enjoying your three day weekend?

Rob Roy said:
Exactly. So if people that want to interact and don't need or want a 3rd party butting in....what is that then? Is it freedom or something else?
Click to expand...

I know where you're going with this.

What about when one party has power and influence that the second doesn't? That's what the labor and wage laws are for. Offering some minimal protection for that powerless second party.
 
ink the world said:
I know where you're going with this.

What about when one party has power and influence that the second doesn't? That's what the labor and wage laws are for. Offering some minimal protection for that powerless second party.
Click to expand...

So trading the "gun" of control over others back and forth is more acceptable than letting two consenting parties contract amongst them selves free from an unwanted intervention?
 
Rob Roy said:
So trading the "gun" of control over others back and forth is more acceptable than letting two consenting parties contract amongst them selves free from an unwanted intervention?
Click to expand...


Wow. If one party is screwed by the other? No problem with that?
 
canndo said:
Wow. If one party is screwed by the other? No problem with that?
Click to expand...

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying exactly the opposite. Political solutions are the process of one party waiting for their turn to hold the gun.

If somebody wants to contract or associate with another on a consensual basis, I see no need for an unwanted referee to intervene. Apparently you do.
 
ink the world said:
I know where you're going with this.

What about when one party has power and influence that the second doesn't? That's what the labor and wage laws are for. Offering some minimal protection for that powerless second party.
Click to expand...

Not really. Wage earners are free to come and go correct? How does that make them powerless? One could argue if a potential wage earner and potential employer have an agreement, and then an unwanted third party intervenes that same third party (government) has MADE both the wage earner and employer in some sense powerless, since there ability to freely interact has been restricted.
 
Rob Roy said:
I said if two parties want to freely interact. That implies no third party is needed or wanted. Your example actually proves MY point. When an unwanted third party such as government intervenes THAT is an example of the law of the jungle isn't it?
Click to expand...
I was putting it in realistic down to earth mentality, when fight or flight would kick in.
As in how long will a snake and a mouse remain friends if food the stocks are low?
 
Oh Rob you are such a patriot
all for liberty and freedom

Except freedom of association if you want to be in a union

And dont give me that crap about being forced to join a union
if you dont want to be in the union
Dont apply for the fucking job
 
Grandpapy said:
I was putting it in realistic down to earth mentality, when fight or flight would kick in.
As in how long will a snake and a mouse remain friends if food the stocks are low?
Click to expand...

So what you seem to be proposing is this....

The mouse and snake make an agreement, THEY are okay with it. The Eagle (government) comes in, tears up their agreement and says no to it. That about right?
 
ChesusRice said:
Oh Rob you are such a patriot
all for liberty and freedom

Except freedom of association if you want to be in a union

And dont give me that crap about being forced to join a union
if you dont want to be in the union
Dont apply for the fucking job
Click to expand...

No I'm not a patriot, but I am for liberty and freedom and individual responsibility. Patriots think dissent is wrong and revere the government. I revile it for the most part.

I'm okay with people negotiating via a group if that is what they chose to do. However I'm not okay with an unwanted third party intervening or unilateral "agreements".
 
Rob Roy said:
So what you seem to be proposing is this....

The mouse and snake make an agreement, THEY are okay with it. The Eagle (government) comes in, tears up their agreement and says no to it. That about right?
Click to expand...

LOL The Snake and mouse make an agreement, the snake gets hungry, the mouse gets eaten.

Same Snake and the brother of the eaten Mouse enter into an agreement. Once again the snake gets hungry and eats the mouse, but now an Eagle picks up the snake and only gets about 20 ft away, the Snake manages to escape but when he hits the ground the mouse is able to escape the Snake.

So now the Snake being the fine business snake he is makes amens, and reenters into an agreement with the now shy mouse who will only enter the agreement if the Eagle is present.

Now the Eagle could eat both of them but understands the value of them both for they are important to the ecology.

Time went on...The Snake became hungry again
 
Grandpapy said:
LOL The Snake and mouse make an agreement, the snake gets hungry, the mouse gets eaten.

Same Snake and the brother of the eaten Mouse enter into an agreement. Once again the snake gets hungry and eats the mouse, but now an Eagle picks up the snake and only gets about 20 ft away, the Snake manages to escape but when he hits the ground the mouse is able to escape the Snake.

So now the Snake being the fine business snake he is makes amens, and reenters into an agreement with the now shy mouse who will only enter the agreement if the Eagle is present.

Now the Eagle could eat both of them but understands the value of them both for they are important to the ecology.

Time went on...The Snake became hungry again
Click to expand...

Do you believe that unwanted third parties should come between you and the people you consensually make agreements with ? Do you believe other people should be able to make agreements and not have an unwanted third party impose on them?
 
Rob Roy said:
No I'm not a patriot, but I am for liberty and freedom and individual responsibility. Patriots think dissent is wrong and revere the government. I revile it for the most part.

I'm okay with people negotiating via a group if that is what they chose to do. However I'm not okay with an unwanted third party intervening or unilateral "agreements".
Click to expand...


This is an extraordinary viewpoint. Patriots in this country do not necessarily think dissent is wrong nor do they necessarily revere their government.
 
Rob Roy said:
Do you believe that unwanted third parties should come between you and the people you consensually make agreements with ? Do you believe other people should be able to make agreements and not have an unwanted third party impose on them?
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying.

BUT in some situations, say you entered an agreement with the guy next door to store your toxic waste, he does, but a year later, no fault of yours, the bottom of the drums rust out and leak poisoning the water supply in a 10 mile radius.

The guy next door goes to jail, and you are trying to sue the Drum manufacturer, and stay out of jail yourself, meanwhile a 23 million cleanup is in the works.

True, You or the guy that stored the waste don't care if the mess gets cleaned up or not, but someone needs to clean it up or it will not be profitable in the future.

Knowing that this type "Agreeing" happens all the time, wouldn't it be wise to try and stop and correct the "Agreement" before it cost the General Public?
 
Grandpapy said:
I understand what you are saying.

BUT in some situations, say you entered an agreement with the guy next door to store your toxic waste, he does, but a year later, no fault of yours, the bottom of the drums rust out and leak poisoning the water supply in a 10 mile radius.

The guy next door goes to jail, and you are trying to sue the Drum manufacturer, and stay out of jail yourself, meanwhile a 23 million cleanup is in the works.

True, You or the guy that stored the waste don't care if the mess gets cleaned up or not, but someone needs to clean it up or it will not be profitable in the future.

Knowing that this type "Agreeing" happens all the time, wouldn't it be wise to try and stop and correct the "Agreement" before it cost the General Public?
Click to expand...

It is a good thing to hold people accountable for the errors. If the barrel leaks somebody is responsible and can be held accountable. By the way I've heard the U.S. government is one of the biggest polluters...hmm....who holds them accountable?
 
Rob Roy said:
It is a good thing to hold people accountable for the errors. If the barrel leaks somebody is responsible and can be held accountable. By the way I've heard the U.S. government is one of the biggest polluters...hmm....who holds them accountable?
Click to expand...


We the people
And the goverment actually has a good record of cleaning up their mess
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top