This reminds me of Joe Dirt: “Hey you’re talking to my guy all wrong, that’s the wrong tone…do it again, I’ll stab you in the face with a soldering iron.”
Where can I learn this forums rules about tone so as not to violate them again?
He is acting coercively. Involuntarily, as in against voluntary contract. Perhaps that was not very clear. Hope that clears things up.
That is why I am going to law school. [:)]
Key prefix- EX.
#2 and #4 in particular.
What if I refuse your contract? Certainly then you cannot impose it on me “involuntarily” (against my will) without violating your own rule.
Anyway, the society of “each person must have the permission of everyone else in order to do anything” is a failure by default. It can’t work. Try again.
In that case, you would be initiating aggression once you step on his property.
No kid, there’s no such thing as an ex-murderer.
Those rules are a joke. You can’t abide them even if you try! The guy clearly didn’t think them through before he wrote them. Take for example #2 “You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false”
Pablo failed that test about a 100 times and you haven’t warned him. And how is anyone to know whether he really “knows” it is false or not? LOL! I’d like to follow the rules, but nobody can take those seriously, or even follow them, even if they wanted to.
For example: “Debate on their views and positions is allowed and encouraged, but this site may not be used as a forum for…spreading ideas contrary to the well being of the Institute.” What constitutes well being??? And how can anyone know if their ideas are contrary to it?
“Healthy debate is encouraged…do not belittle someone else’s argument.” [+o(] How can you debate without disproving (and thereby belittling) someone’s argument? I could write more coherent rules on mushrooms. In fact I should, just to prove a point.
What constitutues aggression of property with a coherent theory of property rights, or indeed in the admitted absence of rights whatsoever? Or even/especially without a theory of justice???
Please don’t call me kid. If you can’t maintain an intelligent debate, and not resort to name calling, then I will not continue to respond to you.
Perhaps there is no such thing as an ex-murderer, but there is such thing as an ex-cop and and ex-soldier, which is what I was referring to. There is however a large difference between someone who realizes they are/were in the wrong and changes the way they are acting, and someone who does not. It is a very difficult thing to do, and I give much credit to Juan for achieving this. Perhaps you can take a little knowledge from him, and admit some of the subjective viewpoints that you have been portraying as objective truths. Just a thought.
I never admitted to any absence of rights whatsoever. That is a strawman. I specifically stated what rights are and where they come from.
I proved that a ‘theory of justice’ is simply a set of subjective values enforced on others.
Regardless of what you think of the rules, they are there. If you participate in this community, abide by them as best you can. If you do not understand the rules, start a thread in the support forum and ask. But just because you hold them in low esteem, does not mean they do not apply to you on this private website.
Yes, but that’s at odds with natural law and competitive providers of rights-protection (not providers of legislation)
Yes. But I know that a violator of property rights doesn’t forfeit his right to life.
Newsflash : libertarianism is built upon human rights. Get it ? Rights that humans have because we are … human. So, no czar is needed.
I see you are another ‘anarcho’ conservative who rejects libertarianism ? If that’s what you’re getting at because otherwise, I should ask what’s the relevance of ‘cultural differences’ and ‘religious viewpoints’ ?
Fine. What the hell has that got to do with your failed attempts at justifying murder ?
No. That’s true for manufactured objects, not for land which was certainly not ‘created’ by the owner, but was just there, or was created by ‘god’ (choose your pick)
Even allowing that, it doesn’t follow he can use his property or his body to aggress against other people and, get this, killing the thief is unjustified aggression.
How is murder “ethically binding in human society” ?
Oh really ?
Boy you’re confused. You’re saying that justice doesn’t exist because two murdering gangs, aka states dont’t abide by it. Amazing argument…
Governments own the land - they define what “owning” means. You don’t like it ? Well, you can always leave…
And, of course, you have not proved that non-proportional force is justified.
But that begs the question, “Justified to whom?”
Well, justified to anybody interested in universal ethics, human rights and libertarianism, that sort of thing. Obviously right wingers/conservatives/moral nihilists/ex cops might have a different ‘subjective opinion’…
If one has the right to defend oneself, which hopefully you agree with, then one has the right to defend ones property because the property is just an extension of yourself. It is your energy and labor that created the property. What you are arguing is that the people have no right to defend their property under any circumstances.
So you come home from work one day and some guy is taking a sledge hammer to your house and you are forced to sit and watch because to take action would be an act of aggression against the guy destroying your house. That makes perfect sense.
I am asking seriously, if restitution and retribution are subjective (I believe they are), then surely it is impossible to arrive at an objective level of proportionality, right?
See, I’m ok with arriving at conventions for punishment and self-defense. But I don’t suspect you are. Which is why I am asking, who decides what the objective standard of proportionality is?
Try again without the Ad homs. I’m not being confrontational. [;)]
Well, but the whole point is that Maxie just keeps on advocating murder (his old job).
I’m not sure what it is that you don’t understand. He was a criminal and he is still advocating crime.
No sonny, I don’t see why I should pay any attention to Maxie’s subjective viewpoints, or yours for that matter.
My mortal enemy and I agree on something. 2 more instances and we will be ready for sainthood.