Teacher fired for breaking up fight.
- Thread starter ginwilly
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
My entire philosophy relies on respecting others right to self determination, even when I don't like their thoughts.
I advocate respect.
Yours relies on an edict backed by force that says it is okay for some people to make others use their property in ways they prefer not to. You advocate violence.
My philosophy is one where people that I don't agree with are free to live their way as long as they do not force that on others.
Your philosophy finds it acceptable to initiate aggression, mine does not.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You still haven't explained which things you think individuals can / should be able to own.
What about the non aggression principle do you find objectionable?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
"Which country", bumpkin.
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
^^^doesn't that suit get hot?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm opposed to coercion. Coercion can happen in many ways. The kind most people don't recognize is the kind where some people "do good" by initiating aggression. That would be the kind of coercion you practice, just like a prohibitionist.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I had a friend that used to remark on very hot days, that it was a good day to be in a sleeping bag with a fat girl in an attic.
The suit is not that hot.
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
^^^cool bro^^^
remember: salt pills
just sayin'
While I have your attention,
Isn't the main barrier to the level of freedom you wish a logistical nightmare?
In addition, in the absence of any other powerful institution, is this not a recipe for corporate hegemony?
remember: salt pills
just sayin'
While I have your attention,
Isn't the main barrier to the level of freedom you wish a logistical nightmare?
In addition, in the absence of any other powerful institution, is this not a recipe for corporate hegemony?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No. Corporations can only wreak their bullshit WITH the protection of a coercive government. A corporate protection shield would not exist in a noncoercive "society". That is one step to ensuring individuals are held accountable for their actions.
Thanks for the tip on the salt. A little lime and tequila would help too.
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
Ok. Very abstract as well as skeletal.
Street level: where does an individual seek redress against walmart et al in this freedomfest of which you dream?
iow: flesh it out more rr, as opposed to one-liners, and give me a brief run-down of this type of society if you care to.
Doer
Well-Known Member
No way. You are more or less, PINK, and BLACK doesn't exist as a skin tone.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Wherefore doth thine non-aggression principal reconcile upon exclusive deed regarding innate wherewithal?
Doer
Well-Known Member
I used to think it ended at my nose. Now I know it is your nose. 
You best stay beyond arms length, if you cannot temper your speech.
Of course, I can always move forward, 10 feet in less than 1 sec.
BTW, just curious, why do you think I am non-aggressive? Don't think that.
You best stay beyond arms length, if you cannot temper your speech.
Of course, I can always move forward, 10 feet in less than 1 sec.
BTW, just curious, why do you think I am non-aggressive? Don't think that.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Except for wage slavery. You're not opposed to that sort of coercion.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm opposed to parasites claiming part of a persons labor. I favor a person being free to make arrangements with others that want to make arrangements with them regarding their labor.
Also you have not mentioned which kinds of property you object to people owning and which you are okay with them owning.
As an aside I have not pissed my pants while drinking heavily with fat guys. Nor have I abused somebodies property by shitting on their clean floors.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I posted a link in response to London Fogs inquiry. I skimmed the article, but confess I have not read it all. You might find the article interesting. Have a great day.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Lemme guess Shakespeare? Okay just kidding.
You were talking who can "own" land etc. right?
Doer
Well-Known Member
I might take your wallet for the ID, against any payback, but I don't need your money.
If the band needs to fight we fight, even if it is only me. it has nothing to do with State or Tribe.
"Why did you shoot, Wild Bill????"
"He meant me harm."
Deadwood, 1878
In Wing Chun and Akido, (which I train in also to be less than lethal)
...the first move is on the Yuki. All my attacks are based on that initial move, And I count the, in your face, chest butting, "What are gonna do!" as an initial move.
Oh, did I accidentally stomp your instep, weight that leg and pop your knee forward, and you go down on your face as I "help"?
Woops. Me so clumsy.
If the band needs to fight we fight, even if it is only me. it has nothing to do with State or Tribe.
"Why did you shoot, Wild Bill????"
"He meant me harm."
Deadwood, 1878
In Wing Chun and Akido, (which I train in also to be less than lethal)
...the first move is on the Yuki. All my attacks are based on that initial move, And I count the, in your face, chest butting, "What are gonna do!" as an initial move.
Oh, did I accidentally stomp your instep, weight that leg and pop your knee forward, and you go down on your face as I "help"?
Woops. Me so clumsy.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No you aren't. You advocate for the capital class to own resources and infrastructure despite the fact that they create no wealth. Labor creates all wealth. By simply owning these things, laborers are coerced to rent themselves out and give up not only a portion but majority of the wealth that they create.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Hey Rob. I worked on my Bike this weekend. Heavy job. Had to get the starter out to take the throttle bodies out to replace a throttle cable.
But, I could not have designed that bike. Not all jobs are equal. That is the red herring of the debate.
You want us to buy the idea that only the workers work, and the managers of marketing, finance, IT, etc are worthless. But, there would be nothing to work on but woven baskets without the entire interlocking infrastructure of RISK.
The bottom has low risk and a steady paycheck. It gets more risky and less steady as you move up.
In life we get paid to be assigned some risk, and to take responsibility for that risk.
That pays more. The more you risk, the more you have,
But, I could not have designed that bike. Not all jobs are equal. That is the red herring of the debate.
You want us to buy the idea that only the workers work, and the managers of marketing, finance, IT, etc are worthless. But, there would be nothing to work on but woven baskets without the entire interlocking infrastructure of RISK.
The bottom has low risk and a steady paycheck. It gets more risky and less steady as you move up.
In life we get paid to be assigned some risk, and to take responsibility for that risk.
That pays more. The more you risk, the more you have,