Does government have the "authority" to force mandatory vaccinations on unwilling individuals ? Where does that authority come from ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Oh dear, you appear to be favoring rationalization and fairy tales you learned in government schools over logic.

If nobody is born with a right to govern, then it is impossible to delegate that nonexistent right. That is self evident.

You have the right to appoint a leader over yourself, because you own your self. It is also consistent with the one thing you said above which makes sense, "No one is "born with a right" to govern" . In your quote it is implied "to govern others", we all have the right to self govern.

Therefore you can only delegate YOUR right to be governed, if you chose it. You cannot delegate another persons right to be free from
being governed without doing the impossible.

A democracy composed of a group of people, none of whom have a given right can no more delegate that nonexistent right than an individual who doesn't possess that given right can. An aggregate of zeroes or a single zero is still zero.

I bet you can't refute what I just said....because it's impossible.

Do I have to get my friend Lysander Spooner to appear and straighten you out ?
Click to expand...
Your argument only holds water IF you choose not to be a part of the general society. If you chose to live off the land away from all other people, then you can have it your way. But as soon as you take that walk into town on that government subsidized road, you are making the choice to be a part of society, and you must play by society's rules. The simple fact that you have internet access shows that you have made the choice to be a part of society, so guess what? There are rules to follow for you too.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
PJ Diaz said:
Your argument only holds water IF you choose not to be a part of the general society. If you chose to live off the land away from all other people, then you can have it your way. But as soon as you take that walk into town on that government subsidized road, you are making the choice to be a part of society, and you must play by society's rules. The simple fact that you have internet access shows that you have made the choice to be a part of society, so guess what? There are rules to follow for you too.
Click to expand...

When you say "government subsidized" you realize that's complete and utter nonsense right? Government doesn't produce anything, everything it purports to do it uses private labor and money it takes from the private sector or "money" it borrows from the world's overlords with you as the collateral.

When you say "society's rules" do you really mean "government's rules" ? In any kind of polite society people wouldn't try to exercise or delegate rights they don't have, wouldn't you agree? For example, I will lend out your stuff and collect money. What? I don't have the right to do that!!? Well, I'll just get with some of my neighbors, none of whom have that right, and we'll vote your shit is "ours". That's your argument. Lame.

We've already covered that a group of people even if they call themselves "government" can't possibly have any rights none of the people in that group have as individuals. You haven't made an argument disproving that. Can you?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
When you say "government subsidized" you realize that's complete and utter nonsense right? Government doesn't produce anything, everything it purports to do it uses private labor and money it takes from the private sector or "money" it borrows from the world's overlords with you as the collateral.

When you say "society's rules" do you really mean "government's rules" ? In any kind of polite society people wouldn't try to exercise or delegate rights they don't have, wouldn't you agree? For example, I will lend out your stuff and collect money. What? I don't have the right to do that!!? Well, I'll just get with some of my neighbors, none of whom have that right, and we'll vote your shit is "ours". That's your argument. Lame.

We've already covered that a group of people even if they call themselves "government" can't possibly have any rights none of the people in that group have as individuals. You haven't made an argument disproving that. Can you?
Click to expand...
If you want to exclude people from your store then don't open it to the public in the first place.
 
S

spek9

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
View attachment 4522333
Click to expand...
I know what rhymes with rape:

The last grape I ate was the mistake,
led to our date where we debated but we utterly relate,
to the insanity we created with the words we continuously state,
without understanding or meaning we just continue to hate,
abate, chastise and humiliate,
things we can't understand,
self-humiliation due to inattention to reality which we made,
in this world of hurt,
where lies have become pervasive,
persuasive enough to become our own fate.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
If you want to exclude people from your store then don't open it to the public in the first place.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll address your chirp, little birdie. First, I don't have a store, but if I did and I were "allowed" to conduct it as if I were the true owner of said property, I might exclude people who tried to use offensive force. People who claim rights they don't have. Isn't that a reasonable approach?

Who has the right to control another persons property without the consent of that person ? Do you? Are you really just Bernie Sanders in disguise?

If a person owns something, and they don't want to do business with some others, wouldn't you say they're indicating their choice is not to be "open to the public" ?

