ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The only people that agree with Rob Roy on this are Pedophiles
Official Lolbertarian thread. Discuss the benefits of No goverment
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
ASCIIGHOST
Well-Known Member
Google it.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Within your post there is an obvious contradiction. I won't bother to point it out as any person with a grasp on what government is will easily be able to detect it.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Yet, you don't even agree with yourself. On one hand you declare you're not a prohibitionist, on the other you propose laws which outlaw cannabis actions, Prohibitionist. Did your mother drop you on your head and then kick you down the stairs?
Also, you seem unable to provide any evidence of your false allegations concerning me. How is discussion of what consent is and acknowledgment that people who are capable of consenting to something, the same as advocating that what was consented to is the position or preference of the person(s) discussing it? (you will likely need to read the foregoing sentence twice, or maybe in your case three times...I typed as slowly as I could for your convenience)
Also, your arms are skinny and your harley t-shirts are getting a little tight on that paunch. Fewer donuts at coffee break and start an exercise program fer gawds sake! You can't do much with that ape like mug of yours but you can get in better shape.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It seems some people have tried hard to miscast my views. Here, let me state them succinctly. I do not own other people, nobody does.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If libertarianism is incapable of something like preventing an asteroid impact, then that's evidence of it being an inferior system
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So what's worse, your belief that government authority isn't based in consent or the fact that there are many questions that libertarianism fails to answer? Some, like the asteroid impact hypothetical, can lead to human extinction
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Consent is an individual thing. Meaning for consent to exist, it cannot be provided FOR you, it must be provided BY you.
My belief is accurate, not because I believe it, because it is demonstrably true. Your belief relies upon cognitive dissonance and discards facts when convenient, which sort of negates the veracity of it.
Also, under the present scheme of coercion based governments being all the rage, you might get nuked at any time.
Run Forrest run !!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Oh cheesy boy, why does your Pinocchio nose have to be so long?
I've said a person capable of consenting to something, CAN consent. A person incapable of consenting, cannot consent. I also said some things that people are capable of consenting to, do not meet with my approval. Can you refute any of that? No, you can't...dolt.
You've assigned specific ages to when EVERY person can consent, which is preposterous and false. I said the older a person is generally speaking the more likely they will have developed the wherewithal to consent. You seem to have made up the rest to distract from my thrashing you for being such a Prohibitionist.
Are you going to cry over the thrashing forever or admit defeat and go home and change those crusty ninja turtle sheets ?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Hypothetically speaking...If you had shit on the floor of a fast food establishments bathroom and a child slipped and fell in it, would you then be a child molester AND a floor shitter ? Who was YOUR last victim?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You don't say...
Correct, they would be more onerous and deviant, like the illegitimate bastard child of the Mafia and Apple.
Do you have a birth certificate? THAT is a contract between the Nation and you. Canucks also have a SIN which is a further contractual agreement. The Yank equivalent would be a SSN, I believe.
Even Spooner acknowledges the contractual nature of the US Constitution, although erroneously presumes no one signs it through voting.
There are many contracts you sign--by proxy--if you function in modern society. The product of Nation being most notably its currency in the modern era, you are constantly using the system provided by the Nation in one form or another, despite your protestations. You equally agree to the protections and costs inherent in that system. Your voluntary (non)actions--not your thoughts--give rise to the validity of the State's existence. You have the power to change it, but not ignore it. To which, why does it appear Spooner ignores Common Law?
Have you read any "scholarly" critiques of Spooner's ideas?
Can you show me where Spooner defines "natural rights" and how he reconciles the contradiction with contract law ? After all, if someone has "natural rights" to contract, how can they have "obligations" ab initio ? What are those duties, anyway? I don't recall you defining those, either.
His foundations, from my observation, are based on quicksand and signature fetishes. Perhaps in 1870 the simplicity of life afforded room to make reference to concepts like "natural rights" since the scope of definition was comparatively limited, and therefore quasi-axiomatic. It could also have been a literary crutch resulting from his defense against the US Gov't over his postal service; it got him some leverage once, so why not abuse it some more? I guarantee his psychology and perspective would have been vastly different had he been born in the 1900s as mine would be had I been in the 1800s, which brings into question the relevancy of his diatribe due to its focal point.
You can go on telling me how fantastic the technology of the 8-track cassette is in relation to reel-to-reel, but I'm using MP3 for most of my audio amusement now, so what does it matter? If you can make his words relevant in the here and now, I would be more inclined to consider the value. As he wrote them, they are pointlessly anachronistic at best, much in the same manner as I'd view Newton's "corpuscular theory of light" or a large chunk of the Neo-classical canon. His ridiculous "highwayman" analogy is just plain WRONG in the present context. There are several fundamental aspects of modern society his analysis omits due to temporal ignorance (i.e. his crystal ball was broken).
Do you know much about Spooner's life beyond his writing?
The first part of your post is erroneous. A baby being born somewhere can give consent simply by being born there? Really? Is that like a woman can consent to being raped simply by going into a bad neighborhood?
A valid contract is not uni-lateral (you there in the back..."unilateral" in this context means formed by one side and stuck up the other parties ass...like a coercive government) , For a real contract (wherein both parties have consented) to exist, no form of duress should be present. You presuppose the existence of government EVERYWHERE is a default and that the only possibility is WHICH government, rather than IF government. Silly you.
Lysander Spooner may or may not have had bad breath, but that doesn't mean some of the things he said are erroneous, they should be judged on the merits of whether or not they are factual. Go piss on his grave, but that won't make his statements inaccurate if they are demonstrably true.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
ASCIIGHOST
Well-Known Member
Tell me, which forms of government to have the ability to control the universe?
ASCIIGHOST
Well-Known Member
your signature is epic lulz
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
We've been over this, it's called "consent of the governed", you refuse to acknowledge Rousseau's arguments put forth regarding this even though it has been well established for more than 2 centuries. The government has no authority unless we give it to them through consent.
If you expect a government official to come door to door asking everyone "Do you consent to _____ being discussed in congress this week?", then you're simply delusional. An efficient government cannot operate in that way, they knew that in the formation of the country, that's why we hold federal elections to elect people to represent us in government. You give your consent in the hopes that your elected representative will best serve your interests, sometimes people feel like they do, sometimes people feel like they don't, but that's how the system works in a representative republic. If you want direct democracy, you will need to explain how that would work effectively and be as efficient or more efficient than the system we have now.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
A plebiscite? When I was like 10 years old I thought that would be great.