Please read some of my other posts to other users on this thread.
In the very beginning he fails if it is Rothbard he is trying to disprove:
-
Rothbard contends that slave contracts are perfectly legal. However, the term of service is not in any legal sense binding since it would be literally impossible for me to guarantee that I will never change my mind, no matter how certain I am at the beginning.
-
If, then, the contract transfers title of property of the purchaser (i.e. money from the master to me for my services), then it is a legally binding contract to purchase my labor, and if I take the money and do not provide the labor, I am commiting theft.
Read the other posts to other people that I have responded to. I’m pretty sure I answered your question already in this thread. If you refuse the contract, then you are not bound by any of the stipulations in the contract. You are not affected by that particular contract.
The problem comes when someone acts INVOLUNTARILY. They choose involuntarily over voluntarily acting. The person to whom they are violating can then choose any reaction.
Just as ‘subjective’ as your attempts at justifying murder, but way less deranged. If we’re going to play the “everything-is-subjective” game, that is…
Haha. You think you made a clever remark ?
edit : force is measured in Newtons [ (kg.m)/s^2 ] - there are other units of course.
You haven’t answered the question. I am trying to prove a point, so you have to answer the question directly. Allow me to rephrase:
Me: Where do rights come from?
Pablo: Voluntary agreements.
Me: Suppose I refuse your terms. How would you have rights then?
[EDIT: Logically, it follows that if rights are strictly the result of voluntary contracts, then in the absence of agreement, rights cease to exist. But rights must always exist, or we wouldn’t be able to do anything. And since, being humans, we MUST constantly do something (see Human Action or Man Economy and State) then it follows that we have rights, whether we are sure what they are or not. Thus, you have a failed theory of rights, and you need to start from the beginning and learn a valid theory of rights in order to even be able to begin debating rationally in this topic.]
[:)] Yes.
So however hard he picked up that bubble gum, is as hard as I can take it back…? Ahah! I think we finally agree. It takes relatively the same amount of force to aim, and pull the trigger! [:P]
All kidding aside…
Its really important to realize that proportional force can not be measured, and therefor is irrelevant as a tool for calculating just behavior or actions.
Bull. Lying is NOT tolerated.
hashem, a post gets more points the more replies it has.
Define what you mean by rights?
I dont need to have a right in order to act. Rights dont need to exist. Your logic does not follow. I need no authority to act. I am responsible for my actions, but I need no others approval in order to act.
Is that kinda like needing rights in order to act? [:P]
Where did I accuse someone of saying that?
Because? Being vocal isn’t an argument. If history is a good indicator I am assuming your argument will be wrong, but I am listening.
I am confused as to what you are accusing me of lying about. Can you show me what you are referencing?
ps. accusing someone of lying without evidence is pretty childish behavior.
Yeah well. Another thing that can’t really be measured or known is intent. So, you bump into somebody, by accident (?). But the guy sees it as aggression - so next thing you know, you are dead. Of course he shot you - a clear case of self-defense. You’re not complaining are you ?
Or maybe you scratched his car ? You won’t complain if the car owner shoots you will you ? I mean, how can we even know you didn’t do it on purpose ? Well, you offer to pay damages but the car owner thinks it’s better to kill you so that you can’t do it again.
Hm. Maybe you’re sitting at the bar and mistakenly grab another customer’s glass ? Or maybe you tried to steal it ? Bang. You’re dead.
I’m sure a few more absurd situations can be thought of to further the reductio-ad-absurdum of your absurd theory of non-rights.
Well, pasting a link, like you did, is an argument with less-than-zero value.
Why bring it up if that’s not what you think others are saying?
Yeah, I can counter every attempt you make to get out of your predicament.
Me: “I wasn’t saying any particular person on the forums was saying that.”
What are you saying? If you are intentionally being bothersome, can you please stop.
I’m saying that you’re attempting to backpedal after your strawman was noted. Please stop being so dishonest and disingenuous. Thanks.
If you are on property that says this is the law, then yes, he would be within his rights to shoot you. Fortunately for consumers, businesses SERVE the consumer, and more likely than not, won’t allow this.
Once again, if you are on a road/parking lot thats owner states this is the law, then yes, you should not scratch anyones car. Once again, Business SERVES consumers, so I am not worried about this case taking place. If it does, well, good luck to the owner of that road/parking lot. You are also excluding the human factor from these scenarios. How many people who are willing to shoot someone over a bump or car scratch are really going to give a shit about what the law stipulates? I doubt the first thing that goes through anyones head that gets bumped into is “If I shot this guy, would I go to jail?”.
A beautiful blond walks into a bar, asks the bartender for a long island iced tea. Thirty seconds later, the bartender sets her drink on the counter. A man approaches the woman and taps her on the shoulder, she turns. “Can I get you a drink?”, he asks. “Nope, I got one right here” she exclaims picking up her drink. BANG! Shes dead.
ORRRR. The bar owner understands that he needs to serve the customer if he wants to remain in business. The man sitting next to the blond is not insane, and realizes shooting random people just because the law says he can, doesn’t mean he wants to.
What do you think about the laws for necrophilia? Do you need a law to make you not have sex with corpses?
There was no strawman. I was simply defining my own term. Thanks for your consideration.