If government provides "services" that are so good, why do they have to use force ?

[Rob Roy]

Free to do what?

Not be a slave. The "what" is a very long list, defined by the free person, not the enslaver.

What free people do is their business, and as long as they confine their actions to themselves or others that willingly accept their interacting, they aren't limiting others freedom.

For instance, your friend could shit on HIS floor, and he'd be exercising his freedom, but when he shits on anothers floor or insists others cleanup his shit, or give him THEIR shit, he'd be engaging in an act that runs contrary to freedom. Besides, freeing your bowels on others property, is a shitty thing to do. Sometimes shitheads don't understand this, so I anticipate your comprehension in this discussion will be somewhat skewed.

 

[Doer]

Not be a slave. The "what" is a very long list, defined by the free person, not the enslaver.

What free people do is their business, and as long as they confine their actions to themselves or others that willingly accept their interacting, they aren't limiting others freedom.

For instance, your friend could shit on HIS floor, and he'd be exercising his freedom, but when he shits on anothers floor or insists others cleanup his shit, or give him THEIR shit, he'd be engaging in an act that runs contrary to freedom. Besides, freeing your bowels on others property, is a shitty thing to do. Sometimes shitheads don't understand this, so I anticipate your comprehension in this discussion will be somewhat skewed.

No one is free to shit on my floor but my own family. We are free to do that.

All you can define is the slaver not that we slave for freedom. And all you can say about freedom is, it is not slavery.

These are all labels that WE define, not you.

 

[Rob Roy]

No one is free to shit on my floor but my own family. We are free to do that.

All you can define is the slaver not that we slave for freedom. And all you can say about freedom is, it is not slavery.

These are all labels that WE define, not you.

Note to self - Watch where stepping in Doers house.

 

[ChesusRice]

Not be a slave. The "what" is a very long list, defined by the free person, not the enslaver.

What free people do is their business, and as long as they confine their actions to themselves or others that willingly accept their interacting, they aren't limiting others freedom.

For instance, your friend could shit on HIS floor, and he'd be exercising his freedom, but when he shits on anothers floor or insists others cleanup his shit, or give him THEIR shit, he'd be engaging in an act that runs contrary to freedom. Besides, freeing your bowels on others property, is a shitty thing to do. Sometimes shitheads don't understand this, so I anticipate your comprehension in this discussion will be somewhat skewed.

You are free to do anything you want
It is mandatory though that to exist in this society you contribute to it

So you are not free to decide for everyone what you will and will not participate as long as you are voluntarily here.
Dont like the rules of our society?
Leave

 

[NoDrama]

You are free to do anything you want
It is mandatory though that to exist in this society you contribute to it

So you are not free to decide for everyone what you will and will not participate as long as you are voluntarily here.
Dont like the rules of our society?
Leave

But the contribution needs to be more than a steaming pile on my berber.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You are free to do anything you want
It is mandatory though that to exist in this society you contribute to it

So you are not free to decide for everyone what you will and will not participate as long as you are voluntarily here.
Dont like the rules of our society?
Leave

what is mandatory?

 

[Doer]

Note to self - Watch where stepping in Doers house.

You will never set foot, so no need to note.

 

[ginjawarrior]

You will never set foot, so no need to note.

It can't be that deep can it?

 

[ginwilly]

You are free to do anything you want
It is mandatory though that to exist in this society you contribute to it

So you are not free to decide for everyone what you will and will not participate as long as you are voluntarily here.
Dont like the rules of our society?
Leave

4th generation cradle to grave welfare recipient says "nut uh" you move!

 

[Rob Roy]

You are free to do anything you want
It is mandatory though that to exist in this society you contribute to it

So you are not free to decide for everyone what you will and will not participate as long as you are voluntarily here.
Dont like the rules of our society?
Leave

Your ability to advance your position is weakened when you trot out illogical and contradictory nonsense. If people are "free to do anything they want" then mandatory behavior set by a bunch of dipshits defeats your first statement. Consider waiting until one side of your mouth has stopped quivering, before flapping the other side.

How does deciding what other peaceful people MUST do, help them? Hint - It doesn't, although it does serve the interests of the people HOLDING the gun or shepherding the masses.

The first "rule" should be to leave others that aren't bothering you alone, wouldn't you agree or do you align with the prohibitionists ?

"Society" is made up of individuals, the aggregate isn't a single mindset unit, so YOUR method of trying to mold others using force, will have a predictable result. Some people will always resist it, those that do comply, do so out of fear of reprisal or ignorance or both. I think I just called you a fearful ignoramus, but I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

The rules of your society begin with an unnatural act, they remove individual freedom and respect and replace it with forced conformity.

Why do you like unnatural acts so much Cheezy?

