Somali Freedom Fighters

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet still no rebuttals. These anologies must be on to something.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the gist of what my deleted comment said.

[ QUOTE ]
Good to know the mods have no sense of humor. And someone needs to ban Jman for throwing out the troll label.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was warned and my comment deleted because of the t-word.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to write this down. This is like the greatest counterargument ever.

Whenever someone arges for social security, or arbortion, or road construction thusly:

"Policy XYZ should be enacted for reason ABC"

I'll just say "ZOMG WHO MADE YOU KING?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally valid for you to do so. Now what do we do - duke it out in the street? Pistols are 40 paces? Private security firms at noon?

[ QUOTE ]
Note that if you continue with this line of thinking, it flips right back on you. Your *objecting* to my "sole arbiter* status is nothing more than elevating *yourself* to "sole arbiter" status. My "sole arbiter" status is bogus *just because you say so*???

And if you continue on, you see that this means that ANY claim one makes against another is illegitimate, UNLESS there is VOLUNTARY consent from BOTH sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I don't voluntarily agree to your claim that the government is violating your rights then it becomes illegitimate? Are you really ok with that?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me know when you're ready to stop the grandstanding games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you didn't find that even a little entertaining?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoilsport. Debating is supposed to be fun.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to get around to the actual questions I asked you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope so. I would rather make sure I understand what we're talking about before I answer anything.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to write this down. This is like the greatest counterargument ever.

Whenever someone arges for social security, or arbortion, or road construction thusly:

"Policy XYZ should be enacted for reason ABC"

I'll just say "ZOMG WHO MADE YOU KING?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally valid for you to do so. Now what do we do - duke it out in the street? Pistols are 40 paces? Private security firms at noon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks that way. Note who is initiating the hostilities, though. If you want to avoid a fight, simply don't start one. If we simply ignore each other, there's no conflict. Call it whatever you want, claim that your "values" allow this, but don't complain about a fight when you throw the first stone.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if you continue on, you see that this means that ANY claim one makes against another is illegitimate, UNLESS there is VOLUNTARY consent from BOTH sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I don't voluntarily agree to your claim that the government is violating your rights then it becomes illegitimate? Are you really ok with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But the claim that the government has a right to do what I'm complaining about is ALSO illegitimate. If *that* claim is illegitimate, then I really don't need to "claim" anything at all.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me know when you're ready to stop the grandstanding games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you didn't find that even a little entertaining?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoilsport. Debating is supposed to be fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting words in people's mouths is not debate.

Continuing with the practice after you've been called out on it is not debate.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. But the claim that the government has a right to do what I'm complaining about is ALSO illegitimate. If *that* claim is illegitimate, then I really don't need to "claim" anything at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Circular.

[ QUOTE ]
Putting words in people's mouths is not debate.

Continuing with the practice after you've been called out on it is not debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, was supposed to be a joke for entertainment purposes.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yet still no rebuttals. These anologies must be on to something.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the gist of what my deleted comment said.

[ QUOTE ]
Good to know the mods have no sense of humor. And someone needs to ban Jman for throwing out the troll label.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was warned and my comment deleted because of the t-word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't quoting something you said and reposting it the same as saying it again? lol

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks that way. Note who is initiating the hostilities, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you do something that someone else says violates their rights, you are "initiating hostilities". Even if you don't think that it violates the other person's rights, you can't dismiss their claim that their rights are being violated based on your interpretation alone. And when you demand the right to declare your own actions "legitimate" because you think so, you can't withhold from others the right to declare their actions legitimate because they think so.

Going back to my intentionally silly example.

You build a wall on your property. Anti-wall evangelist kicks it down. You say "Stop initiating conflict!" He says "You started it by building the wall!"

Now, arguing from the perspective of the nut that hates walls. (I hope you don't mind me putting words in his mouth since I made him up to start with.)

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to avoid a fight, simply don't start one. If we simply ignore each other, there's no conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

AWE: You started the fight by building the wall.

[ QUOTE ]
Call it whatever you want, claim that your "values" allow this, but don't complain about a fight when you throw the first stone.

[/ QUOTE ]

AWE: You cast the first stone when you built the wall.

What makes AWE nuts for claiming that your wall violates his rights? Is it that pvn thinks he's nuts? I say that we can't accept that and that only because if we do we are forced to accept his claim that you are nuts for thinking walls are moral. The only reason that his views will be considered illegitimate is because they are not by "common sense". But whether you call it common sense or social norms or market pressures or whatever, it comes down to the most widely accepted principles determining the rules of engagement for interaction between individuals. When you can voluntarily come to an agreement without the interference of others, all is good. When you can't, "common sense" aka majority opinion prevails one way or another.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure. But the claim that the government has a right to do what I'm complaining about is ALSO illegitimate. If *that* claim is illegitimate, then I really don't need to "claim" anything at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Circular.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this circular? One is not justifying the other, I'm applying the *same* standard to both claims. They're both illegitimate! But one was only made as a *counter* to the first - if the first were recognized as illegitimate in the first place, the counterclaim is not even necessary. It's redundant.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
States R Us members band together to acquire a lot of property

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so I'm going to have to do a little probing here because you're not being entirely forthcoming in what your assertion/conclusion is.

Are you saying that States R Us's claim on the territory is valid because they acquired it, presumably through voluntary transactions, whereas the US government did not?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Looks that way. Note who is initiating the hostilities, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you do something that someone else says violates their rights, you are "initiating hostilities". Even if you don't think that it violates the other person's rights, you can't dismiss their claim that their rights are being violated based on your interpretation alone. And when you demand the right to declare your own actions "legitimate" because you think so, you can't withhold from others the right to declare their actions legitimate because they think so.

Going back to my intentionally silly example.

You build a wall on your property. Anti-wall evangelist kicks it down. You say "Stop initiating conflict!" He says "You started it by building the wall!"

Now, arguing from the perspective of the nut that hates walls. (I hope you don't mind me putting words in his mouth since I made him up to start with.)

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to avoid a fight, simply don't start one. If we simply ignore each other, there's no conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

AWE: You started the fight by building the wall.

[ QUOTE ]
Call it whatever you want, claim that your "values" allow this, but don't complain about a fight when you throw the first stone.

[/ QUOTE ]

AWE: You cast the first stone when you built the wall.

What makes AWE nuts for claiming that your wall violates his rights? Is it that pvn thinks he's nuts? I say that we can't accept that and that only because if we do we are forced to accept his claim that you are nuts for thinking walls are moral. The only reason that his views will be considered illegitimate is because they are not by "common sense". But whether you call it common sense or social norms or market pressures or whatever, it comes down to the most widely accepted principles determining the rules of engagement for interaction between individuals. When you can voluntarily come to an agreement without the interference of others, all is good. When you can't, "common sense" aka majority opinion prevails one way or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're still not demonstrating that anyone is "imposing" any "alternate value system" on anyone. All you've done is show that someone else may make a competing claim inside the same system. If "AWE" says that building a wall is aggression against him, he's making a claim to a property right.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
States R Us members band together to acquire a lot of property

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so I'm going to have to do a little probing here because you're not being entirely forthcoming in what your assertion/conclusion is.

Are you saying that States R Us's claim on the territory is valid because they acquired it, presumably through voluntary transactions, whereas the US government did not?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is some "States-R-Us" "corporation" (or whatever you want to call it) which has shareholders that own the property, then yes, individuals living there would have to leave if they don't like the rules.

I have shares in BigCo Industries, and I work there, operating a giant excavator. I decide I don't like the way the company is being run. When I end my association with them, can I take the excavator with me?

Are you suggesting the the US Government owns all of the property inside its borders?