Why did President Lincoln violate freedom of the press laws if he wanted to "free the slaves" ?

[londonfog]

@Rob Roy

when will you finish your manifesto ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Explained to you ad infinitum, Rub. You're stuck down an illogical rabbit hole of your own making. I and many others have thrown you a rope, but you're incapable of catching it for some reason (racism, stupidity and/or insanity being the likely suspects here). You're just going to have to climb out on your own. Until then, I'll just wave to you every now and then from up here. Racist jackass.

Yet, you've never explained why anybody has any right to compel another person to associate with them or to make them use their property and their body to serve them absent that persons explicit consent I don't have that right, do you have that right?

As far as calling me a racist, that's a weak argument and nonsensical. I think all people, of every race should have the right to interact with others on a consensual and mutual basis and determine the use of their own property. You are the one that rejects that from high atop your perch on Hypocrite Mountain.

 

[Rob Roy]

@Rob Roy

when will you finish your manifesto ?

As soon as I find my crayons, I'm gonna get right on that.

 

[Rob Roy]

Rob Roy: "I think you misunderstand"... a theoretical sociological dream of mine.
Me: Uhh, ok. Cool story?
Rob Roy: "offensive aggression is systemic and embedded", somebody is telling me what to do, and it makes me angry!! because, Murica.
Me: Uhh, ok. Cool story?
Rob Roy: "I don't you understand what a free market really is..."
Me: I run several businesses, rather successfully. No, Rob, I have no idea what free market is, you must explain it to me so I can better make gooderer with my monies and my free wills. Because Freedumbs!!

Rob, rules are meant for society, not as a mandate to any one individual or business. In the case of free markets, though ideal, it is not possible for a business to be truly free of rules, as with persons. An individual person, business, et al, alone is only to abide by themselves. Once part of a society, market, et al, rules are required to ensure we "play nicely" with others.

Your hypotheticals have been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

TL/DR

 

[Rob Roy]

again give an example where this is happening in America.

I guess you hate the fact that the Confederacy lost the war. Never knew you felt this strong about slavery

Erroneous assumption on your part. Wars don't decide which idea is better, they only decide who is better at killing.

Had I lived during the civil war, I'd have been against the Union Draft and for the abolition of slavery of all people, but I repeat myself.

 

[Rob Roy]

"Dealing with them"? WTF are you trying to say now?

Colloquialism. You could substitute another word or words, such as interacting with etc.

 

[Rob Roy]

They'd put up a no soliciting sign just like anyone else would regardless of skin tone.

Then we agree, people of every color etc. should be able to determine the use of their property and who they will invite there etc. ?

People of every color have the right to chose a mutual interaction or reject a proffered interaction based on their reasons and not reasons another person has imposed upon them absent their consent ?

 

[Tangerine_]

Then we agree, people of every color etc. should be able to determine the use of their property and who they will invite there etc. ?

People of every color have the right to chose a mutual interaction or reject a proffered interaction based on their reasons and not reasons another person has imposed upon them absent their consent ?

No we're not in agreement. And I'm no where near awake enough to speak "Rob".
Bottom line. No one is forcing you to do anything on your private property. No matter what kind of spin you put on it.

 

[Tangerine_]

Colloquialism. You could substitute another word or words, such as interacting with etc.

So you believe society should do away with implied consent when fire and rescue is needed. Got it.
Though I doubt this is the position you'd take if your home were engulfed in flames with you in it.

 

[Rob Roy]

No we're not in agreement. And I'm no where near awake enough to speak "Rob".
Bottom line. No one is forcing you to do anything on your private property. No matter what kind of spin you put on it.

No one is forcing you to do anything on your private property. No matter what kind of spin you put on it.


Then we agree, the term "property taxes" is an oxymoron? Ahem...Zoning laws?

 

[Rob Roy]

So you believe society should do away with implied consent when fire and rescue is needed. Got it.
Though I doubt this is the position you'd take if your home were engulfed in flames with you in it.

No I believe other alternatives should not be forcibly disallowed as they presently are.


For instance if YOU want to buy fire protection from a particular business you should be able to. I should be able to buy it or not from others and not be forced to subsidize your choice. In no case should either of us be forced to subsidize the others choices against our will.