 

[Rob Roy]

You will never set foot, so no need to note.

Oh now don't be a spoil sport.

 

[Doer]

Oh now don't be a spoil sport.

You can just join the long line of everyone else.

 

[Doer]

Your ability to advance your position is weakened when you trot out illogical and contradictory nonsense. If people are "free to do anything they want" then mandatory behavior set by a bunch of dipshits defeats your first statement. Consider waiting until one side of your mouth has stopped quivering, before flapping the other side.

How does deciding what other peaceful people MUST do, help them? Hint - It doesn't, although it does serve the interests of the people HOLDING the gun or shepherding the masses.

The first "rule" should be to leave others that aren't bothering you alone, wouldn't you agree or do you align with the prohibitionists ?

"Society" is made up of individuals, the aggregate isn't a single mindset unit, so YOUR method of trying to mold others using force, will have a predictable result. Some people will always resist it, those that do comply, do so out of fear of reprisal or ignorance or both. I think I just called you a fearful ignoramus, but I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

The rules of your society begin with an unnatural act, they remove individual freedom and respect and replace it with forced conformity.

It is because you are so full of yourself, warlord. You are on a giant, and dangerous ego trip and you prove why we must have these rules.

 

[Rob Roy]

You can just join the long line of everyone else.

Which line? The line of people that have viewed the first post on this thread and that can't answer the questions posed or the line of people at Wendy's with shit on the bottom of their shoes ?

 

[Doer]

Which line? The line of people that have viewed the first post on this thread and that can't answer the questions posed or the line of people at Wendy's with shit on the bottom of their shoes ?

What about Everyone else, don't you get?

 

[Rob Roy]

It is because you are so full of yourself, warlord. You are on a giant, and dangerous ego trip and you prove why we must have these rules.

Nope. Warlords initiate aggression, just like coercive government does as the first step in implementing their business plan. If there were a term to summarize my motivations and intentions it would be more of a non-interventionist term. The first rule you AVOID as often as people avoid stepping on your floors, is the rule of non-aggression. You ridicule what you do not understand.

Smoke more weed, the answers will be revealed, smoke good shit too, Mr Miagi would be proud of you for simultaneously cleaning the floors. Wax on, wax off.

 

[Rob Roy]

What about Everyone else, don't you get?

If people leave others alone, your question takes care of itself. There are no issues. When people don't leave others alone, there is a problem. The part you don't get is the elephant is in the room, you just can't see him.

 

[Doer]

If people leave others alone, your question takes care of itself. There are no issues. When people don't leave others alone, there is a problem. The part you don't get is the elephant is in the room, you just can't see him.

No elephant in my Castle. That is Doctrine. Can't you see we have all these rules because of people that think we don't need rules?

 

[Rob Roy]

No elephant in my Castle. That is Doctrine. Can't you see we have all these rules because of people that think we don't need rules?

Oh I'm all for some rules, the first rule is to understand that none of us should run anothers life or intervene if we are not welcome there.

If the first and best rule, is not to initiate aggression against others or their justly acquired property is there a rule that trumps that?

I don't have a problem with rules that ALIGN with my first rule, why do you? "My" rules foster peace, your rules begin with an act of aggression. You assume that a "we" can create exceptions to the first rule because of some magic that you think a majority or self proclaimed authority (coercive government) has to invert logic. War isn't peace, oh look, there's an elephant...

Defensive force isn't what your "rules" are, or where they spring from,no matter how you spin them. Your rules that empower a coercive collective ignore the rule of non-aggression which will ALWAYS result in unintended consequences not to mention they don't abide by logic or polite manners.

 

[Doer]

Oh I'm all for some rules, the first rule is to understand that none of us should run anothers life or intervene if we are not welcome there.

If the first and best rule, is not to initiate aggression against others or their justly acquired property is there a rule that trumps that?

I don't have a problem with rules that ALIGN with my first rule, why do you? "My" rules foster peace, your rules begin with an act of aggression. You assume that a "we" can create exceptions to the first rule because of some magic that you think a majority or self proclaimed authority (coercive government) has to invert logic. War isn't peace, oh look, there's an elephant...

Defensive force isn't what your "rules" are, or where they spring from,no matter how you spin them. Your rules that empower a coercive collective ignore the rule of non-aggression which will ALWAYS result in unintended consequences not to mention they don't abide by logic or polite manners.

That is the one rule we cannot have. That is anarchy rules. It is because of people that think we need that rule. If we were all perfect, we would not need a warlord. 0r in this case WE are our own Warlord because WE need the defense.

We need rules for people that break the rules. WE need these rules so that you don't get to define defense vs aggression.

You are not qualified to say. It takes experts and laws to sort that out.