Burn This Bitch Down!

[Padawanbater2]

the only thing that keeps me from killing people is the fear of punishment.

Wtf?

 

[Rob Roy]

It was a simple, direct question. Don't buck out on me.

What recourse do you have for these 'irrational' people?

I like that you said buck out.

Do you mean the irrational people that already work in government and practice asset forfeiture or the ones that don't?

 

[Padawanbater2]

So you think by making a person interact with you, you are behaving peacefully? Please explain how that works.

I'm not "making" anyone interact with me. If someone wants to sell an item to person A but not to me based on my skin color or whatever, that person is not allowed to sell any items at all. By selling the item to person A but not me it causes racial tension which leads to violence

 

[Rob Roy]

Wtf?

WTF Indeed, Not my quote, it was an excerpt from London I think.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm not "making" anyone interact with me. If someone wants to sell an item to person A but not to me based on my skin color or whatever, that person is not allowed to sell any items at all. By selling the item to person A but not me it causes racial tension which leads to violence

You seem to be caught up in the legality of it.


I asked where the right of ANY person or entity to make another interact with them comes from?

In other words do some people have the right to force others to engage with them, if that person prefers not to?

 

[spandy]

...and inquiring minds want to know.

"STOP!!! OR I'LL YELL STOP AGAIN!!!!!!!!!"

If their was no enforcement, wouldn't people go back to actually knowing their neighbors and being as fucking cool with each other as possible? Both know that odds are, they will need one another someday if not many times, so they both pitch in to keep each other safe, even if they didn't care for the others personal bullshit.

Be better than waiting an hour for the cops to get there while your neighbor records it with their camera phone, imo.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You seem to be caught up in the legality of it.


I asked where the right of ANY person or entity to make another interact with them comes from?

In other words do some people have the right to force others to engage with them, if that person prefers not to?

If they're selling something they do

 

[SmokeyDan]

Nope. If you open a hamburger stand in the present paradigm, there is NOTHING voluntary about the restrictions imposed on you, the ostensible owner.

Consent, under duress is NOT consent or consensual.

Most of us here recognize that pot is "illegal", did we consent to having our homes stolen and lives fucked when we lite a joint?

When you turn your home into a grow op, yes you've consented to it. It's a form of consent. You voluntarily entered into something fully aware of the possible outcomes.

I see your point. It just doesn't hold water. A free market is one where everyone can participate. No harm will come to you by not allowing blacks to eat your burgers.

 

[Rob Roy]

If they're selling something they do

So are you saying a peaceful person can justifiably (note I said "justifiably and not "legally" ) be made to engage in a transaction / interaction with another person even if they prefer not to?

Isn't the person or entity making them engage involved in initiating aggression against a person and / or property they do not own?

 

[londonfog]

Laws do not make a person safe, Mr. the only thing that keeps me from killing people is the fear of punishment. Laws can and are used to kill people and imprison them for not harming others though.

A nation state is an artificial construct, defining the territory that a given gang of thugs controls.

What keeps most people from killing others is the recognition that it is wrong, unless they are in government, then they have no morality. Or maybe they sniff too many towels used at Wendys to mop up the bathroom floors and somehow the pungent fumes skew their cognitive abilities.

Murder is wrong whether it is against the law or not or euphemized away as a "necessary evil" or called collateral damage.

laws do help in keeping people safe.
Why won't you answer my question ?
What would stop people from killing and taking your property in your utopia ? I mean what would a person with nothing have to lose. No punishment only a reward for killing you and taking your shit.

 

[Rob Roy]

When you turn your home into a grow op, yes you've consented to it. It's a form of consent. You voluntarily entered into something fully aware of the possible outcomes.

I see your point. It just doesn't hold water. A free market is one where everyone can participate. No harm will come to you by not allowing blacks to eat your burgers.

Well, if I did sell burgers, my discrimination would not be based on race, it would focus more on politeness, willingness to transact consensually and if they didn't shit on the bathroom floor.

 

[Glaucoma]

I like that you said buck out.

Do you mean the irrational people that already work in government and practice asset forfeiture or the ones that don't?

Under your proposed society, how would you deal with those who break the law?

Does the criminal have to consent to the punishment? I don't understand how criminal justice works under this idea.

 

[londonfog]

Under your proposed society, how would you deal with those who break the law?

