prostitution, should it be legal?

UncleBuck said:
interesting.

you claim that being denied entry or facing higher prices or having less options to choose from (competition) causes harm.

gee, retard, what do you think happened before civil rights outlawed denial of service to blacks based on skin color?

congratulation, you racist fucking stooge, you just defeated your own argument.

dumb fuck.
Click to expand...

Not really. If more people are allowed to participate in a given market (by removing regulations that cause barriers to entry) the likelihood that any person of any race will find another to trade with INCREASES.

By the way, you aren't very bright are you?
 
UncleBuck said:
a racist who hails racists as his heroes. surprising.
Click to expand...

Even for you that's a stretch. I don't know if Rand Paul is a racist or not.

I'm not though as I think all people should control their own body and their own justly acquired property. You don't believe that. You think it is okay for some idiots to shit on other peoples property....oh wait that was you! Damn poopy pants change yo diaper!

I really can't stay and chat with you, I do miss you though.....perhaps another time?
 
Rob Roy said:
Not really. If more people are allowed to participate in a given market (by removing regulations that cause barriers to entry) the likelihood that any person of any race will find another to trade with INCREASES.

By the way, you aren't very bright are you?
Click to expand...

you just said that "barriers to entry" and "higher prices" and less "competition" cause harm.

what do you think the blacks were facing every day across the south before civil rights laws were passed?

you have defeated your own argument because you are a retarded racist cowardly hypocrite.
 
UncleBuck said:
you just said that "barriers to entry" and "higher prices" and less "competition" cause harm.

what do you think the blacks were facing every day across the south before civil rights laws were passed?

you have defeated your own argument because you are a retarded racist cowardly hypocrite.
Click to expand...


The barriers to entry in a given market that blacks faced were DUE to coercive government prohibiting them or others from interacting dipshit. You are wearing your shirt inside out and your underwear on your head in a fine parade of shitstained logic.
 
Rob Roy said:
The barriers to entry in a given market that blacks faced were DUE to coercive government prohibiting them or others from interacting dipshit.
Click to expand...

please point to the law that said that hotels had to refuse service to blacks or gas stations had to charge them twice as much or lunch counters had to deny them a meal.

otherwise, just apologize for lying and accept your self ownage, racist retard.
 
Rob Roy said:
Replacing the cook when cooking a shit covered meatloaf will not make the meat loaf wholesome. Some are better at hiding the shit smell for a while....that's all.

The system relies on coercion, rather than voluntary participation. It also grants a monopoly on the use of force to the coercive people, EVEN if an individual is defending himself or simply wants to be left alone to interact with those that want to interact with him on a peaceful and voluntary basis. I reject coercion, therefore to be consistent I cannot embrace a system that has it as an integral part of its foundation.

So no, Rand Paul is not a step in the right direction for me. He is smarter than most of the other douchebags, likely a result of his dad who knows a good deal about economics etc. I do think he is less douchy than many of the other douchebags that will be paraded around in the upcoming mock election.

Alternatives? If there is no alternative to not have a "leader" , "master", head douche etc. then it is only a contest to chose who will make the less evil master. I stepped away from that trap.


The best alternative is nobody for my appointed leader, I do fine without one.
Click to expand...
So you reject pragmatism, in favor of having no say in which asshole gets to direct the coercion?

To me, the perfect should not impede the better
 
UncleBuck said:
you guys both oppose the civil rights act, thus you are both racist.
Click to expand...

You have a penis, or so you imply, thus you are a rapist. You have an ax, so you are a serial ax murderer. Hey wait that doesn't make sense and neither do you.

I oppose coercive government intervening in a private persons life and threatening force if a private property owner who remains on his property chooses not to interact with another person that he'd rather not interact with. It is a matter of principle, if somebody "owns" something they have a right to chose the use of it, not others. Implied within that belief is that nobody, even your beloved nanny state, has a right to make others use their body or property in ways they'd prefer not to, which means I oppose legislatively imposed "slavery". Of course I extend that belief that persons of any race have the right to determine how or if they will use their body or property in certain ways. I am consistent, you are not.

A person could oppose the so called civil rights and be a racist, but it isn't always the case. A racist believes in the inherent superiority of one race over another. I tend to view people as individuals so, no I'm not a racist, although I do think what you do to gerbils is violative of some kinds of common decency.
 
SmokeyDan said:
So you reject pragmatism, in favor of having no say in which asshole gets to direct the coercion?

To me, the perfect should not impede the better
Click to expand...

The level of heat in the boiling pot? It is a good thing to turn it down to avoid burning....better to turn it off.
 
UncleBuck said:
please point to the law that said that hotels had to refuse service to blacks or gas stations had to charge them twice as much or lunch counters had to deny them a meal.

otherwise, just apologize for lying and accept your self ownage, racist retard.
Click to expand...



How about the one regarding public education? Plessy v Ferguson I think was the one from 1896 that said schools were "separate but equal".

Also, if a private lodging facility did not want to serve a person, the way to peacefully solve that problem is not to remove the owners right of property ownership and tell him how he must use his property. As long as the owner is not going onto somebody else property or making another person involuntarily serve them, he has not committed an actionable harm has he?

If you own something, you should not have others dictate the use of it, nor should any of us dictate the use of things we do not own. Do you agree with that Mr. Prohibitionist or will you avoid that question too?

The way to peacefully resolve the situation is for another person to start a business (or be allowed to start one without a lot of regulatory bullshit) that recognizes the value of serving ready willing and able customers on the basis of their ability to pay rather than on the basis of race. Competition for paying customers will eventually expand the market for the non racist and decrease the market for the person who excludes people on the basis of race.

