Greenwood Massacre aka Tulsa Race Riots - 1921

mooray said:

I'm not going to type it again, but the reply you quoted is what I'd use to reply to this. Maybe you didn't infer the obvious, but... Who owns the roads? We can't go back in time, so we have our entire nation's worth of infrastructure to transition into the hands of the correct owners. Now start at the top of the post you quoted and tell me your plan.

Click to expand...

When you say "owns" do you mean actually owns them, as in has control over them ?

I don't own most of the roads, so I'm not sure why I'd have a plan for things other people might own.

You're not the kind of guy that would use force to make others plans for them are you ?

mooray said:

Congress is just us, so we work poorly together.

Click to expand...

That is a tired platitude without substance. Congress is not just us.

People don't work well together when the basis of their relationship is compulsory rather than consensual. The fact that it's a compulsory relationship and backed by threats of force against otherwise peaceful people, provides clear evidence of that.

If I told you to report to my yard every morning to rake leaves and you couldn't get out of it without some kind of duress, would you say we were "working well together" ?

UncleBuck said:

Whites are violent uncivilized savages

Click to expand...

No, you would have to include the whole of humanity in that.

Quite funny we people love to say oh back in the day people weren't as selfish as now, read your history guys, look around at the planet complain about pollution packaging etc whilst driving our cars and waiting on a delivery.

Rob Roy said:

When you say "owns" do you mean actually owns them, as in has control over them ?

I don't own most of the roads, so I'm not sure why I'd have a plan for things other people might own.

You're not the kind of guy that would use force to make others plans for them are you ?

Click to expand...

[sarcasm]Clearly I mean "owns" in the manipulative and selfish RR sense so that fits my needs and not in any sort of real or literal sense.[/sarcasm]

Sorry, I'm not in any position of authority, so I don't force anyone to do anything.

Rob Roy said:

That is a tired platitude without substance. Congress is not just us.

People don't work well together when the basis of their relationship is compulsory rather than consensual. The fact that it's a compulsory relationship and backed by threats of force against otherwise peaceful people, provides clear evidence of that.

If I told you to report to my yard every morning to rake leaves and you couldn't get out of it without some kind of duress, would you say we were "working well together" ?

Click to expand...

Ooohhh platitude, suggesting that repetition is the reference for truth. That's brilliant.

And I know we have some short memories, but we were talking about congress, which is comprised of people that chose to run and people that chose them to be there, so there are no compulsory relationships in congress.

If I chose to participate in a society that chose that arrangement and as long as I weren't a narcissist that thought I was the most important thing ever created and that everyone else should conform to my specific individual desires, then yes, that would be us working well together.

mooray said:

no compulsory relationships in congress.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing bath salts have eroded your extrapolative powers.



There are direct "compulsory consequences" on peaceful people from the actions or inactions of Congress.

mooray said:

If I chose to participate in a society that chose that arrangement

Click to expand...

Please don/t conflate society and government interventionists. They are not the same thing.

If you chose, for you, that's fine.

If another otherwise peaceful person doesn't chose the same as you and isn't harming you or your justly acquired property, where does the right to threaten them to support your ideas come from then ?

Wouldn't you be violating their "equality" if you override their choices and force them to accept yours? Sounds like a pretty shitty society you're advocating there.

mooray said:

I mean "owns" in the manipulative and selfish RR sense

Click to expand...

No, you don't. You are wrong.

I don't use the word "owns" in a manipulative or selfish way in the context of our recent communication in this thread.

The word ownership isn't selfish in a negative sense in that situation, it's descriptive in the definitive sense.
It defines who is the person(s) who has the rightful control over a person, place or thing etc. Self control isn't a negative, necessarily. as in "selfish" (dickishly self centered) since it doesn't violate anothers right. It defines boundaries and when followed, brokers peaceful ways to resolve potential conflicts.

Being selfish the way you are, does though. You advocate going beyond SELF control and seem to think a group has the right to violate others self control over themself, simply by ganging up in a majority to remove self control and replace it with a threat if you don't obey the majority / gang.

You and your gang are the selfish one in that circumstance, since you go beyond your rights to extinguish anothers rights.