Does the criminal have to consent to the punishment? I don't understand how criminal justice works under this idea.

We all have been waiting for his answer. Good luck

 

[Rob Roy]

laws do help in keeping people safe.
Why won't you answer my question ?
What would stop people from killing and taking your property in your utopia ? I mean what would a person with nothing have to lose. No punishment only a reward for killing you and taking your shit.

Laws can just as easily be made with the intent to harm people as they can be to keep them safe. I think you know that, so I won't entertain fucking with you anymore on that one...for now.

I already answered your question, twice. Now 3 times. No apple pie system or unicorn utopia will stop irrational people from harming others. Although logic dictates if you start with a system with coercion baked into it, it won't taste nearly as good as an apple pie should.

You haven't answered my question though. Why do you support a murderous regime that routinely kills people and steals their property?

 

[Padawanbater2]

So are you saying a peaceful person can justifiably (note I said "justifiably and not "legally" ) be made to engage in a transaction / interaction with another person even if they prefer not to?

Isn't the person or entity making them engage involved in initiating aggression against a person and / or property they do not own?

It is not "peaceful" to deny goods/services based on superficial prejudices, so it's a paradoxical argument to begin with

If you deny someone something based on their skin color, you are not acting peacefully

 

[SmokeyDan]

Yeah, that's a whole lot of bullshit. The English immigrated to America just like everybody else who's not native American. Everyone who was not born inside the US who settled here was an immigrant, which makes up most everyone's ancestors.

I might place it in a specific kind of immigration.

The word immigration, by its etiology has connotations of joining a society. The founding of the colonies in america was not joining a society, it was building one where none existed.

Europeans are now the natives of North America.

The blacks in Africa are the only ones who have a reasonable claim to be natives since they evolved somewhere there. Everyone else is the son or daughter of an immigrant.

Did the Indians have the right to try to repel the Europeans who came? Yes. They failed. Since you mentioned them I think it only apropos to say the same thing could be happening to the current natives of North America.

We are being colonized by the people of central and south America.

It isn't apples to apples to compare them to the Irish germans and Italians. Outside of language, those nations aren't appreciably different.

We have vast differences with latin america in the way we do things. With what we want our society to be and do.

You cannot begin to imagine how different this country will be in 100 years if it becomes majority hispanics.

We will be Brazil. Whites will be an affluent minority who live in walled off enclaves, who need armored cars and security.

I can imagine the wise Hispanic justice Sotomayor having no trouble finding a "white privilege tax" to be constitutional.

The history of humanity is subjugation.

White people in america and Europe will be the only people in history who have voluntarily decided to go from being the subjugators to the subjuatees.

 

[Rob Roy]

Under your proposed society, how would you deal with those who break the law?

Does the criminal have to consent to the punishment? I don't understand how criminal justice works under this idea.

Thank you for your patience. Excellent questions.

Arbitration of disputes is a very important component in any just society. I may start a thread in a day or three to address those concerns. I hate to leave you hanging, but I have to go fold some laundry now.

 

[Wilksey]

I see you are having some fun with this. Do you consider yourself a person that likes to read things that might answer your questions or would you prefer to continue to remain convinced that the present paradigm is as good as it gets?


By the way, how do you feel about asset forfeiture and why hasn't the magical existing system prevented those things from happening?

I don't think I'm the only one "having fun" with this, and that's because your entire premise is completely silly, and yet you seem to be sincere, which makes it even sillier. You see, life experience, and a basic understanding of human behavior, is all that is needed to make your arguments totally laughable, and there are many of us here that have plenty of both.

Property forfeiture? Hell, I support LIFE forfeiture for those that warrant it, so I have absolutely no problem with property forfeiture under the right circumstances.

 

[Rob Roy]

It is not "peaceful" to deny goods/services based on superficial prejudices, so it's a paradoxical argument to begin with

If you deny someone something based on their skin color, you are not acting peacefully

How can you deny somebody something that is yours to begin with and isn't theirs?

How does that work?

Are you saying people do not have the right of self determination and to chose their associations on a consensual basis?

 

[londonfog]

Thank you for your patience. Excellent questions.

Arbitration of disputes is a very important component in any just society. I may start a thread in a day or three to address those concerns. I hate to leave you hanging, but I have to go fold some laundry now.

Bring them clothes to the shop we will gladly charge you by the lbs to wash and fold