you mean like a roof over your head? or is the car supposed to be that?
there's a difference between the unhoused, carless homeless and those with a car homeless.
Biden's Infrastructure Week
- Thread starter hanimmal
- Start date
there's a difference between the unhoused, carless homeless and those with a car homeless.
PizzaMan5000
Well-Known Member
no he means not laying in mud and rocks, in freezing winds. As a mobile mechanic, you get strawberries on your shoulder blades, from laying on sharp stuff... Like stepping on a lego.
Edit: it's also unsafe to be under a vehicle on soil. Good way to be killed instantly, when a Jack stand rolls over.
I lost a friend who was killed under his jeep in the woods.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
More like a driveway in this case.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Having kids watching you work on it leaning on your car and stealing your tools when you go take a leak. (working on a car in a apartment you live in kind of thing too).
Walmart- if you have a receipt on your dashboard you should be good to go.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
I didn't know that. I wonder if they have to dispose of a lot of fluids.
I have no idea.
when the security guard walks around they can see that you made a purchase and leave your vehicle alone. savvy?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That's true a government has different standards than a free market. A free market relies on voluntary and peaceful mutual exchange, a government relies on the application of force. Persuasion and reason versus force and thuggery.
Uhhhhhh, not quite. The government exists because the free market wasn't actually able to operate peacefully and exchange mutually. As it turns out, that was delusional thinking and people are shitty and pure freedom leads nowhere good, so we decided to create a group to help keep us from shooting each other in the streets over nothing. Is it perfect? No. Is it also filled with shitty people because that's all that's available and, as such, has the same problems? Yes. Blaming one over the other is straight drunk. There is no us and them. We are them and they are us, but our narcissistic egos can't handle anything beyond finger pointing and demonizing someone else.
see what you've done?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Except you didn't refute my claim, you danced around it.
Of course a free market works peacefully, when it doesn't it is no longer a free market. That is self evident by the nature of what makes a free market "free". Voluntary participation.
There is a you and there is a me. You should not control me and I should not control you. In that respect we are equals. Which means neither of us has any right to impose an unfree market or our sanctions or terms on another person unless / until we have made a mutual agreement.
The government can't ensure peace, since the very nature of how it funds itself contradicts anything peace related. Peace and coercion ( a government systemic staple) are opposites.
A government is ANTI free market, it doesn't allow actual free market competition and it claims a monopoly on the use of force. You, I or "we" never decided to create a government either, we were born into it as a captive of it and were lead to consider it to be normal. Like tossing virgins into volcanoes to make the crops grow.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Rob if you keep this up we are gonna crowd fund ya for the republican nomination, wear the monkey suit and you will clinch it fer sure! ROBROY for president!
Right and since people did exactly that(i.e. started screwing others over), that's why there's a reduction in freedom. We deserve that. If you keep trashing your toys, you're gonna lose them, Billy. This concept is nothing new. Nobody would even have the idea of creating murder laws if people weren't murdering each other. Your insanely idealistic thoughts hold most true if people are decent, but they instantly fall apart when introduced to the reality that we're nowhere near as awesome as you seem to think we are.
Government is made up of people and people have always had issues ensuring peace. Look at Easter Island, had everything they needed, but people can't get their dicks hard without conflict. If you really want to scapegoat accountability of the people and blame some entity, you'd be waaaaaaaaaay more accurate if you swapped "government" for "religion", but even then, religion is nothing without the people to screw it up.
The government is anti-screw-people-over and since people are shit, they have to regulate them. It's not like all the laws we have are for nonexistent problems. All those laws exist because some people out there were doing shitty things to others, so the gov't created laws to punish them for it.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Religion and government are similar insofar as their methods and desired outcomes. Agreed.
Your analysis of "why government is necessary to prevent harms" is fatally flawed though. I hesitate to accept the idea that a thing that is reliant on the use of INITIATORY force can also be the thing that prevents INITIATORY force. The reason why, is it is impossible.
Your analysis pretty much says, "well since people are dicks and might hurt others" we have to have a central authority, which is systemically reliant on offensive force". Circular and irrational. You can establish order using offensive force, but you CANNOT establish peace.
Consolidated power as an institution can not be the thing which maintains peace. You have confused the maintenance of peace with the imposition of order. They are not the same things. I reject imposed order onto peaceful people, you do not. That is the crux of our disagreement.
Then the question becomes how does a decentralized freedom based society protect people ?
Dryxi
Well-Known Member
Because the government is anti-screw people over, we have the largest prison system in the world... by far.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Great idea!! I'll start watching Joe Biden videos to polish my speaking skills!
The government does a lot of things, A LOT...of things, so you clearly have something specific in mind that you're falsely equating to as being the entire government. What is it? Because the vast majority of government services have nothing to do with using force, so what is this "force" you speak of that seems to be all you're able to have in mind when thinking of "government"?
he doesn't want to pay taxes. he has no kids in school; his house is not on fire. he wants a pay-go plan.
Do you know if that's what this is really about, taxes? If taxes are the issue, then he should argue taxes, because people in gov't could work for free and his force issue would remain, unless he's just creating the weird force argument because he doesn't want to look like a tightwad...?
I do think there is one form of taxes that should be considered unconstitutional, which is property tax. Across our founding documents, there's a general philosophy, which is that people should be free to live how they want, as long as it's not harming someone else. Property tax and eminent domain is the gov't keeping a finger in our butt. A person should be able to buy land and live on it without having to answer to anyone, it's the last bastion of the truest freedom one could practically have.