You never explained how you can avoid "enslaving" a person if you legislatively force them to use their property or body in ways they prefer not to. I expect you will avoid that topic.
 
UncleBuck said:
please point to the law that said that hotels had to refuse service to blacks or gas stations had to charge them twice as much or lunch counters had to deny them a meal.

otherwise, just apologize for lying and accept your self ownage, racist retard.
Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:
How about the one regarding public education? Plessy v Ferguson I think was the one from 1896 that said schools were "separate but equal".

Also, if a private lodging facility did not want to serve a person, the way to peacefully solve that problem is not to remove the owners right of property ownership and tell him how he must use his property. As long as the owner is not going onto somebody else property or making another person involuntarily serve them, he has not committed an actionable harm has he?

If you own something, you should not have others dictate the use of it, nor should any of us dictate the use of things we do not own. Do you agree with that Mr. Prohibitionist or will you avoid that question too?

The way to peacefully resolve the situation is for another person to start a business (or be allowed to start one without a lot of regulatory bullshit) that recognizes the value of serving ready willing and able customers on the basis of their ability to pay rather than on the basis of race. Competition for paying customers will eventually expand the market for the non racist and decrease the market for the person who excludes people on the basis of race.

You never explained how you can avoid "enslaving" a person if you legislatively force them to use their property or body in ways they prefer not to. I expect you will avoid that topic.
Click to expand...

so in other words, you are completely unable to back up your claim that denial of service in restaurants, hotels, gas stations, and the like was mandated by law. because it wasn't.

you are a fucking racist idiot.
 
Rob Roy said:
You have a penis, or so you imply, thus you are a rapist. You have an ax, so you are a serial ax murderer. Hey wait that doesn't make sense and neither do you.

I oppose coercive government intervening in a private persons life and threatening force if a private property owner who remains on his property chooses not to interact with another person that he'd rather not interact with. It is a matter of principle, if somebody "owns" something they have a right to chose the use of it, not others. Implied within that belief is that nobody, even your beloved nanny state, has a right to make others use their body or property in ways they'd prefer not to, which means I oppose legislatively imposed "slavery". Of course I extend that belief that persons of any race have the right to determine how or if they will use their body or property in certain ways. I am consistent, you are not.

A person could oppose the so called civil rights and be a racist, but it isn't always the case. A racist believes in the inherent superiority of one race over another. I tend to view people as individuals so, no I'm not a racist, although I do think what you do to gerbils is violative of some kinds of common decency.
Click to expand...

what's to stop you from raping 8 year old boys on your own property in your retarded utopia?

and yes, you are as racist as they come.
 
Didn't you two just have this conversation? Don't both of you get bored having the same exact conversation every day?
 
londonfog said:
sometimes Rob Roy Miller gets so stuck he just ignores my question.
Click to expand...

he has still never been able to point to one single historian who agrees with him that denial of service to blacks for decades never caused nay harm, just mere indifference.

but he did say himself that less competition, higher prices, and being barred entry did cause harm. but that's totally not what happened before civil rights.

he'll just pick another part of the circle to start on, we'll go around the circle until we hit that roadblock again, and then he'll reset again.

it's hilarious to watch.
 
UncleBuck said:
what's to stop you from raping 8 year old boys on your own property in your retarded utopia?

and yes, you are as racist as they come.
Click to expand...

The thing that would stop me, is I have no inclination to do this. Perhaps you've heard there are some people that don't need a hypocritical Nanny State to tell them how to behave towards others. Also you imagine absent a coercive government that there would be no systems to ensure people can arbitrate disputes....you are wrong...again.

As far as racism goes, you make alot of claims that are in error and built on a foundation of poorly cured wet Wendy's turds. I advocate that all INDIVIDUAL people decide how they will use their own body and their own justly acquired property. You think others should decide for them, which is of course the biggest component of enslavement.

In my world people are free to exercise domain over themselves, but not over others. In your world others can go to a persons property and make them serve them, even if they don't want to. That makes you the kind of person that could justify acts that involve the initiation of force against a person for the "crime" of leaving others alone....rapist.
 
kelly4 said:
Didn't you two just have this conversation? Don't both of you get bored having the same exact conversation every day?
Click to expand...

I was thinking of asking him to wear a blonde wig to spice things up, but didn't quite know how to ask him.
 
UncleBuck said:
please point to the law that said that hotels had to refuse service to blacks or gas stations had to charge them twice as much or lunch counters had to deny them a meal.

otherwise, just apologize for lying and accept your self ownage, racist retard.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is relevant to my argument, and don't understand the point or conclusion you are making.

I don't favor price setting by a third party, the price should always be that which the service provider and the customer agree to. In a free market, if you are a person setting your hotel fare at a ridiculous price, you will lose market share to somebody that offers a similar product for a better price. The free market is the key to liberty in this respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hprincton
Democrats Set Agenda For Full Marijuana Legalization In KS, Small-Scale MMJ Cultivation In PA & Latest Cannabis Efforts In MN
Replies
0
Views
726
hprincton
hprincton
hanimmal
Janet Yellen- Treasury secretary.
Replies
7
Views
361
schuylaar
S
hanimmal
Avril Haines- Director of National Intelligence
Replies
0
Views
206
hanimmal
hanimmal
chex1111
Health Canada taking survey's for 2021 rule changes
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Egzoset
Egzoset
G
The verdict is in, and Year One of legalized cannabis in Canada was a dud
Replies
13
Views
1K
cannadan
cannadan
Back
Top