Will Congress act now?

[Rob Roy]

Can rights exist without justice?

In some instances, yes.

I think if a right is inalienable, even if it is unjustly held in check, it would still exist.

For instance, I think everyone of us here has the right to use or grow cannabis etc., but many here still live in
political subdivisions (plantations) which unjustly violate that right and "disallow" it.

Even those who live on plantations where cannabis is allowed, it isn't really honored as a right, it's been reshaped into a kind of revocable privilege, ironically by the same gang that would you have you believe they are the protectors of "justice".

 

[Rob Roy]

do you vote ? even locally

I voted to have Thai food the other night and so did the Mrs., so we did. Yay ! Thai food for President!

 

[SunnyJim]

You see, earlier today I made a reasonable assumption and was called to task by a Sunny Jim character and I'm a little afraid of jumping to conclusions now, lest he come storming in and spank me really good.

You're being deceitful and utterly disingenuous with this statement. This is the last vestige of the those incompetent in the art of intellectual debate.

I didn't call you to task for making 'a reasonable assumption.' You, in fact, made two contradictory and unreasonable assumptions of your own, assigned them both to SneekyNinja, and presented them as SneekyNinja's own inconsistent thinking. Typical and transparent straw man. Here's your straw man once more:

On the one hand you would agree that a person has no right to enslave another person or force somebody into an association using or threatening offensive force for failure to comply... but then you flip and advocate that a neutral person somehow MUST associate with somebody else, not because the neutral person consents to it, instead because another party or parties has insisted on it.. That is the definition of slavery. Claiming the right to create a force association with an unwilling neutral party.

Your argument is internal and your beliefs are inconsistent.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

Either too proud or too ignorant to admit it. Shows weakness of character.

 

[PCXV]

Nope, Putin is a capitalist.

But you said old time communists are now antifa. Make up your mind!

 

[PCXV]

In some instances, yes.

I think if a right is inalienable, even if it is unjustly held in check, it would still exist.

For instance, I think everyone of us here has the right to use or grow cannabis etc., but many here still live in
political subdivisions (plantations) which unjustly violate that right and "disallow" it.

Even those who live on plantations where cannabis is allowed, it isn't really honored as a right, it's been reshaped into a kind of revocable privilege, ironically by the same gang that would you have you believe they are the protectors of "justice".

A right is a social construct. There are no innate rights in nature. To have a social construct, you have to have a society. No society has existed without law to enforce justice and arbitrate. Without law and the enforcement of law, ideas of rights mean nothing. It follows that what has given rights can also take away or infringe on those same rights.

 

[st0wandgrow]

it's a matter of understanding what other people do is their business.

I agree with this to an extent. Drug use for example...I believe that all drugs should be legalized, and it should be of no concern to anyone else (including the govt) so long as the drug user is causing no harm to others. BUT, when that person causes harm to others, what would you propose happen? Say a person breaks in to a home looking for drugs/money and ends up killing the homeowner. How is that person held accountable in your no-government utopia? A council of elders?

 

[londonfog]

I voted to have Thai food the other night and so did the Mrs., so we did. Yay ! Thai food for President!

and you also paid taxes on that Thai food. Such a wonderful obedient slave. How will you be filing next year. I'm sure you will do it before April 15...so obedient

 

[dagwood45431]

Is it possible you have confused me with someone else ?

Not even remotely.

 

[tampee]

But you said old time communists are now antifa. Make up your mind!

Putin is not Bernie Sanders.

 

[PCXV]

Putin is not Bernie Sanders.

Your love for a totalitarian dictator says a lot about you.

Bernie Sanders has never lived in a communist Country or proposed communist bills. On the other hand, Putin heads the FSB (KGB), views Stalin in high regard, calls the Soviet Union the best thing that ever happened to Russia, and runs regime no different than a communist regime. He still holds his communist party membership ticket near and dear.

“You know that I, like millions of Soviet citizens, over 20 million, was a member of the Communist Party of the USSR and not only was I a member of the party but I worked for almost 20 years for an organization called the Committee for State Security,” Putin said, referring to the KGB.

http://www.newsweek.com/russias-putin-says-he-always-liked-communist-socialist-ideas-419289?amp=1

I think it is you that is the communist.

 

[dagwood45431]

Your love for a totalitarian dictator says a lot about you.

