if racism is bad, why hasn't the free market ended it?

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
No. Allow me to slow down the thought process for you a bit.

You feel that everyone should interact with each other in a mutually consenting manner, and that the exchange between the parties be what they agree to prior to the conclusion of said deal. The expectation therefore, is that all parties involved will mutually benefit from the deal, as nobody wants a bad deal. You conclude that not only is this possible, but should be happening now, in place of government. I am merely pointing out to you that it is not. And that laws and regulations are put in place to protect the weak minded who would otherwise be taken advantage of, even in "mutually consenting" transactions.

Sort of like a 16 year old girl taking advantage of a 13 year old boy. Or vice versa. In your world, it would be completely ok for a 36 year old man enter into a mutually consenting sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl.

Again, the depth of your understanding things is quite shallow, and this fact is conveniently obvious to us. And replying with "nuh uh, no you are inept, poopy pants", isn't a sound counter argument. #justsayin
Click to expand...

Thanks for your explanation, it was pretty good. Except that's not the real reason for laws as they presently exist.

The depth of my understanding is a Mariana's trench in comparison to your weed choked frog pond.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm not very fond of lawyers. I did ask you the question though. Scared to answer?
Click to expand...
Why would I be afraid to answer something that is easy to look up? Why don't you just look it up? Why even ask me? To be honest, I'm not sure which laws to even cite. However, I assure you, there is a law somewhere that deals specifically with property rights, since property rights come from gov't.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Why would I be afraid to answer something that is easy to look up? Why don't you just look it up? Why even ask me? To be honest, I'm not sure which laws to even cite. However, I assure you, there is a law somewhere that deals specifically with property rights, since property rights come from gov't.
Click to expand...
We both know why you are afraid to answer it. It would reveal your contradiction.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Thanks for your explanation, it was pretty good. Except that's not the real reason for laws as they presently exist.

The depth of my understanding is a Mariana's trench in comparison to your weed choked frog pond.
Click to expand...
lol. Your responses are silly. You manage, in three posts, not to actually say anything at all. Well, except for, "nuh uh, no you poopy pants". I'm starting to think you lack any understanding of debate. In order for you to prove your assertions, you need to provide examples, as I've done in my prior comments.

Laws are exactly as I state, as compared to your utopian society which falls flat on its 13 year old face. See what I did there? Or would you like me to break it down to you in simple, "teenage" terms?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
lol. Your responses are silly. You manage, in three posts, not to actually say anything at all. Well, except for, "nuh uh, no you poopy pants". I'm starting to think you lack any understanding of debate. In order for you to prove your assertions, you need to provide examples, as I've done in my prior comments.

Laws are exactly as I state, as compared to your utopian society which falls flat on its 13 year old face. See what I did there? Or would you like me to break it down to you in simple, "teenage" terms?
Click to expand...

Sorry bro, maybe I'll dismantle your feeble arguments tomorrow. Time for me to take care of other things...

 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
lol. Your responses are silly. You manage, in three posts, not to actually say anything at all. Well, except for, "nuh uh, no you poopy pants". I'm starting to think you lack any understanding of debate. In order for you to prove your assertions, you need to provide examples, as I've done in my prior comments.

Laws are exactly as I state, as compared to your utopian society which falls flat on its 13 year old face. See what I did there? Or would you like me to break it down to you in simple, "teenage" terms?
Click to expand...
The only arguments he seems to put any thought into are the ones that defend racial segregation, pedophilia and ownership of people.
 
Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
They don't need to agree on EVERYTHING, grasshopper.

They only need to agree to leave others alone who leave them alone. The rest is not their business.
Click to expand...
That will never happen. If we ever had it before, it's gone now. Was that the only point you were trying to make?
 
G

Glaucoma

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Again, you've described the PRESENT paradigm and exactly how government "justice" works.

The state prosecutor and the judge are on the same team, can you deny that?
Click to expand...
I described exactly what you proposed. If you wanted to take somebody to your muppet court, you said you get to go hire the mediator. When looking for a mediator, don't you think that the consumer is going to want one that will rule in their favor?

I understand that you are unwilling to face this. I would feel pretty embarrassed, too. It's a /really/ stupid justice system.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Right, left and center against Rob

Yet will he concede that he's wrong?

Of course not

Hey Rob, if you can never be wrong about anything, how could you ever be right?
Click to expand...
Left, right and center are not different from each other when discussing the subject topic. . So adding them all up doesn't create a greater sum.

The subject is, which is better...a coercion based method of arbitration versus methods that do not have coercion as the ONLY choice, not which flavor of coercion, left, right or center "works" best.
I can be wrong, but in order to prove me wrong you should at least recognize which questions are being debated.

In this instance the question really is, "should consumers have a choice of who they use to arbitrate disputes or should it be a system which forcibly removes that as an option". I know you were all set to throw yourself a party for ahem "proving me wrong", but put the cake away, at least for now, as you haven't proven anything.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Not GOP said:
That will never happen. If we ever had it before, it's gone now. Was that the only point you were trying to make?
Click to expand...
Never cuts both ways.

What is not impossible is possible.

What is impossible, hoping to facilitate a free society, using an unfree method as a foundation, IS impossible.

Many people will not understand what I just said, but nobody will be able to refute it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top