I don't have rightful control over you, until or unless, you attempt to limit my rightful control over me. I use the word "owns" as a way to help define who is in the right or not concerning the disposition of that which is owned.

In a majority rule construct, individual rights and self ownership is routinely violated. That's the epitomy of selfish and you seem to advocate that.

Libertarians don't mind if you want to form a voluntary socialist / commune. Socialists / Commies will not allow libertarians to exist. Which attitude is selfish ?

Rob Roy said:

Socialists / Commies will not allow libertarians to exist.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

Click to expand...

Okay, your point has SOME validity.

Perhaps it comes down to what kind of socialist / communist the person is. It IS possible to be a voluntaryist commie, but it's rare.

Most socialist / communists are not voluntaryists, they are proponents of involuntaryism, therefore THOSE socialist / communists don't want libertarians to exist.

For instance, if a Socialist / Communist is an advocate for an involuntary government, they are "not allowing a libertarian to exist". That is the mind set of most Socialists / Communists.


If a Socialist / Communist is an advocate for VOLUNTARY socialism / communism, they would be voluntaryist (akin to libertarian) FIRST, and secondarily socialist / communist.

In other words to further clarify, there are really two kinds of people, those that advocate for voluntary human constructs and those that don't and we already know which one you are and which one I am.

Can you smell it.

Rob Roy said:

I'm guessing bath salts have eroded your extrapolative powers.



There are direct "compulsory consequences" on peaceful people from the actions or inactions of Congress.

View attachment 4933784

Click to expand...

Alternatively, you could just use the words you means, instead of blaming me for your errors, but...I guess I'm used to it by now.

I'm curious, when if the last time someone forced you to do something?

Rob Roy said:

Please don/t conflate society and government interventionists. They are not the same thing.

If you chose, for you, that's fine.

If another otherwise peaceful person doesn't chose the same as you and isn't harming you or your justly acquired property, where does the right to threaten them to support your ideas come from then ?

Wouldn't you be violating their "equality" if you override their choices and force them to accept yours? Sounds like a pretty shitty society you're advocating there.

Click to expand...

The masses decided long ago that the masses decide things. Of course it's not perfect. Of course bad things will happen, and they'll happen whenever anyone is in charge of anything.

I don't think you realize where you society would have us. We'd be as advances as the Amish, maybe, if we're lucky. Nobody would even have the idea to "force" people to pay for things, if people were already doing it on their own. Everything you've helped to fund, schools, roads, police/fire/etc., everything you've helped pay for, represents a failure of what you didn't choose to pay for on your own and either wouldn't exist at all, or would exists in the shittiest version possible, or would be greatly delayed(i.e. suuuuuuuper slow societal development).

But now that we're here. Tell me how we transition to your tightwad utopia. Tell me how someone like yourself would come to "own" a hydroelectric plant, or water/sewage treatment plant. Tell me who's allowed to own it, people from anywhere? Is it free? If not, who do they pay for the ownership? What if some people two towns over want your power, do you sell it to them? What if there's always at least one person in the path that refuses to let you cross their land and your plant can now only feed twenty homes? Do you close your plant?

mooray said:

Alternatively, you could just use the words you means, instead of blaming me for your errors, but...I guess I'm used to it by now.

I'm curious, when if the last time someone forced you to do something?

Click to expand...

Interrupting or threatening my free will to exercise peaceful self ownership over myself and my justly acquired property occurs on a regular and routine basis.

So does yours.


When was the last time you WEREN'T under duress to obey the edicts of interventionists ?

mooray said:

Of course bad things will happen, and they'll happen whenever anyone is in charge of anything.

Click to expand...

Bad things happen when things that are wrong for you and I to do, are "not wrong" for other people to do even if they have been anointed as "leaders" or elected officials etc.

You should be in charge of yourself, but not in charge of others, until or unless the other voluntarily agrees on an individual basis to something else or has somehow violated YOUR rights. You get the benefit and the consequences of your choices then, so does everyone else. In that scenario everyone is equal in their ability to self determine. If they aren't equal in their ability to self determine, calling those people "equal" to others is the wrong term to use.

