What would that be, I’m curious.
Nice example of circular logic, eh ? Btw, do you realize that even your lackey, sorry! your friend LS is not with you on this one ?
What’s MTM ? “M” as in most. “T” as in trolling. “M” as in member.
How so?
Do you realise that I don’t care?
Of course, trolling in this sense means disagreeing with Juan.
I’m not. Any reason you’ve decided to ignore the nature of the state?
I’m not, I agree the state is a criminal enteprise, I also agree that the state should be abolished. I just don’t agree that we can walk into a hospital and help ourselves to as much morphine as we wish.
And that has what to do with what now? Really: non sequiturs and strawmen are best left to the imbeciles.
The argument was neither, but I’ll take that as a compliment.
It was both, and you should take it as an insult.
The thief couldn’t own property if all of his property was illigetimately gotten, could he?
Ignore my last post, I should read the whole thread before responding to parts of it. At least 4 people said the same thing.
No, but that isn’t the case.
It was both actually.
Non Sequitur: It does not follow that because you do not believe that the state has no claim to “its” property, that hospitals don’t have claim to their property.
Strawman: This is formed based on your non sequitur. No one is saying that you should be able to walk into hospitals and take their morphine. You’re attacking a position that no one has tried to defend.
Yes it is case. The state has no legitimate title to any of the property it claims to ‘own.’
Actually, it’s not theirs. So…I’m saying you should be able to get back the money the state stole from you. If you want to be payed in morphine so be it. Whether this practical or not is another matter.
What do you think state hospitals are?
God forbid I draw out the implications of what they’re saying, somebody may label it as a strawman.
Try answering what I posted Juan.
And roads are different to morphine. So yes, I was wrong in regards to the morphine post, the roads? No.
I’m not answering anything, just stating facts : The state owns nothing and has no authority. People obey state’s ‘rules’ in order to avoid getting shot.
What you think about roads, morphine, or anything else is rather irrelevant, since you either don’t understand the principles involved, or rather, pretend to ignore the principles when it suits you.
I’m curious, why does this suit me?
I’m bumping this because it pertains to what Juan and GS are arguing about. If we answer this worst case, it may make things more clear.