Oklahoma Highway Robbery

[EclecticIdealist]

When a rapist is raping, they are exercising ownership of their victim and their behavior is binding. I only used the word contract to refute your claim within your own premise.

You have a singular definition of ownership; and no, you did not use the word, contract only to refute my claim within my own premise, you used it because you keep on trying to force your own unique definitions in order to create the appearance of reality conforming to your delusions.

 

Correct. Outside the parent-child relationship, person B can never be more responsible for person A than person A is.

 It's not about who is more responsible. I already demonstrated to flaw in your logic with EVERY OTHER KIND OF INITIATION OF THE USE OF FORCE. You are simply making an excuse for lying, and it makes one wonder why. What lies are you so committed to telling and not be considered immoral? To borrow your flawed way of thinking, lying is stealing an accurate perception of reality from others without their knowledge. 

 

Did I not say theft? Because you quoted me saying theft. ALL initiation of the use of force is a form of theft. For example, assault, rape, and murder are all forms of theft.

No. Theft has a very specific definition. Your notion that everything is a violation of property rights is forced and demonstrably flawed; but you're so committed to your erroneous beliefs that you'll never allow yourself to see it and change your thinking to conform with reality, which is why you will always be stuck in your delusions.

[EclecticIdealist]

Exactly.  What do you think this forum is all about?  It's about convincing others of the immorality of coercive government in order to get them to unify against it.

I agree that that is one of the purposes of this forum, but certainly not the only one; and possibly not even the primary one.

 

The only thing you are wrong about is the forefathers "persuading the whole nation."  The "forefathers" tried to use force first (see Shay's Rebellion). Once they saw what would happen if they demanded the farmers pay for the war,  they switched strategies and drafted up the constitution.  They conned enough of the population into signing it in order to get it ratified. The constitution didn't even have a bill of rights in it originally.  It was one of the most perfectly designed scams ever put over on a generally intelligent population of people.

I agree that the founding fathers did not persuade the whole nation, but they did persuade a significant minority, if not a majority to throw off the rule of Britain, and establish new guardians of their liberty, freedoms, and property only to see their property taken from them due primarily to a currency shortage preventing the farmers from paying their just debts with currency obtained through fair trade. Instead, their property was confiscated and sold to pay their debts, primarily to merchants and other wealthier lenders who arranged to have themselves running the State governments. Consequently, many called for a stronger Federal government to, among other things, solve the monetary crisis facing the young confederacy of states after the war and reign in the oppressive, aggressive tax and debt collection practices in the states. You believe that the Constitution was a nearly "perfectly designed scam when in reality, it was quite the opposite. 

[dsayers]

It's not about who is more responsible... lying is stealing an accurate perception of reality from others without their knowledge. 

Person A's perception of reality is not person B's responsibility. If you say to me that 2+2=5, you don't make it so, nor do you bind me to behave as if it's so. If I then did something as if 2+2=5 and blamed you, I would be saying that you are more responsible for my behaviors than I am. This is false.

 

Theft has a very specific definition.

To take without consent. Which is what you are doing whenever you assault, rape, and murder.

 

you'll never allow yourself to see it and change your thinking to conform with reality, which is why you will always be stuck in your delusions.

Claiming a delusion does nothing to show in what way my conclusion fails to conform to reality. In other words, not an argument.

[jpahmad]

I agree that that is one of the purposes of this forum, but certainly not the only one; and possibly not even the primary one.

 

I agree that the founding fathers did not persuade the whole nation, but they did persuade a significant minority, if not a majority to throw off the rule of Britain, and establish new guardians of their liberty, freedoms, and property only to see their property taken from them due primarily to a currency shortage preventing the farmers from paying their just debts with currency obtained through fair trade. Instead, their property was confiscated and sold to pay their debts, primarily to merchants and other wealthier lenders who arranged to have themselves running the State governments. Consequently, many called for a stronger Federal government to, among other things, solve the monetary crisis facing the young confederacy of states after the war and reign in the oppressive, aggressive tax and debt collection practices in the states. You believe that the Constitution was a nearly "perfectly designed scam when in reality, it was quite the opposite. 

