The Issue Again... - Page 5

Copernicus · #41 05-04-2007, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When was the last time anyone was involved in the decision to take land under emminent domain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. The people voted for representatives who then decided to exercise eminent domain. We have a representative government because it is impossible for every individual to have a say in every matter. The people did exercise eminent domain by giving the reps their proxy.

pvn · #42 05-04-2007, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When was the last time anyone was involved in the decision to take land under emminent domain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. The people voted for representatives who then decided to exercise eminent domain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
We have a representative government because it is impossible for every individual to have a say in every matter. The people did exercise eminent domain by giving the reps their proxy.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, as long as eminent domain is only used against those who agreed to participate in that scheme, I have no objection.

Copernicus · #43 05-04-2007, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When was the last time anyone was involved in the decision to take land under emminent domain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. The people voted for representatives who then decided to exercise eminent domain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
We have a representative government because it is impossible for every individual to have a say in every matter. The people did exercise eminent domain by giving the reps their proxy.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, as long as eminent domain is only used against those who agreed to participate in that scheme, I have no objection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is everyone who chooses to live here, since by their presence they agree to abide by all laws.

latefordinner · #44 05-04-2007, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Which is everyone who chooses to live here, since by their presence they agree to abide by all laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

The social contract canard?

pvn · #45 05-04-2007, 05:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is everyone who chooses to live here, since by their presence they agree to abide by all laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

The social contract canard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding! It never gets old, just keep repeating it and it becomes true!

Hi Copernicus,

If your social contract is so great, why can't you get explicit consent?

Barcalounger · #46 05-04-2007, 06:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is everyone who chooses to live here, since by their presence they agree to abide by all laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

The social contract canard?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you arguing against a state, or denying the existence of it?

Copernicus · #47 05-04-2007, 06:27 PM

[quoteHi Copernicus,

If your social contract is so great, why can't you get explicit consent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say you CANT get explicit consent? Explicit consent isnt necessary, but if it were desirable then it could easily be done. Eg when we finally get National ID cards there could be an explicit statement that you agree to abide by the laws of the US and any of its jurisdictions you choose to live in.

I can see one great benefit from it and Im sure you know what that is. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

bkholdem · #48 05-04-2007, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Since the street sweepers thread had over 100 responses, and in all that, my main points were avoided, I'll try again... and start with some clear points to avoid the tangents that the previous thread was forced into ...

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the thread that was designed to be about positive externalities and freeriders or whatever you call them?

So lets see, in the world where people don't even own their own land they go out of their way to clean the streets.... gee I think that if they did own the land they would probably clean it all that much more.

latefordinner · #49 05-04-2007, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The social contract canard?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you arguing against a state, or denying the existence of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what kind-of argument we are having. The arguments are identical in some types of philosophical reasoning. But I'm basically arguing against the legitimacy of a state, not saying that it doesn't exist.

AlexM · #50 05-04-2007, 07:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His argument is actually that the government owns all the land and the people just rent from them I think. And he's right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government *controls* land. This is different than *owning* it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. This should help clear things up...

When Russia sold Alaska to the people of the US acting through their govt for $7.2M in 1867, the people of the US took ownership of the territory.

(long descriptive "argument" deleted)

[/ QUOTE ]

When you counter a normative argument with a descriptive one, you always "win",

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true because describing what's actually going on is much more logically sound than what people believe is going on. Appeal to the majority fallacy FTW.