You've also failed to address how it is that an allegedly owned property (store) is said to be private, but relevant decisions about that property are made by other people who don't own the property.

That would be like your neighbors dog taking a big shit in the middle of your living room carpet and saying if you didn't want him to do that (the dog would be speaking in dog language....dogs can't really talk) you should have done X. according to this piece of paper he and a bunch of other dogs came up with describing the rules of how they were going to run your property.

In this analogy, think of the dog as people claiming to have rights to determine the use of your property, while also simultaneously admitting it's "private property". That's a contradiction. Bad dog!!!
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
spek9 said:
I know what rhymes with rape:

The last grape I ate was the mistake,
led to our date where we debated but we utterly relate,
to the insanity we created with the words we continuously state,
without understanding or meaning we just continue to hate,
abate, chastise and humiliate,
things we can't understand,
self-humiliation due to inattention to reality which we made,
in this world of hurt,
where lies have become pervasive,
persuasive enough to become our own fate.
Click to expand...
I salute your rhyme
Ain't no crime

You're on your game
But we ain't the same

Things peeps don't understand
Certain words will soon be banned

Love of power is the disease
They don't even say please

1586095078066.png
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Kassiopeija said:
Discrimination.
Click to expand...
So, if a group of ripe smelling fresh from the fields hairly legged horny women, some with mustaches better than your aunt who looks like Larry Bird, descended upon your property looking for some hot loving, you should not be able to discriminate and refuse their offer to do business based on YOUR reasons?

It is their choices which matter and it doesn't matter whether you consent to the association or not ? You MUST serve them ?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So, if a group of ripe smelling fresh from the fields hairly legged horny women, some with mustaches better than your aunt who looks like Larry Bird, descended upon your property looking for some hot loving, you should not be able to discriminate and refuse their offer to do business based on YOUR reasons?

It is their choices which matter and it doesn't matter whether you consent to the association or not ? You MUST serve them ?
Click to expand...
you can’t kick black people out of stores and you can’t rape 12 year old boys
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you can’t kick black people out of stores and you can’t rape 12 year old boys
Click to expand...
Hmm.

Then why did "the government" kick all black people out of stores by closing them and why do you want to forcibly inject something into childrens bodies then, which is a form of rape ?
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Hmm.

Then why did "the government" kick all black people out of stores by closing them and why do you want to forcibly inject something into childrens bodies then, which is a form of rape ?
Click to expand...
Because it was ran by racists. It is a good thing that the civil rights movement happened and that the racist agenda got pushed back. It still sucks that they are residing in the Republican party, but at least they got kicked out of the Democratic party and our nation has benefitted greatly due to it.

Your 'forcible injection' theory is a joke, and like I mentioned prior would be as stupid of an argument as saying that children who grow up to be vegans as adults saying they were 'forcibly injected' with milk.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Hmm.

Then why did "the government" kick all black people out of stores by closing them and why do you want to forcibly inject something into childrens bodies then, which is a form of rape ?
Click to expand...
i say you can’t kick black people out of stores or rape 12 year old boys and he tries to argue these facts
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Okay, I'll address your chirp, little birdie. First, I don't have a store, but if I did and I were "allowed" to conduct it as if I were the true owner of said property, I might exclude people who tried to use offensive force. People who claim rights they don't have. Isn't that a reasonable approach?

Who has the right to control another persons property without the consent of that person ? Do you? Are you really just Bernie Sanders in disguise?

If a person owns something, and they don't want to do business with some others, wouldn't you say they're indicating their choice is not to be "open to the public" ?

You've also failed to address how it is that an allegedly owned property (store) is said to be private, but relevant decisions about that property are made by other people who don't own the property.

That would be like your neighbors dog taking a big shit in the middle of your living room carpet and saying if you didn't want him to do that (the dog would be speaking in dog language....dogs can't really talk) you should have done X. according to this piece of paper he and a bunch of other dogs came up with describing the rules of how they were going to run your property.

In this analogy, think of the dog as people claiming to have rights to determine the use of your property, while also simultaneously admitting it's "private property". That's a contradiction. Bad dog!!!
Click to expand...
pay your taxes and stfu
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top