I like to default to the idea that other people own themselves. If I am their equal in the rights sense, then it follows that I own myself. Pretty easy. Not selfish, in a negative sense, it's respectful.

mooray said:

I don't think you realize where you society would have us.

Click to expand...

I may respond to this a bit later. It's ripe with opportunity. Thank you.

Rob Roy said:

Interrupting or threatening my free will to exercise peaceful self ownership over myself and my justly acquired property occurs on a regular and routine basis.

So does yours.


When was the last time you WEREN'T under duress to obey the edicts of interventionists ?

Click to expand...

So...in your mind? Just knowing that you can be forced to do something is creating duress?

Everyone has kooky thoughts of some type, but I think you could be into the "maybe I should get help" category.

Rob Roy said:

Bad things happen when things that are wrong for you and I to do, are "not wrong" for other people to do even if they have been anointed as "leaders" or elected officials etc.

You should be in charge of yourself, but not in charge of others, until or unless the other voluntarily agrees on an individual basis to something else or has somehow violated YOUR rights. You get the benefit and the consequences of your choices then, so does everyone else. In that scenario everyone is equal in their ability to self determine. If they aren't equal in their ability to self determine, calling those people "equal" to others is the wrong term to use.

I like to default to the idea that other people own themselves. If I am their equal in the rights sense, then it follows that I own myself. Pretty easy. Not selfish, in a negative sense, it's respectful.

Click to expand...

Makes it hard to stay interested when you cherry pick six words and only reply to that, but not the other points.

Rob Roy said:

I may respond to this a bit later. It's ripe with opportunity. Thank you.

Click to expand...

Please do. Start with the native americans, you know, an otherwise peaceful group of people.

mooray said:

So...in your mind? Just knowing that you can be forced to do something is creating duress?

Click to expand...

No that's not what I'm referring to.

I am referring to the ever present threat which is omnipresent, arbitrary, inconsistent and self evidently contradictory on it's face. You just defended that omnipresence as being a desirable thing if it's the foundation for what you erroneously called "society" , when you really meant government.

I don't default to the idea that it's okay for SOME people to initiate aggression, but not for others, so we can create a thing that will protect us from those who might initiate aggression. To do so would be to use circular reasoning, and not very smart.

I am only pointing out reality, I might add. I don't default to an assumption that I must be ruled arbitrarily by people that claim to simultaneously be my rulers and servants (wtf?) all the while making rules they insist I follow so "we can all be equal" is silly. It is laden with contradiction, absurd and quite laughable.

In my mind I will always be free. In the present legal landscape, neither you or I are free to behave as free and peaceful people without unjust consequences. With that as a given, we are BOTH placed under duress, you just accept it more than I do.

mooray said:

Start with the native americans, you know, an otherwise peaceful group of people.

Click to expand...

Okay. Which ones?

Until then, I'm going with "native americans" are a broad and diverse population with varying habits and beliefs. Some good, some bad, just like most people all over the world.


But, I get your point, many were fucked over by those who used unjust practices to acquire property. Which only furthers my argument that might or a majority doesn't make right.

Rob Roy said:

No that's not what I'm referring to.

I am referring to the ever present threat which is omnipresent, arbitrary, inconsistent and self evidently contradictory on it's face. You just defended that omnipresence as being a desirable thing if it's the foundation for what you erroneously called "society" , when you really meant government.

I don't default to the idea that it's okay for SOME people to initiate aggression, but not for others, so we can create a thing that will protect us from those who might initiate aggression. To do so would be to use circular reasoning, and not very smart.

I am only pointing out reality, I might add. I don't default to an assumption that I must be ruled arbitrarily by people that claim to simultaneously be my rulers and servants (wtf?) all the while making rules they insist I follow so "we can all be equal" is silly. It is laden with contradiction, absurd and quite laughable.

In my mind I will always be free. In the present legal landscape, neither you or I are free to behave as free and peaceful people without unjust consequences. With that as a given, we are BOTH placed under duress, you just accept it more than I do.

Click to expand...

Did you forget you adderall this morning, Dr. Digression? Just trying to get you to tell me when was the last time someone forced you to do something.