Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:39 AM
 
13,819 posts, read 5,541,058 times
Reputation: 8509

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Impossible without force. Wonderful idea. I've said over and over, I'm not interesting in ideas not based in realities.
And he sidesteps into a "yeah, not buying it, therefore, you lie" deflection. Nice.

Now I ask, in direct reference to your above quote - what, exactly, is impossible without initiating force (as applied by an entity with some "legal" right to initiate said force)? Like "mah roadz" for example. They can be built without initiating force, and it happens every day in America. On a large scale, it might be more difficult or even impractical to get voluntary agreement before doing what used to be done by force, but it would not be impossible.

So explain, what is literally impossible without some entity initiating force upon others?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
15,507 posts, read 6,387,096 times
Reputation: 4831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
He never said he supported the idea of everyone HAVING equal. He even defined equality as he does see it - "no one entity having legal ability to initiate force, regardless of the thickness of someone's wallet, or mystical piece of paper."

Nowhere in that definition does he define or espouse the theory of equal results. In the free market, where equality is defined as Gungnir defines it above, not everyone will achieve equal results, by definition. Every anarchist/libertarian understands and accepts this as feature, not a bug. Equality simply means no one person or group thereof has power to initiate force on others, which is defined (often quoted by No_Recess, in fact) as holding a higher claim on someone else's life than they have for themselves. That's equality. What the individual does with their individual freedom from aggression is up to them.

The straw man is your favorite fallacy. You reword what any of us libertarian/anarchist folks say and then argue your newly worded version. Then you label your straw man version of what was written/meant as dishonest, to fuel your appeals to ridicule and ad hominem fallacies.
Money allows force which gives that person more freedom. The free markets require force to concentrate wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:44 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,992,125 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
And he sidesteps into a "yeah, not buying it, therefore, you lie" deflection. Nice.

Now I ask, in direct reference to your above quote - what, exactly, is impossible without initiating force (as applied by an entity with some "legal" right to initiate said force)? Like "mah roadz" for example. They can be built without initiating force, and it happens every day in America. On a large scale, it might be more difficult or even impractical to get voluntary agreement before doing what used to be done by force, but it would not be impossible.

So explain, what is literally impossible without some entity initiating force upon others?
It would not be "difficult", it would be impossible. It would have been impossible for our current system without the force of government or similar entity. There are always people not wanting to go along. It's why eminent domain was created to start with.

I disagree with the way it is done today but eminent domain is a part of the Constitution. Libertarians support the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:46 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,992,125 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Money allows force which gives that person more freedom. The free markets require force to concentrate wealth.
Or the avoidance of force if you have enough money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:50 AM
 
13,819 posts, read 5,541,058 times
Reputation: 8509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Money allows force which gives that person more freedom. The free markets require force to concentrate wealth.
"Money" is a state invention to standardize trade, and I never mentioned money. I re-quoted Gungnir's defining equality as no one person or group thereof having a legal or otherwise allowed right/power to initiate force upon others.

And money can only be used for force if everyone accepts it as the ONLY medium of exchange, and that acceptance must be forced prior to money having any sort of useful power, as well as the issuing authority being an agency of force, enforcing what money is, how it is constructed, who controls its creation/issuance/destruction, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
8,278 posts, read 6,249,521 times
Reputation: 6681
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
You support free markets and you support the idea of everyone having equal. You know the two will never work together.
Where do you get that idea?

I support everyone being equal, I do not support them having equal. You'll find that only in your imagination, next to your social contract.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules • Infractions & Deletions • Who's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:52 AM
 
13,819 posts, read 5,541,058 times
Reputation: 8509
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It would not be "difficult", it would be impossible. It would have been impossible for our current system without the force of government or similar entity. There are always people not wanting to go along. It's why eminent domain was created to start with.

I disagree with the way it is done today but eminent domain is a part of the Constitution. Libertarians support the Constitution.
You keep saying impossible, but you have not proven that a road is impossible to build without eminent domain seizures. You cannot possibly prove that getting agreement from people voluntarily is impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:54 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,992,125 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Where do you get that idea?

I support everyone being equal, I do not support them having equal. You'll find that only in your imagination, next to your social contract.
As I said, some fiction. I'm not interested. Human nature will not allow it. No different than a lion and lamb never being equal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:56 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,992,125 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
You keep saying impossible, but you have not proven that a road is impossible to build without eminent domain seizures. You cannot possibly prove that getting agreement from people voluntarily is impossible.
If it was possible, there would have been no need for eminent domain. It's not up to me to prove that something could work other than how it has. We had violence and protests over the pipelines. People had no desire to cede their land. (and I agreed with them)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,829,396 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
You keep saying impossible, but you have not proven that a road is impossible to build without eminent domain seizures. You cannot possibly prove that getting agreement from people voluntarily is impossible.
The real question should be if it’s economically feasible. It’s not. It’s not really possible to completely prove a negative assertion.

Why I am a classical liberal in the Adam Smith mold some things need government to provide and roads is one of those few things.

Of course if there is a road and you are in prison that road don’t do you much good.

Last edited by whogo; 01-09-2019 at 09:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top