You advocate for removal of choices under threat of violence. I do not.

 

[Tangerine_]

No one is forcing you to do anything on your private property. No matter what kind of spin you put on it.


Then we agree, the term "property taxes" is an oxymoron? Ahem...Zoning laws?

Nope. I knew when I acquired my properties taxes would be levied. Just like every other person who voluntarily enters into a purchase agreement.

 

[Tangerine_]

No I believe other alternatives should not be forcibly disallowed as they presently are.


For instance if YOU want to buy fire protection from a particular business you should be able to. I should be able to buy it or not from others and not be forced to subsidize your choice. In no case should either of us be forced to subsidize the others choices against our will.

You advocate for removal of choices under threat of violence. I do not.

No, I advocate for safety for everyone. What you advocate is nonsense.

 

[Justin-case]

No I believe other alternatives should not be forcibly disallowed as they presently are.


For instance if YOU want to buy fire protection from a particular business you should be able to. I should be able to buy it or not from others and not be forced to subsidize your choice. In no case should either of us be forced to subsidize the others choices against our will.

You advocate for removal of choices under threat of violence. I do not.

Fee, fi, fo, fum, you suffer from delirium.

 

[Rob Roy]

Nope. I knew when I acquired my properties taxes would be levied. Just like every other person who voluntarily enters into a purchase agreement.

Your argument relies on the presentation of two opposing concepts. Which is why it's wrong. You propose something can be "owned" by one party, but controlled by others as condition of the alleged ownership. That's absurd.

First "property" cannot be simultaneously owned and then come with a forcible annual tribute to pay for "services" which a person did not agree to. That is a contradiction. The fact that it regularly occurs that way, and has become "normal" simply means "hey we've got enough people believing in this invalid concept that we've taken a contradiction and somehow by virtue of successfully forcing people to follow along we've made it not a contradiction. That would be like trying to vote gravity out of existence.

So, you said they can't make you do things with your property. That's a self evident fail. If you don't pay them money, they'll steal your property. Try again.

 

[Rob Roy]

No, I advocate for safety for everyone. What you advocate is nonsense.

So, a person is leaving others alone and a man with a badge comes and says if you don't give us tax money to pay for our ideas which you may not agree with, we will harm you.

Who is causing the unsafe conditions ?


What I advocate is freedom, what you advocate is a form of slavery where other people have a greater say in how you will use the product of your labor and your property. You can't deny that is how it happens, without exposing your contradiction, that's why you tried to justify it as being "for safety".

 

[Rob Roy]

Fee, fi, fo, fum, you suffer from delirium.

That was pretty good, but it doesn't answer my question.

Can a person delegate a right he/she does not possess ?



Fee fi fo fum, you have government sauce dripping from your bum.

 

[jonsnow399]

Your argument relies on the presentation of two opposing concepts. Which is why it's wrong. You propose something can be "owned" by one party, but controlled by others as condition of the alleged ownership. That's absurd.

First "property" cannot be simultaneously owned and then come with a forcible annual tribute to pay for "services" which a person did not agree to. That is a contradiction. The fact that it regularly occurs that way, and has become "normal" simply means "hey we've got enough people believing in this invalid concept that we've taken a contradiction and somehow by virtue of successfully forcing people to follow along we've made it not a contradiction. That would be like trying to vote gravity out of existence.

So, you said they can't make you do things with your property. That's a self evident fail. If you don't pay them money, they'll steal your property. Try again.

You don't "own" any property. If you pay for it, it gives you the right to live on it (maybe) you are simply renting it from the govt.

 

[Rob Roy]

You don't "own" any property. If you pay for it, it gives you the right to live on it (maybe) you are simply renting it from the govt.

Yes, that seems to be the problem.

The same could be said for your own body and the money you earn from the labor of your mind and body couldn't it?

 

[TacoMac]

You don't "own" any property.

Yes, you do. That is why it is called "real" property (i.e. Real Estate) and is regulated and handled independently and completely differently than all other forms of merchandise.

If you pay for it, it gives you the right to live on it (maybe) you are simply renting it from the govt.

Incorrect again. How else do you think real property is handed down from generation to generation? There are tracks of land and homes in this nation that have been owned by the same families for longer than the United States has existed.