Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you can't tell 20% of 350,000,000 people they can't do something they want to do.
Of course you can. In fact, that's largely the govt's job. Some still will do things illegal anyway, obviously, but then they risk punishment if caught.
Quote:
When are we going to learn that all of these things will always exist, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone other than those who decide to participate in them, then why do you care?
"Aren't hurting anyone" is not a cut and dry thing to say the least, and is highly subjective. Personally I also think it sets the bar rather low, but that's me.
"Our" government legislates IMmorality. It has institutionalized theft, extortion, and initiations of force of all sorts. This immorality is the basis of our entire society. We are the result of a system that has abandoned the pursuit and protection of individual freedom and has regressed into a system of collective victimization and bondage.
"Our" government legislates IMmorality. It has institutionalized theft, extortion, and initiations of force of all sorts. This immorality is the basis of our entire society. We are the result of a system that has abandoned the pursuit and protection of individual freedom and has regressed into a system of collective victimization and bondage.
No, we have evolved from a cluster of agrarian villages to a huge complex technological nation. You want to see "victimization"? Watch what would happen in a nation of 330-million, all with the ability to use high tech to victimize each other, or to form powerful corporations with strong incentives to victimize the masses, without any central regulation or control of people's identities or activities. The government is the antidote to a victimization that has become possible through the individual freedom to victimize.
You want to GIVE individuals unrestricted power to victimize each other, and to gather into unrestricted 'corporations' whose sole purpose for existence is to institutionalize theft, extortion and force. No thanks.
No, we have evolved from a cluster of agrarian villages to a huge complex technological nation. You want to see "victimization"? Watch what would happen in a nation of 330-million, all with the ability to use high tech to victimize each other, or to form powerful corporations with strong incentives to victimize the masses, without any central regulation or control of people's identities or activities. The government is the antidote to a victimization that has become possible through the individual freedom to victimize.
You want to GIVE individuals unrestricted power to victimize each other, and to gather into unrestricted 'corporations' whose sole purpose for existence is to institutionalize theft, extortion and force. No thanks.
I do not believe that anyone should be able to initiate force, period. Government is just the biggest armed crime organization. I would not "give" individuals the ability to initiate force any more than I would give the GODvernment that same power.
You may believe that a centralized omnipotent aggressive force, government, is ideal, and that is fine. However I believe that belief is the exact opposite of what is needed for maximum practicable individual freedom for every person without arbitrary special interests imposing themselves through governmental acts, er laws of "justified" aggression.
I have only one moral foundation, to obey a non-aggression philosophy. Anyone, for any "noble" reason, who uses initiations of force to impose their will, aggression, is evil. We can agree to disagree, but I wanted to state that I was not, nor will I ever, advocate any person, group, or government initiating force against any person, group, or government. Furthermore, any individual that initiates force, should be swiftly and severely retaliated against to restore justice to the individual who was acted against.
Furthermore, any individual that initiates force, should be swiftly and severely retaliated against to restore justice to the individual who was acted against.
.
By whom? How are legitimate disputes resolved? The quickest draw? Have you ever thought this through?
If I build a house on land that you claim is yours, how is the dispute to be resolved, using neither force nor some form of governmental arbitration? If there is a road between my village and yours, who gets to use that road and under what circumstances? Without using force or governmental arbitration? Upon whose property shall the road lie?
Acts that don't inherently harm non-consenting individuals should not be criminalized, period. Criminalizing such personal choices is simply fascist.
People are worried about the govt raiding their house for their guns.. no, that's not happening. But 100s of drug raids happen every day. Open your eyes people.
On another note, prostitution is another personal choice that doesn't inherently harm non-consenting adults. It's such a ridiculous law that all you have to do is film it and sell the film, and it becomes legal porn.
I would assume that you have been exposed to at least some libertarian or non-aggression "anarchist" philosophies. Personally, I think that Rothbard had best described conflict resolution by "free-market" forces, but there are numerous others who describe the "impossible" quite nicely.
I think that you are, as many people do instinctively, failing to distinguish between initiation of force and retaliatory force. Initiations of force are never just. Retaliatory force is just in that it serves to restore the pre-aggression state. Repeat, I am NOT against retaliatory force against those who initiate force.
I would assume that you have been exposed to at least some libertarian or non-aggression "anarchist" philosophies. Personally, I think that Rothbard had best described conflict resolution by "free-market" forces, but there are numerous others who describe the "impossible" quite nicely.
I think that you are, as many people do instinctively, failing to distinguish between initiation of force and retaliatory force. Initiations of force are never just. Retaliatory force is just in that it serves to restore the pre-aggression state. Repeat, I am NOT against retaliatory force against those who initiate force.
Live and let live.
You said a mouthful. I've been exposed to libertarian philosophy plummeting free-fall through every thread.
You have not explained how you and I resolve the ownership disagreement over the property on which I have built my house. Which of us is initiating force, and which of us us retaliating, when I use property that we both claim? Which I'm sure you can answer quickly, since you find the distinction to be so abundantly obvious, and clear to all parties, without the aid of an intermediary.
Put a few people on a desert island, and disputes will arise. Designate a method of resolving those disputes, and you have just introduced government to the island, or resorted to force. Take your pick.
Watch what would happen in a nation of 330-million, ... to form powerful corporations with strong incentives to victimize the masses, without any central regulation or control of people's identities or activities.
We already have this, it's called Wall Street.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.