Well, as far as I’m concerned, my question has been answered. So the thread is done. I told you what was on my mind. I admitted there was a point you were right about. But that’s it for me, my mind is still made up about the military.
But yeah, I’m perfectly willing to take about how to approach people who believe in economic fallacies. Also your favorite sports and music, because I’m a cool guy.
This is the problem with many pro-government and religious people (no offense intended to those of you that are religious). They think without God or country, we would have chaos. Do you really not kill because the government tells you not to do it? Or is it some other reason? You really think that without a government, there would be no consequences to theft, rape, or murder?
Hmm, I wonder why the government has to make it illegal for people to opt out? Oh, not really. It is because the government people know that everyone would opt out. Way to avoid answering the question.
You ignorance of common law is showing through. The plantiff made the accusation that the market is a more efficient means of delivering goods and services than the government. You, the defendant, have agreed, except in specific situations. This is an affimative defennse. The burder of proof then shifts to you. Prove the exception.
Remember, I used to be one of them pro government (limited) people… I know exactly what wall he is hitting, and the problem is what brought me across he refuses to read…
I dunno, do you usually walk around with very valuable things or drive a really nice car because if you do, it’s not me you’re gonna need to worry about, it’ll be whoever sees you.
I never said anything about signing a contract. You’re throwing in things I never brought up. Signing a contract is a stronger issue. I had in mind lying to somebody about slaves in the basement during the Underground Railroad. I think that’s a good lie. I wouldn’t let anybody know that they were there.
I’m gonna try to end this on a good note. This thread is over. I answered your questions, you answered mine, I remain a limited government enthusiast. I know you want converts but you have to earn them.
I think your ideas are cool but not realistic. Some of them make sense, some are based on PREDICTIONS I myself cannot make.
As long as I’m in the majority, you have to convince me that your system is better than the current one. Until you do, I will remain…skeptical and a Republican rather than an anarchist.
That’s all for now though. It’s time to take a break when someone calls me a Nazi lol.
Logic in human action is morality in action. That’s it’s definition no way around that, but you’ll reject that cause you don’t understand basic definitions that have been around for thousands of years: to judge your actions is to perform morality.
What was it you read? I used to be minimalist government as well, what brought me over was the arguments made on this forum. But I would be interested in knowing what convinced you. Maybe I can get my wife to read it.
I am talking about lying. Lying when siging a contract is still lying. I am just pointing out the relativism of morality. Lying is not always wrong. Neither is killing another human. Neither is taking property from another person without his or her consent (I guess stealing would imply the person’s property was legitimately owned, and as such is always wrong).