 

The founding fathers were all in debt.  They were not able to cash in on their land grabbing efforts with Great Britain" proclamation line in the way.  There was nothing virtuous about the origins of the constitution.  The founding fathers were hypocrites.  They wanted to get rid of Great Britain on principle and then still maintain their titles over land given to them by Great Britain.  The country would have flourished without the unification of the states.  The creditors would have just had to wait a little longer to regain their investments.  It wouldn't have taken long though.  The farmers were sitting on a gold mine of land and just had to recuperate after the war.  The colonial gentry class, which spawned the "founding fathers", were entitled, democracy-hating, elitists who had very little to do with the growing wealth of the nation.  They aspired to be like the English aristocracy and were looking out for their own financial interests just like everyone else in the world.  

 

It's time to let the fairy tale go.

[EclecticIdealist]

The founding fathers were all in debt.  They were not able to cash in on their land grabbing efforts with Great Britain" proclamation line in the way.  There was nothing virtuous about the origins of the constitution.  The founding fathers were hypocrites.  They wanted to get rid of Great Britain on principle and then still maintain their titles over land given to them by Great Britain.  The country would have flourished without the unification of the states.  The creditors would have just had to wait a little longer to regain their investments.  It wouldn't have taken long though.  The farmers were sitting on a gold mine of land and just had to recuperate after the war.  The colonial gentry class, which spawned the "founding fathers", were entitled, democracy-hating, elitists who had very little to do with the growing wealth of the nation.  They aspired to be like the English aristocracy and were looking out for their own financial interests just like everyone else in the world.  

 

It's time to let the fairy tale go.

To say there was nothing virtuous about the origins of the Constitution is to say there is nothing virtuous about attempting to preserve the rights, liberties, and property by forming a Constitutional Republic intended to be as hands-off as possible while still fulfilling the necessary responsibilities of a representative National Government and providing Courts of last resort for mediating disputes between the states and the people. It is certainly not a perfect system, it certainly has flaws, but it was the best the world had at that time, and was almost certainly necessary for preserving the liberties and freedoms won by the Revolutionary war from being lost 25 years later (if not sooner).The notion that the country would have flourished without the unification of the states is an unwarranted, speculative assertion.

 

Do I think we could do better today? Absolutely.  Do I think we will, unfortunately not likely for the very same reasons they didn't do better back then. 

[dsayers]

To say there was nothing virtuous about the origins of the Constitution is to say there is nothing virtuous about attempting to preserve

Bzzzt! You don't preserve something by destroying it.

 

forming a Constitutional Republic intended to be as hands-off as possible

Bzzzt! "Hands off as possible" means hands off. Just look in the mirror at how many people you're NOT laying hands on for proof.

 

while still fulfilling the necessary responsibilities of a representative National Government

Begging the question and poisoning the well.

 

It is certainly not a perfect system, it certainly has flaws, but it was the best the world had at that time

The irony is that saying it's the best rape we had at the time proves that it was the worst. Because at least the ones that you would describe as worse was overtly so. "best the world had at the time" refers to best at concealing the gun in the room. I prefer the wolf over the wolf in sheep's clothing because the first step to wisdom is calling things by their proper names.

 

Do I think we could do better today? Absolutely.  Do I think we will, unfortunately not likely for the very same reasons they didn't do better back then. 

You mean because people like yourself refuse to reject that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Since you've put forth time and time again that assertions are acceptable, I'll make one. Most people who espouse the conclusion that you have do so because they do not trust other people. But governments are made up of people.

[EclecticIdealist]

Bzzzt! You don't preserve something by destroying it.
Good luck preserving your rights and liberties from infringement on your own. Oh wait, I know, you're going to hire someone to protect your rights and liberties. Let me know how well that works for you when another nation comes and bombs the crap out of your town.
 
Bzzzt! "Hands off as possible" means hands off. Just look in the mirror at how many people you're NOT laying hands on for proof.
Oh, I get it. Let me know how well you're doing when the less hands-off government comes and takes over your country. Or maybe your country will be more like Syria or Somalia where Warlords (formerly known as DROs) will be fighting each other for territory and "customers".
 
Begging the question and poisoning the well.
In your deluded fantasies. 

The irony is that saying it's the best rape we had at the time proves that it was the worst.
With reasoning like this, it's a wonder everyone isn't fully convinced.
 
