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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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..
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.