NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
Only by the legal definitions.
Under what individual authority does government exist?
- Thread starter Rob Roy
- Start date
Red1966
Well-Known Member
The same definitions everyone else in the world uses, but not you, you get to make up your own language. Language that uses the same words, but their meaning is changed to suit whatever you want them to mean.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
So because everyone accepts them, I have to as well? That's the foundation of your argument. You can't pick and choose when a social agreement works and doesn't work for you. THAT, is my argument.
You are the embodiment of everything that has made this country into the pit of scrap it is. Unable to think beyond "I don't like what you say, so I win". Red1966 is respectable, argues points and engages debate; the things we need to do to get better. You just fire off, and keep dragging everything down.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Your arguments?
You said consent can be coerced, pure bullshit.
Forced consent IS
coercion, you wouldn't even make the B Team for Special Olympics...
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Yes. You are getting ridiculous in how you're trying to claim you can force your will on others and pretend they agreed to it.
NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
It's not my will, it's the will of society. My claim is I believe that in a private setting, the government should have no hand in what a person is doing. The reality is their attempted legislation of morality, with the exceptions of rape, murder and unprovoked assault, government on any level has no business with what an adult decides to do in the privacy of their property. The question the thread poses is one of the authority the gov't derives from individuals, which is none. Their authority is granted by the collective will of the governed, with the exception of violence, the only way to change our situation is to elect people who believe in the minimal application of governance on private citizens. My argument IS ridiculous, but it's also the reality. Arguing that it's stupid doesn't further the cause of someone who believes in limited government such as myself. I argue the absurdity in hopes that people who are the difference makers, the undecided voter, can see the disgusting position that we are in and want to vote for real reform that matters. I can't change the opinions of a liberal, but I CAN take their position and stand in their reprehensible logic to illuminate it for what it is. Not to say conservatives are always right, they are not.
Even if I'm on the c team, you're just the water boy.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so starving dogs is alright with you?
scamming grandma out of her life savings is fine?
hell, you even leave the door open to slavery!
actually, liberals are very open to having their minds changed with facts and logic.
but when retards like you open your mouths and remove all doubt like you just did, we just collectively laugh at you.
now if you'll excuse me, i have some slaves to starve.
NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
No, those things are not ok with me. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are protected, to imply I don't believe they are because of an omission is a reach. I just think that there is a lot of abuse and corruption within the system. So much corruption, that the liberties and happiness is no longer on the agendas of the people we trust. Also, your intolerance of people with special needs is disgusting.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i am not intolerant of retards like you, i just like pointing out how shitty and stupid your beliefs are and laughing at you.
in fact, if not for retarded people like you, my days would be far less entertaining.
NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
You don't even know what my beliefs are, you handicapped oppressor!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i know you have no problem with animal cruelty or telemarketing scams.
NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
I cry for abused animals. Telemarketing scams shouldn't be allowed, but I think in 60% of the incidences if the person exercised better judgement there wouldn't be a problem.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
I blame the circumstances that cause the person running the scam to turn toward that way of life. Lack of resources, quality jobs and education.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you completely naive?
conmen who run scams like this are smart people. they almost invariably have access to resources and education, or they would not be able to conceive and fund a scam which rips off so many other people. they have studied the psychology which makes a scam work, which is almost always predicated not only on the greed of the scammer, but also the greed of the person being scammed.
go to your college library and pick up a book on scams and read it and tell me if you think a bunch of two-bit uneducated broke ass losers could pull it off.
are you even 18?
NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
I like to think people are mostly good. Yea probably a little naive, but I like to think if faced with greater legitimate opportunity, most but not all of them would take that path. Why are you so cynical, and where does your lack of faith in humanity come from?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Regardless of how words are attempted to be redefined by ridiculous government word smithing...
The intentions expressed in the word consent are the participants are willing, not forced or under some form of duress.
Coercion means the use of force or duress etc. . If coercion is used, then actual consent has left the building.
Coercion and consent are mutually exclusive as Harrekin pointed out.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
A reasonable post, but parts of it rely on a flawed assumption and are demonstrably false.
The only way to change a coercive system is not to put in kinder people that won't coerce quite so badly. Since the present system itself relies upon coercion, the only way to change it is to remove the coercion. If it isn't removed, logic says it is still present.
Removal of coercion won't happen until every individual encompassed is there absent duress / coercive methods. Otherwise coercion is still present. Self evident.
Lysander Spooner wrote an essay about consent, etc. Constitution of No Authority...You might like reading it. Peace.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I like how NewtoMJ managed to get such a diverse line up to attack him.
10/10
Pure win.
10/10
Pure win.