FDA Ignores Religious Fundamentalists' Objections

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
We collectively have "imposed" this organization on our selves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the "we" that imposes is not the same as the "we" that is imposed upon. If they were the same, there would be no objection.

[ QUOTE ]
I only have the right to argue for the existence of such an organization, the right to vote for those who believe as I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not the right to impose your preference on others.

[ QUOTE ]
So, no I am not doing any imposing.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, you are, through an agent.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We collectively have "imposed" this organization on our selves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the "we" that imposes is not the same as the "we" that is imposed upon. If they were the same, there would be no objection.

[ QUOTE ]
I only have the right to argue for the existence of such an organization, the right to vote for those who believe as I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not the right to impose your preference on others.

[ QUOTE ]
So, no I am not doing any imposing.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, you are, through an agent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The We is the same. If you are not American, no one is imposing anything on you.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We collectively have "imposed" this organization on our selves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the "we" that imposes is not the same as the "we" that is imposed upon. If they were the same, there would be no objection.

[ QUOTE ]
I only have the right to argue for the existence of such an organization, the right to vote for those who believe as I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not the right to impose your preference on others.

[ QUOTE ]
So, no I am not doing any imposing.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, you are, through an agent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The We is the same. If you are not American, no one is imposing anything on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you can read my mind and determine my true preferences?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
THis is the inane argument trotted out by some. If you think about it carefully you should realize that I never claim to have the right to impose this organization. As a matter of fact, I, dont impose this organization. We collectively have "imposed" this organization on our selves.

I only have the right to argue for the existence of such an organization, the right to vote for those who believe as I do.

So, no I am not doing any imposing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you, personally, are not imposing the FDA on anyone else. But if you support the FDA, then you are supporting the imposition of a coercive organization on the unwilling.

What is this "we"? I certainly didn't do anything that would count as "agreement" in any other context, and many others feel similarly. So why are we included and forced into it? What you have said only pushed the issue back a step further--there is no collective action outside of the action of individuals, so ultimately some individuals are coercing others against their will.

[ACPlayer]

I cry myself to sleep every night over your angst.

Assuming you are an American, you have the right to advocate pushing your viewpoint on us. I wont stop you from advocating, but will make sure you dont win. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

You can also move -- but only if the transaction cost of staying in this country is more than you can bear. Perhaps to Cambodia or Sudan or Eriteria. You can pretty much do what you want there with very little govt interference (and can always buy off any interference).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I cry myself to sleep every night over your angst.

Assuming you are an American, you have the right to advocate pushing your viewpoint on us. I wont stop you from advocating, but will make sure you dont win. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Advocacy is different than imposition. Are you going to sit there and argue that those who oppose the war in Iraq are not *actually* coerced into paying for it?

[ QUOTE ]
You can also move -- but only if the transaction cost of staying in this country is more than you can bear. Perhaps to Cambodia or Sudan or Eriteria. You can pretty much do what you want there with very little govt interference (and can always buy off any interference).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, talk about "inane arguments" that get "trotted out". I don't have to move in order to end my relationship with the guy that cuts my lawn, or the grocery store that I buy hot dogs from. The fact that I can move to siberia in order to avoid particular muggers in manhattan doesn't justify the mugging.

Should I simply tell all war protesters to "love it or leave it"?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it fair to say that in your world a father selling a 10 year daughter is a transaction that is of no interest to anyone other than the buyer, seller, and the goods being purchased?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because the father doesn't own his ten-year-old daughter. Or anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming you have carved out an exception for this case, I suggest that your principle is not sacrosanct. Then it is a question of which transactions and what interests society has.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if you consider the fundamental axiom (self-ownership) an exception, then yeah, you got me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the transaction is with the consent of the daughter, or is directly with the daughter with no middle person? What if the father argues that you are forcing your values on his relationship with his daughter and you have no right to force your values on him -- and his daughter backs him up (who knows what compulsions are hidden from view here).

The question of true anarchy -- where the society imposes no rules on the transaction any transaction -- is that an underlying principle or just a convenient rubric trotted out to support the absurdity of allowing private ownership of the roads at fifth and broadway as well as fourth and broadway by two different entities (for example).

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would he owe you an apology? What has all of this actually shown? That I didn't claim every mile of road would have a different owner, even though you implied that would be a result of the positions I advocate, and that it's less efficient to own roads in one-mile chunks than it is to own them in larger chunks.

[/ QUOTE ] No-pe. What is showed was that you have contradicted yourself. Check the links to see again what you wrote: You are arguing that efficiency would do away with every mile of the road being owned by different persons -- and at the same time you are arguing that there is actually no problem with such a situation! One wonders where efficiency comes in, then!... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Just another of those little inanities that are unavoidable in the brave, new "anarcho"-capitalist world, where capital will be, at long last, free to rule the affairs of individuals and spherical cows graze the green grass in efficient traquility.

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this some sort of smoking gun?

[/ QUOTE ]No smoking here. All that was was a demonstration that your audience is not paying too much attention.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
No-pe. What is showed was that you have contradicted yourself. Check the links to see again what you wrote: You are arguing that efficiency would do away with every mile of the road being owned by different persons

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I said it would be inefficient. Not impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
-- and at the same time you are arguing that there is actually no problem with such a situation! One wonders where efficiency comes in, then!... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to buy 400 big macs, then flush 399 down the toilet, nobody is going to stop you. It's an inefficient way to eat lunch, but go right ahead.

There's no contradiction.