Because at least the ones that you would describe as worse was overtly so. "best the world had at the time" refers to best at concealing the gun in the room.
Yeah, there really was no difference in the rights and liberties one was able to enjoy from one government to the next. It only looked like people had more liberty and freedom in America because the American government was so much better than all the other Nations at concealing the tyranny and oppression.

I prefer the wolf over the wolf in sheep's clothing because the first step to wisdom is calling things by their proper names.
Well you're a long way from wisdom then because you've yet to call anything in this post by their proper names.

You mean because people like yourself refuse to reject that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories.
No. Because, there are many people unlike myself who will seek to impose their religious ideals and political aspirations on people like myself, and like yourself; but unlike you I recognize that simply because I would like people to live freely and you would like people to live freely, and most (if not all) people on this board would like people to live freely doesn't mean that there aren't those who would not like that, and who would and do use violence to get their way. And I maintain that simply hiring private protection firms and DROs and the like will not prevent other nations and powers from engaging in acts of aggression, terrorism, and war to get their way unless such firms and DROs are as powerful as such nations, etc.

 

Since you've put forth time and time again that assertions are acceptable, I'll make one. Most people who espouse the conclusion that you have do so because they do not trust other people. But governments are made up of people.

So are DROs and Private protection firms which typically are far too small to prevent the aggression of foreign states and other entities. Furthermore, there's little incentive for them not to consolidate their forces, becoming mega DROs and protection firms able to make the same demands and fend off rival forces as government organizations and other organized crime families and organizations did in the past. In short, you haven't made a good case for why private protection firms and DROs are significantly different from warlords or better than limited constitutional governments (which I agree the US no longer is, and hasn't been since the early 1800s). I don't trust people, but I'm not convinced that anarchy and private DROs and protection firms are a better solution than government.

[dsayers]

I don't trust people, but I'm not convinced that anarchy and private DROs and protection firms are a better solution than government.

The implication being that government is A solution. Not that it matters. You don't have the right to consent to me and/or the unborn being stolen from, so your opinion isn't relevant.

 

Also, burning your house down to preempt the possibility that you'll sustain a kitchen fire is ludicrous. Thank you for adding fear-mongering to your list of lack of integrity and awful traits.

[EclecticIdealist]

The implication being that government is A solution. Not that it matters. You don't have the right to consent to me and/or the unborn being stolen from, so your opinion isn't relevant

The problem is, you automatically assume that government means you and the unborn must be stolen from, whereas in your delusional fantasy, that can't (not just won't) happen with your anarchic utopia.

 

Also, burning your house down to preempt the possibility that you'll sustain a kitchen fire is ludicrous.

Again you ignore the reality that lone and disorganized will always become prey of the predators, including the predatory wolves in sheep-dogs clothing known as DROs and private protection firms.

 

Thank you for adding fear-mongering to your list of lack of integrity and awful traits.

Thank you for engaging in projectile vomiting of your lunacy driven fantasies, irrationality, and hypocritical ad hominem attacks on everyone's integrity and character but your own.

[dsayers]

utopia.

Saying utopia is not an argument. With the exception of the State claiming to own me, 100% of my interactions with other people take place without the initiation of the use of force. Same as your life.

 

the predatory wolves in sheep-dogs clothing known as DROs and private protection firms.

Joke's on you. I'm actually a private investigator with ten years of private protection experience. Thank you for pointing to love-making and calling it rape. It would appear other people understand you're full of shit also and now, they won't have to see your posts if they don't want to 

[EclecticIdealist]

Saying utopia is not an argument. With the exception of the State claiming to own me, 100% of my interactions with other people take place without the initiation of the use of force. Same as your life.

It's impossible to argue with you when you keep insisting your delusional fantasies are reality. The state does not claim they own you, but in your delusional mind, they claim they do.

 

Joke's on you. I'm actually a private investigator with ten years of private protection experience. Thank you for pointing to love-making and calling it rape. It would appear other people understand you're full of shit also and now, they won't have to see your posts if they don't want to 

I guess the joke is on me, since you're the only one that pointed to anything and called it rape. And good job at muting my voice and supporting censorship. I hope you're very proud of your smug little self.

[AncapFTW]

Too bad they can't all be like this: