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

[Rob Roy]

That is the one rule we cannot do without. It is because of people that think we don't need that rule. If we were all perfect, we would not need a warlord. 0r in this case WE are our own Warlord.

I'm not quite following you. Are you saying we need the first rule, non-aggression, so the first thing we do is INSTITUTIONALIZE AND blindly accept the breaking of it, in the name of protecting it? Okay, STOP smoking weed now.

 

[Doer]

I'm not quite following you. Are you saying we need the first rule, non-aggression, so the first thing we do is INSTITUTIONALIZE AND blindly accept the breaking of it, in the name of protecting it? Okay, STOP smoking weed now.

Re-read. I sorted out my double negatives and I have warned you all about this.

 

[Rob Roy]

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.

THIS is your answer? It's horrible. Of course we need rules for people that break rules. So why do you grant exceptions to the people that break the rule of non-aggression on a routine basis?

Your answer DEFENDS that SOME people can initiate force and simply by REDEFINING what that is, they gain an exemption from the rule they say they are protecting. Silly Doer, silly. You are flip flopping like a RomneyFish on a trolling line.

Of course I'm qualified to say what aggression is, so are you. Your fear isn't of warlords, your fear is of freedom and a world without a super daddy. You want to believe in Santa Claus so much when your Super Daddy becomes the warlord, you defend him and say it is the best there is or if we don't have a sometimes mean super daddy to spank us, even when we don't deserve it, another super daddy (even meaner) will spank us harder for even more illogical reasons.

So called and self acclaimed experts can't magically make a black thing white, simply by renaming something. Statutory law that initiates aggression (many do) is an example of how foolish this premise is. Ahem, prohibition much, slave much, bomb innocents much (all done legally...formed by "experts") Why do you worship the changers of the meaning of words so much?

 

[Doer]

THIS is your answer? It's horrible. Of course we need rules for people that break rules. So why do you grant exceptions to the people that break the rule of non-aggression on a routine basis?

Your answer DEFENDS that SOME people can initiate force and simply by REDEFINING what that is, they gain an exemption from the rule they say they are protecting. Silly Doer, silly. You are flip flopping like a RomneyFish on a trolling line.

Of course I'm qualified to say what aggression is, so are you. Your fear isn't of warlords, your fear is of freedom and a world without a super daddy. You want to believe in Santa Claus so much when your Super Daddy becomes the warlord, you defend him and say it is the best there is or if we don't have a sometimes mean super daddy to spank us, even when we don't deserve it, another super daddy (even meaner) will spank us harder for even more illogical reasons.

So called and self acclaimed experts can't magically make a black thing white, simply by renaming something. Statutory law that initiates aggression (many do) is an example of how foolish this premise is. Ahem, prohibition much, slave much, bomb innocents much (all done legally...formed by "experts") Why do you worship the changers of the meaning of words so much?

WE define words. You do not.

 

[Rob Roy]

WE define words. You do not.

Sort of. In a legal sense, words are shaped to reinforce the purposed intended when the law was made or they are used to shift the meaning to acommodate the interests of some and deny the freedoms of others.

Also, when a physical act is consistent, but two different parties perform said act, SOME people get to use euphemisms and get away with it. Yet changing what something is called, doesn't change the physical act does it, oh great lover of "WE". Collateral damage much ? If you or I "collateral damage" somebody, it is murder isn't it? In your "we" little world, you let the elephant shit on your floor and tell you it's pudding and you accept it. Bill Cosby would be disappointed in you.

 

[NoDrama]

 

[Rob Roy]

You can't take that away from me...



There's nothing voluntary about voluntaryism, just like there's nothing "free" about the free market. Those words were chosen for a reason.

You could voluntarily bend over and let business fuck you in the ass, or starve. That's what that Ancap bs gets you.

So, I notice you never answered the questions I posed in the first post of this thread. Why so eager to stay in the ranks of the floor shitters or blowup doll fuckers? I thought god knew everything?

Also your statement that there is nothing voluntary about voluntarism is a bit off the mark, but only about 180* or so. There IS nothing free about the free market for parisitic behavior or dictatorial behavior, the "freedom" isn't for unwanted third parties to intervene, the freedom is for the voluntary participants to make a deal or not, absent any influence from the unwanted or in your case, the uninformed.