Government claims it owns children, threatens 2nd mom with jail

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
SunnyJim said:
You're suggesting we should have no laws whatsoever? Perfect. You wouldn't have any issues with a group of 'foreigners' coming into your house and setting up camp, because they have implicit freedom to do as they please without 'the threat of force for noncompliance' to nonexistent laws.

Preemptively, your response will somehow place your 'freedoms' above someone else's.
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting you consider the difference between uses of offensive force and defensive force.

Laws which are facilitated by the use of offensive force, are suspect to me.

Not sure what you mean when you say "foreigners", but I don't view people as serfs only identifiable by the figurative brand emblazoned on them by one nation state / plantation or another. So there is that.

I have the same right to freedom as everybody else. Whether I can use it or not is another topic.
 
PCXV

PCXV

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Taken from a passage of the frequently asked questions section of a Voluntaryist website. Enjoy...


Objection: You preach one thing and practice something else. You’ve spent your whole life obeying the state’s authority by paying your taxes. Doesn’t that show you’ve given your tacit consent to government?

Reply: The notion of tacit consent goes at least as far back as John Locke, but it didn’t make sense in the seventeenth century, and it still doesn’t make sense today. What would tacit dissent be like? Moreover, when I hand my wallet over to a crook who threatens to blow me away with a .38 if I refuse, I’m not giving my tacit consent that robbery is morally acceptable. So when I pay my taxes to a government that threatens to imprison me if I don’t comply, it’s hard to see how I’m giving my tacit consent–whatever that is–that state coercion is morally acceptable. Just because many of us have spent our lives following the dictates of the state, it doesn’t follow that we believe in the legitimacy of government. Maybe there are lots of closet voluntaryists!
Click to expand...
That argument makes no sense. You can't imagine what tacit dissent looks like? How about revoking your citizenship, refusing to use any public utility (roads, police, waterlines, powerlines, etc.), leaving the country, or any sort of affirmation that you aren't just a hypocritical mooch? Have you ever heard of the Amish?

Answer my questions now please. Don't think that I don't notice you constantly avoiding the substance of the debate and moving the goal posts. Remember your hypocrisy and unwillingness to debate fairly the next time you accuse others of the same.
 
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm suggesting you consider the difference between uses of offensive force and defensive force.

Laws which are facilitated by the use of offensive force, are suspect to me.

Not sure what you mean when you say "foreigners", but I don't view people as serfs only identifiable by the figurative brand emblazoned on them by one nation state / plantation or another. So there is that.

I have the same right to freedom as everybody else. Whether I can use it or not is another topic.
Click to expand...
Great, so if the people who want to occupy your house are of Native American descent, and they wait until you and your family members leave your house for a trip to the supermarket before they move in, they have the right to use 'defensive force' to protect their new house?

That land was theirs before some 'involuntary government' decided you had the right to buy/own it. Seems to me that in principle, you should defend the Natives' right to defend their property, even from you.

But wait! You rely on the laws passed by 'involuntary governments' which protect your rights, first and foremost, am I right? Forget about child protection laws because you are no longer a child. Typical libertarian hypocrisy.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
SunnyJim said:
Great, so if the people who want to occupy your house are of Native American descent, and they wait until you and your family members leave your house for a trip to the supermarket before they move in, they have the right to use 'defensive force' to protect their new house?

That land was theirs before some 'involuntary government' decided you had the right to buy/own it. Seems to me that in principle, you should defend the Natives' right to defend their property, even from you.

But wait! You rely on the laws passed by 'involuntary governments' which protect your rights, first and foremost, am I right? Forget about child protection laws because you are no longer a child. Typical libertarian hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Interesting and reasonable questions.

About how many years would you say have to pass for a persons claim of "hey my ancestor lived on your land, so give it to me now" would be invalid ?

Should people today be held responsible for what somebody else did hundreds of years ago ? Why ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
PCXV said:
That argument makes no sense. You can't imagine what tacit dissent looks like? How about revoking your citizenship, refusing to use any public utility (roads, police, waterlines, powerlines, etc.), leaving the country, or any sort of affirmation that you aren't just a hypocritical mooch? Have you ever heard of the Amish?

Answer my questions now please. Don't think that I don't notice you constantly avoiding the substance of the debate and moving the goal posts. Remember your hypocrisy and unwillingness to debate fairly the next time you accuse others of the same.
Click to expand...
Tacit dissent ? Tacit consent ? Potato, Tomahto ? Sir did I would love to answer your questions, but please form them a bit more coherently. Thank you.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Tacit dissent ? Tacit consent ? Potato, Tomahto ? Sir did I would love to answer your questions, but please form them a bit more coherently. Thank you.
Click to expand...
You understood his question. Stop being a smart ass. Being a word-smith does not mean you are bright, but would make a very good politician or lawyer. how are you in math. Do you do your own taxes ?
 
PCXV

PCXV

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Tacit dissent ? Tacit consent ? Potato, Tomahto ? Sir did I would love to answer your questions, but please form them a bit more coherently. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Did you not read what you posted? See: Reply section. Tacit dissent is the word your example used. Tacit consent is an odd, abstract concept, but it's not what I've beem arguing; tacit consent is the straw man you are arguing against. I've been arguing affirmed consent, aka actions and/or words that positively affirm an acceptance of the terms of an agreement.

I don't think I can be any more clear. I will thank you and give you the respect deserved for engaging my questions and arguments directly if you decide to do so.
 
PCXV

PCXV

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Interesting and reasonable questions.

About how many years would you say have to pass for a persons claim of "hey my ancestor lived on your land, so give it to me now" would be invalid ?

Should people today be held responsible for what somebody else did hundreds of years ago ? Why ?
Click to expand...
LOL you two faced son-of-a-bitch troll!

Your ancestors used offensive force, but you can't be held accountable after the sun went down so many times, right?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
PCXV said:
LOL you two faced son-of-a-bitch troll!

Your ancestors used offensive force, but you can't be held accountable after the sun went down so many times, right?
Click to expand...

So if your grandfather murdered a person, you are guilty of murder ?

It is likely my ancestors used offensive force, how is that relevant to my innocence or guilt ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
You understood his question. Stop being a smart ass. Being a word-smith does not mean you are bright, but would make a very good politician or lawyer. how are you in math. Do you do your own taxes ?
Click to expand...
I subsist on road kill and can count to potato.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Well that was succinct. Of course, it was inaccurate Poopy Pants, but it WAS succinct.
Click to expand...
it was accurate because you advocate for racial segregation, are racist against black people, and advocate for lenient consent laws like a pedophile.

there is literally no other explanation that makes anysense other than YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE AND A WHITE SUPREMACIST

glad you are on the side of @twostrokenut
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
it was accurate because you advocate for racial segregation, are racist against black people, and advocate for lenient consent laws like a pedophile.

there is literally no other explanation that makes anysense other than YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE AND A WHITE SUPREMACIST

glad you are on the side of @twostrokenut
Click to expand...
Okay, let's use your "logic" , numbnuts.

You advocate for forced human relations when at least one party doesn't want to, so where have you hid the bodies, Ted Bundy?

I've never advocated for racial segregation. I think people who wish to associate should do so as long as it's mutual. I think racists are focused on the wrong thing and hold silly beliefs.

Lenient consent, isn't a real concept as it amalgamates two dissimilar ideas. People who have the ability to consent, can consent, people who don't, can't. Which part of that statement would you like to present a counter argument to, Einstein?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top