MichiganSpinDoctor]

Ok. Good topic today.

Why is US politics so angry and emotional? What can we do to have more peace and thoughtfulness?

Just a reminder, this is civil discourse.

 

[Justin-case]

Well, thank you everyone, for another day of civil discourse. Today's topic was systemic racism. We got answers that vary. I did not have time to express all my thoughts today. Maybe we will revisit the topic in the future. Thanks again y'all. Keep growin

But the lazy unemployed fragile racist never finished his thoughts from yesterday, surely he will have time today?