is this the middle ages?

Roger A. Shrubber said:

where did this private security force go?
if you're maintaining control over your property, that has to effect your neighbors....so you're asserting your rights are more important than theirs? and how did you "justly acquire" this property? did you buy it? from who? how did you find out who to buy it from, without invading their privacy? what if hunters want to hunt on it? do you have a right to keep armed men from hunting? do they have a right to ignore you, since you don't own the deer? they aren't hunting your property, just transient deer....what about the old couple that have been taking walks through the woods since before you were born, but now you've bought their woods, and they can't walk there anymore? what about their rights?....you have all these ideas, and it doesn't seem like any two of them work together.....

Click to expand...

Unclebaldrick said:

Yeah, show me the regulations currently banning you from trying to work out a problem with your neighbor.

In your scenario, what happens when your neighbor tells you to "get fucked"?

Still winning.

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

Are you saying if the problem can't be worked out with your neighbor, even if it is clearly evident they are the source of the problem, that you don't have a right to use defensive force or seek assistance to do so?

I don't mean to be rude, but you can't be winning, since you so obviously have failed to address the collateral damage scenario. I'm sorry, I know you're crushed. Someday I'll let you win something inconsequential, so you can feel good.

Click to expand...

Unclebaldrick said:

Yeah, thanks for playing, loser.

There is nothing strawman about my argument. This is a real world scenario that people have had to live with since the country was founded and long before. And you have no answer for it that is consistent with your line of bullshit.

Because you are a :

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

I apologize, but I'm not sure which point you think you've made and which of mine it rebuts.

Would you please put your amazingly astute observation in the form of a statement or question so that I may address it ?

Click to expand...

Unclebaldrick said:

What problem? That's private property. Are you saying that your neighbor doesn't have a right to run his private car on private property? What right do you have to say that? What if your neighbor doesn't consent to this so called "right"? And now you want to use offensive force to stop him from exercising his rights of private property?

Fucking sad. Why do you want to enslave people?

Click to expand...

Unclebaldrick said:

Nah, You being a loser doesn't depend on your consent that you are a loser. Some things are just self evident. Like the fact that several of us have clearly illustrated that your pathetic worldview would be a nightmare.

This is why we formed a government that still exists despite the non-consent of a bunch of sociopaths.

Sorry, you lose every day you wake up in that society and are governed by those laws. If you were half a man you would find a nice post and sail into international waters where you can be free.

Click to expand...

schuylaar said:

you don't know that.

why did you let @Fogdog get the best of you..you're smarter than he is..jus' sayin'

Click to expand...

Unclebaldrick said:

Hit reply to see my reply.

Click to expand...

londonfog said:

WOW. So you are basically instigating shit. And you wonder why your daughter hates you and your ex left you. People like you make the world horrible.

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

Private security - Didn't you just say you weren't worried about a fracas at your cook out, because you were a tough guy? That is an instance of private security. Also, if you were a pipsqueak posting on a pot forum pretending to be a tough guy, you could still have a mutual aid agreement with your friends to ensure security couldn't you? You could also hire somebody, there are lots of possibilities.

My rights don't extend to controlling other people's bodies and their property using offensive force. They do include defending my body and my property though. Do you have any disagreement with that? Why?

Click to expand...

Roger A. Shrubber said:

yes, that's exactly what i'm saying....and what your saying directly contradicts what you've already said...who hires that security force? who tells them what to do? who ever it is is forcing everyone else to do what they say with their security forces, whether they like it or not.....
try again

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

So, you're saying you'd travel down a private road to dump trash on another persons property and they're okay with it ? You might consider finding some new friends, but it should be up to you, to decide who you're going to associate with. I've certainly got no right to prevent you from associating with your trashy friends.

The point you seem to miss,...it appears you've made a mutual and voluntary consensual agreement. To be blunt, your dumping trash analogy is trashy, since the one where you'd force a black guy to serve you, ISN'T a mutual and voluntary consensual agreement is it ? FAIL.

Click to expand...

Unclebaldrick said:

And why she sits at home alone on Thanksgiving waiting for an electronic funds transfer while contemplating her next lawsuit - against Chase's systematic war against her.

Click to expand...

Unclebaldrick said:

And why she sits at home alone on Thanksgiving waiting for an electronic funds transfer while contemplating her next lawsuit - against Chase's systematic war against her.

Click to expand...

londonfog said:

You play stupid pretty well when needed. The dumping of trash is not on your property so you can't say or do shit about it. Apparently the person who owns the property seemingly does not care about the trash being dump. It is none of your business who owns the property because it is not yours. Remember you believe "You can't delegate a right you don't possess" . The only right you have is ON your property.
So STFU and enjoy the trash view.

Click to expand...

londonfog said:

Her Thanksgiving meal was some slices of turkey and ham from Publix deli. We call it a sandwich. She calls it a Thanksgiving feast.
She then spent the rest of the night in bed with her puppy..." rubbing his belly "

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

I spent the night feeding the thanksgiving scraps to the property right violators chained in my basement. I do have a heart y'know.

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

Don't be a dick. I mean you can if you want to, but don't be a dick. It makes you a not nice person.

Click to expand...

Roger A. Shrubber said:

well, that's not what you've been saying....what you've been saying is that there should be no security forces at all, because they're coercive.
you didn't offer an option, you just said we shouldn't have a coercive central authority. then you said that private security forces were ok.....pick one.
"private security" implies the hiring of others to protect my person and property...me being able to defend myself, as you just said, isn't the same thing.
why would your "friends" help you? how do they know you have a legitimate grievance? who decides that? you ? your friends? what means do you use? what is an acceptable limit? who sets those limits?....you? your world CANNOT exist....CANNOT....that many contradictions in that short of a period of time, in that small of an area, would break space time and form a black hole........

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

No, I've never said there should be no security forces. I said they should exist via voluntary free market interactions and they shouldn't be limited to a single central coercion based authority.


The answer to some of the questions you ask is because in a noncoercion based market, feedback matters. Not so much in a coercion based security scenario.

I'll let you think about that for a bit.

Not to be rude, but my explanations have been on point and some of the "arguments" here have been rather trashy.

Click to expand...