Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Government Violence against the Non-violent

Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 9:22:05 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Really simple question, when should a non-violent person receive violence from the collective?

Should a person that refuses to wear a seatbelt be the victim of collective force?

Maybe, a person that is engaged in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange of a good or service you disapprove of, like unlicensed lemon aid, or purchasing alcohol on Sunday morning?

Some might think that jackbooted thugs should seize property including currency of those, that do not want to fund the education for other people's kids
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:01:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 9:22:05 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Really simple question, when should a non-violent person receive violence from the collective?

Should a person that refuses to wear a seatbelt be the victim of collective force?

Maybe, a person that is engaged in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange of a good or service you disapprove of, like unlicensed lemon aid, or purchasing alcohol on Sunday morning?

Some might think that jackbooted thugs should seize property including currency of those, that do not want to fund the education for other people's kids

What about those that don't want to pay property tax for street lights or sewers cuz they are happy with their outhouse in the dark?

I see the point of allowing voluntary commerce such as prostitution, but you go too far when your rhetoric ironically gets to the point that there is no enforcement (collective force)of contract law, which is needed for people to voluntarily enter contracts.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 6:38:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:01:33 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 9:22:05 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Really simple question, when should a non-violent person receive violence from the collective?

Should a person that refuses to wear a seatbelt be the victim of collective force?

Maybe, a person that is engaged in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange of a good or service you disapprove of, like unlicensed lemon aid, or purchasing alcohol on Sunday morning?

Some might think that jackbooted thugs should seize property including currency of those, that do not want to fund the education for other people's kids

What about those that don't want to pay property tax for street lights or sewers cuz they are happy with their outhouse in the dark?

I see the point of allowing voluntary commerce such as prostitution, but you go too far when your rhetoric ironically gets to the point that there is no enforcement (collective force)of contract law, which is needed for people to voluntarily enter contracts.

Where is your line for violent government enforcement of something you believe in? Is it to force a person to have waste water management that you approve of?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:02:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 6:38:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:01:33 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 9:22:05 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Really simple question, when should a non-violent person receive violence from the collective?

Should a person that refuses to wear a seatbelt be the victim of collective force?

Maybe, a person that is engaged in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange of a good or service you disapprove of, like unlicensed lemon aid, or purchasing alcohol on Sunday morning?

Some might think that jackbooted thugs should seize property including currency of those, that do not want to fund the education for other people's kids

What about those that don't want to pay property tax for street lights or sewers cuz they are happy with their outhouse in the dark?

I see the point of allowing voluntary commerce such as prostitution, but you go too far when your rhetoric ironically gets to the point that there is no enforcement (collective force)of contract law, which is needed for people to voluntarily enter contracts.

Where is your line for violent government enforcement of something you believe in? Is it to force a person to have waste water management that you approve of?

I think for your example, "collectively safe" would be the bench mark. Some dude routinely excreting next to a fishmarket delivery bay would probably be a recipe for disaster.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...