blah blah blah. laws are fine the way they are ?
so you are a big government social democrat.
whatever.
come back in a few years when you are more mature, can argue logically, be consistent in what you write from one post to the next etc.
i thought we had your goodbye already.
There you go, insert “murder” or “theft” for “rape” and you can see why murder and theft are illegal.
You have been emotionally compromised and you have yet to supply proof of claim. In any court, your case would be dismissed, counselor.
Without power to act, freedom to act is irrelevant.
If there is no punishment for something it’s not a crime.
Again, you are shifting the burden of proof. You are the plaintiff. You are the one advocating government, not me.
Because if you are on an island by yourself, there is no government.
When you were born, did you have a house or a train? Did those exist before people built them?
But it had to be built. Natural is to nature is to what was here before people existed.
Correction, “should be illegal.”
your sentance was ‘irrelevant’
if the government doesnt say that food is bad for you, then its not bad for you.
you already admitted to being emotionally biased in favour of the minimal state.
unfortunately, here I’m not just a lawyer I’m also judge and jury so careful how you play this.
No, I’m the defendant. I’m defending the status quo. You’re trying to tear it down. KNOW YOUR ROLE!! I’m kidding, lol.
But we don’t all live on our own private islands do we?
Are you trying to argue that what is natural to babies is what is natural to adult men?
Yes, it had to be built. But it’s a natural development of tools men created to deal with the world more efficiently. And it needs to fit man, as a car fits man. Have you ever noticed that all cars are designed for men to drive them? Well, what would a car be like if it were designed for…zebras to drive it? Our government is currently set up with a schematic for man that doesn’t stand the test of observation. We are now trying to drive a car designed for zebras. That being said, you want a car designed for babies or solitary men living on islands, so both are wrong.
Yes, you’re right. Should be illegal. It’s logical.
Well, if the game is set up so that I get kicked out for disagreeing, then it’s tyranny. Which is ironic on a site that holds freedom and liberty as its guiding principles.
That being said. A paralyzed man has the freedom to move, he doesn’t have the ability. So his freedom is irrelevant, he lacks the power. A car has the freedom to move, but without gas, it lacks the power. Freedom without power is irrelevant. You need both. However I have observed that power usually leads to freedom, not the other way around.
A crime is not just constituted by a rule that says something, but the ability to enforce that rule. So yes, if the government decided to outlaw food, it could. But then it would have a hell of a time enforcing that rule.
You equate a promise to a contract?
Really? You think the government of today is the same as yesterday, let alone fifty years ago or one hundred years ago? “Status quo” is subjective you know. What is “status quo”? The last ten minutes?
Regardless, why should I not be able to opt out of government control and taxation?
Nope. But my point is that government is not natural. it must be imposed by humans on other humans. But I think you get my point.
I am arguing that if they were not created, they would not exist.
This makes no sense. What are you arguing?
Yeah, I am pretty sure in all contracts there are promises made by both sides…
its irrelevent because what ‘poltical theory’ could increase or decrease the paralyzed mans , power?
political theories influence peoples freedoms, or rather tradeoff one persons power for anothers freedom.
freedom is the inter-relational element, it is the KEY ELEMENT in poltical philosophy. hardly irrelevant. you are obviously not for liberty if you call it irrelevant , you are for power, (pro government)
I don’t say hi to everyone. I say hi to people I need to say hi to.
They respond the way they do because they know to be rude isn’t in their interests.
Government doesn’t force them to say hi, although it could.
Governments existed long before the ten commandments.
That’s fine for you to go about protecting yourself, but it seems like a lot of work to me. I don’t really want to have to worry about all that. Now you will ask "who has the right to force me to agree with you?’ I will answer: “the government has the force” you will ask “but what gives them the right?” I will say “the majority” to which you will respond “is it right for the majority to be able to legislate for the minority?” At which point I will say “No, but it does anyways, so instead of arguing that they don’t have the right, understand that they have the force, they will not release their force willingly, let’s try to get the rules changed in such a way that is agreeable to as many people as possible, unless you want a revolution or you want to leave the country.”
Yes I do, not because it is advantageous to people, but advantageous to the government, you are seeing govenrment become what it will always strive for, it is effective at waging war, and nothing else, it is not like the days where the government were on the battlefield, and war was waged frugally…
These wars are against personal freedoms, foreign bogeymen and different political, economical or social systems, that is the facts…
Read the article, if you think capitalism is correct, the free market answers to these questions of yours will always produce the best answer, at the cheapest price, most efficiently…
more evidence that you dont understand tyranny,
and yet even more bizarrely …you advocate for it … minimal tyranny
ho hum.
The government is just a collection of men. Acting in their own interests apparently at the expense of others. You ask by what right they do this? I answer by saying that they don’t have to be right, they just have to be powerful.
It is obviously natural to man to try and control other men, so therefore government is just as natural as anything else man creates. Which is why it exists today.
You refuse to see this as evidence of human nature. You see it instead as some abstract disease. Government is made up of men. They want power, how are you going to stop them?
Tyranny is the denial of freedom to by men with the power to deny it. You’ve said it yourself that you’re in the position to deny me freedom to speak. I’m not saying you can’t deny me the freedom to speak, I’m saying that if you do, it will be ironic.