Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I sell treadmills. Lol.
The American farmer is waking up, but it's too late
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
Again you run your mouth surrounded by all the trappings of this horrible society while being robbed by taxes. All mouth. 100%. Fat girl.
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
Yack yack yack, gordo.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Robbery is when property is transferred without the consent of the owner. Would you agree or can you offer another definition ?
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
Yack yack yack. And with global warming going on we don’t need more hot air.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Pay to Caesar what is Caesar's...
Rob, capitalism and anarchism are mutually exclusive and anarchism is a phase that angry, disillusioned political neophytes go through to figure out what they support in real-politic. That you're still stuck on childish notions only lends yet more credence to the widely disseminated agreement on this site that you are likely still attracted to adolescents though you have not been one for several decades.
It's probably time for you to get a job, loser.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caear's etc. Was a pretty adept answer under the circumstances, Neophyte.
If it belongs to Caesar, give it to him....The corollary...if it doesn't belong to Caesar...don't give it to him. Jesus was an anti-authoritarian, with one obvious major exception, the invisible guy in the sky.
Moving along, Free markets and voluntaryism are not incompatible. Both spring from the idea that you own yourself, but you don't own other people. Which is consistent with my beliefs. Where would anybody get the right to own other people? Can you explain where that comes from? It's probably time for you to explain why you think you can own other people and why you worship government so much.
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
The basis of voluntaryism:
“The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle, or non-initiation of force, is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, aggression is defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual or their property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, it does not forbid forceful defense.
The NAP is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism. [2] It is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism and minarchism.[3][4][5][6]”
It doesn’t work. Anyone thinking it would without some means of enforcement is a fool. 25,000,000 individual voluntaryism zealots but nobody would be an offender of psychopath or schizophrenic who hears “Kill them. Kill them all.”
Some shit is just talk. Fit for late night bullshit sessions amongst stoned or drunk bozos.
To refute please post details of some country or even large area where voluntaryism is the main operating principle. Otherwise I hear flatus from both ends of the hairball.
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
That’s why cops and courts exist in the first place. Huge numbers of motherfuckers who simply won’t go along voluntarily.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Voluntaryism is only opposed to individual and systemic OFFENSIVE FORCE. it doesn't remove or malign the use of DEFENSIVE force. NAP = Non INITIATION of force, which means don't use OFFENSIVE FORCE. Do you know the difference between the two kinds of force?
Countries which rely on offensive force (that would be all of them) as a foundation of their being / business model can't claim to be an institution which protects people from offensive force, if their business model at it's core uses offensive force.
If it can please name a country or large political area that can protect you from offensive force while perpetually committing offensive force against you... otherwise, "hey what's that smell" ?
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
In their present form, "cops and judges" exist mostly to protect the system, that is undeniable and irrefutable by the way. Go ahead and try, I'll bury you with examples of why you're wrong. On second thought, don't. I'd have to ask you to think a bit and that may be asking too much.
In a voluntary society, of course people who provided security and mediated or adjudicated disputes when there is an actual victim would exist. One major difference between how it could be done versus how it is presently done would ensure a better situation though. Voluntary market feedback.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Barter is simply voluntary exchange, most often informal and to be valid, simply requires mutual consent of the involved parties. If both parties desire, writing up a more complex agreement makes any future disputes easier to mediate or solve.
If you had respect for other people and their property you would better grasp the concepts of consent and voluntaryism.
Are you saying that you prefer trade exchanges and/or human interactions which occur on an involuntary basis, Resident Rapist ?
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
The smell is from your upper lip. The natural result of eating shit.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Still, not winning though.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I didn't read his post but I'm going to assume it is about something that he has already written about a hundred dozen times so I have likely been bored half to death by it before.