Bernie Sanders has never lived in a communist Country or proposed communist bills. On the other hand, Putin heads the FSB (KGB), views Stalin in high regard, calls the Soviet Union the best thing that ever happened to Russia, and runs regime no different than a communist regime. He still holds his communist party membership ticket near and dear.

“You know that I, like millions of Soviet citizens, over 20 million, was a member of the Communist Party of the USSR and not only was I a member of the party but I worked for almost 20 years for an organization called the Committee for State Security,” Putin said, referring to the KGB.

http://www.newsweek.com/russias-putin-says-he-always-liked-communist-socialist-ideas-419289?amp=1

I think it is you that is the communist.

He's a red pedo for sure.

 

[Rob Roy]

You're being deceitful and utterly disingenuous with this statement. This is the last vestige of the those incompetent in the art of intellectual debate.

I didn't call you to task for making 'a reasonable assumption.' You, in fact, made two contradictory and unreasonable assumptions of your own, assigned them both to SneekyNinja, and presented them as SneekyNinja's own inconsistent thinking. Typical and transparent straw man. Here's your straw man once more:



"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

Either too proud or too ignorant to admit it. Shows weakness of character.

So it's not reasonable to assume that Sneeky Ninja is against slavery ?

 

[SunnyJim]

So it's not reasonable to assume that Sneeky Ninja is against slavery ?

It would be unreasonable to assume anyone agrees with how you define or contextualize 'slavery'. He didn't, unless you can quote him.

Whether your assumptions are reasonable is irrelevant.

 

[Rob Roy]

It would be unreasonable to assume anyone agrees with how you define or contextualize 'slavery'. He didn't, unless you can quote him.

Whether your assumptions are reasonable is irrelevant.

You may have missed my point. When I initially mentioned my assumption that he was against slavery, I was referring to the kind that most people accept, not the kind that I often refer to. I was making a comparison between the kind of slavery most people recognize and more subtle kinds that often go unrecognized, but that I recognize.

It looks as though your assumption seems based on a failed understanding of my initial assumption.

 

[Rob Roy]

I agree with this to an extent. Drug use for example...I believe that all drugs should be legalized, and it should be of no concern to anyone else (including the govt) so long as the drug user is causing no harm to others. BUT, when that person causes harm to others, what would you propose happen? Say a person breaks in to a home looking for drugs/money and ends up killing the homeowner. How is that person held accountable in your no-government utopia? A council of elders?

Yes, of course any free person should be able to consume whatever they wish to and derive the benefits or suffer the consequences of those actions.

I don't have a "no government Utopia". It would be better described as a no central authority Utopia.

Central authorities which derive their power from assumed authority with or without your consent and who demand that you pay them even if you don't want or use their so called services can't then possibly be able to protect you from people who would extort or steal from you, since their business model is based on their being able to take from YOU with or without your consent. In other words they are what they say they will protect you from. That is self evident and irrefutable by the way.

If you're interested in how a real free market (not the crony system today which is erroneously called a free market) might address conflict mediation I could recommend some reading to you sometime.

 

[Rob Roy]

A right is a social construct. There are no innate rights in nature. To have a social construct, you have to have a society. No society has existed without law to enforce justice and arbitrate. Without law and the enforcement of law, ideas of rights mean nothing. It follows that what has given rights can also take away or infringe on those same rights.

So what do you do when the "protector" of society, a coercion based central authority government is also the biggest violator of other persons rights ?

 

[Chezus]

So what do you do when the "protector" of society, a coercion based central authority government is also the biggest violator of other persons rights ?

Stop crying.
You have no right to fuck children. Not even your own.

 

[Rob Roy]

Stop crying.
You have no right to fuck children. Not even your own.

I'm not crying. I'm laughing...at you, Prohibitionist.

 

[twostrokenut]

arguably a bolt action rifle off the 2nd floor would have done way more damage.

then what, bolt ban?

 

[PetFlora]

Opioid prescription drug deaths dwarf shooting deaths, yet there’s no call to ban Big Pharma

Americans continue to mourn the dozens of people who were killed and hundreds wounded by a crazed lunatic in Las Vegas on Sunday,and as is usually the case when guns are involved in a mass ...

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-09-opioid-prescription-drug-deaths-dwarf-shooting-deaths-yet-theres-no-call-to-ban-big-pharma.html