Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is the balance between laws and rights?

Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 3:21:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I wanted to get everyone's opinion on what they think is the balance between governmental law and individual rights. If you don't believe in either individual rights or governmental law, that's fine too. I am just seeking everyone's opinion.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:25:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I guess you are basically asking people what their political ideology is if I read this correctly.

In which case, I would be highly liberal economically (many laws, and fewer rights), but libertarian socially (virtually no laws, almost full rights).
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 9:30:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:25:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I guess you are basically asking people what their political ideology is if I read this correctly.

In which case, I would be highly liberal economically (many laws, and fewer rights), but libertarian socially (virtually no laws, almost full rights).

You could say that in a sense, but I am also asking, what should we do to make this government run effectively in your opinion. Like, give examples and full explanations along with it. (This goes for everyone)
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 10:35:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 9:30:19 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:25:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I guess you are basically asking people what their political ideology is if I read this correctly.

In which case, I would be highly liberal economically (many laws, and fewer rights), but libertarian socially (virtually no laws, almost full rights).

You could say that in a sense, but I am also asking, what should we do to make this government run effectively in your opinion. Like, give examples and full explanations along with it. (This goes for everyone)

Hard to say, as I would want to say things like "streamline Congress", and/or "force compromise", but the former risks crappy bills getting through, and the latter might just be impossible as we saw with the government shutdown.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 10:54:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 3:21:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
I wanted to get everyone's opinion on what they think is the balance between governmental law and individual rights. If you don't believe in either individual rights or governmental law, that's fine too. I am just seeking everyone's opinion.

Just government's only basis is the protection of individual rights, but individuals as members of any society have a duty to serve and participate in politics and society to ensure that their rights are protected. Not believing in individual rights places one outside of the post-enlightenment political lineage, and denying governmentally imposed law is tantamount to denying the enforcement arm of individual rights (that is, their protection) and the mechanism by which society is ordered such that in the absence of governmentally imposed law, rights have no meaning. This is one of the many reasons that Libertarians -more or less- and anarchists -of all varieties- sort of elicit a degree of humor from me... the foundation of their beliefs is also the abrogation of their beliefs.
Tsar of DDO
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 11:06:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I must add... This topic is NOT open for debate just everyone's opinion on the topic. Now if you want to add in your thoughts about a political parties fallacies concerning this topic, that's fine. Just don't debate someone on this specific topic (at least not on this forum post), since I am more so trying to do a study here. I think all of DDO will appreciate this too, as anyone will be able to use this for information purposes.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 8:24:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is no trade off, no dichotomy. Proper law protects rights improper law violates them. No improper law should be tolerated.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 3:44:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In my believe, a Right may be banned if allowing it would contradict (or cause the contradiction of) another, more important, right. Like if having Right A conflict with be able to have Right B, and Right B is more important, Right A is banned. Like banning Monopolies.

The right to a Monopoly is banned because when people form Monopolies, it conflicts with the larger right to Free Enterprise (of which being able to have a Monopoly is only a small part of, making it less important than the entire rest of the right.)

That only one of many areas where laws can be in place, I just wanted to list it off.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 8:04:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Tell your pig-lord that I got two middle fingers, one for his laws and one for his rights.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 9:05:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 3:44:16 AM, donald.keller wrote:
The right to a Monopoly is banned because when people form Monopolies, it conflicts with the larger right to Free Enterprise (of which being able to have a Monopoly is only a small part of, making it less important than the entire rest of the right.)

A monopoly does not limit your freedom of enterprise it makes other people not care about your enterprise.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 10:00:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 9:05:37 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/17/2013 3:44:16 AM, donald.keller wrote:
The right to a Monopoly is banned because when people form Monopolies, it conflicts with the larger right to Free Enterprise (of which being able to have a Monopoly is only a small part of, making it less important than the entire rest of the right.)

A monopoly does not limit your freedom of enterprise it makes other people not care about your enterprise.

When Company A has an enterprise, it blocks out and destroys potential enemies. No one can move or grow in that industry anymore.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 10:15:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 10:00:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:05:37 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/17/2013 3:44:16 AM, donald.keller wrote:
The right to a Monopoly is banned because when people form Monopolies, it conflicts with the larger right to Free Enterprise (of which being able to have a Monopoly is only a small part of, making it less important than the entire rest of the right.)

A monopoly does not limit your freedom of enterprise it makes other people not care about your enterprise.

When Company A has an enterprise, it blocks out and destroys potential enemies. No one can move or grow in that industry anymore.

A monopoly is not defined as the ability to destroy competitors but a lack of serious competitors.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 3:32:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 10:15:45 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:00:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:05:37 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/17/2013 3:44:16 AM, donald.keller wrote:
The right to a Monopoly is banned because when people form Monopolies, it conflicts with the larger right to Free Enterprise (of which being able to have a Monopoly is only a small part of, making it less important than the entire rest of the right.)

A monopoly does not limit your freedom of enterprise it makes other people not care about your enterprise.

When Company A has an enterprise, it blocks out and destroys potential enemies. No one can move or grow in that industry anymore.

A monopoly is not defined as the ability to destroy competitors but a lack of serious competitors.

"An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."

Why do you think a monopoly has no competitors? Because they don't allow them. They destroy anyone who might get big, and revoke the freedom of free enterprise in that industry because it's profitable to own the market.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 5:44:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 3:32:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:15:45 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:00:36 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:05:37 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/17/2013 3:44:16 AM, donald.keller wrote:
The right to a Monopoly is banned because when people form Monopolies, it conflicts with the larger right to Free Enterprise (of which being able to have a Monopoly is only a small part of, making it less important than the entire rest of the right.)

A monopoly does not limit your freedom of enterprise it makes other people not care about your enterprise.

When Company A has an enterprise, it blocks out and destroys potential enemies. No one can move or grow in that industry anymore.

A monopoly is not defined as the ability to destroy competitors but a lack of serious competitors.

"An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."

Why do you think a monopoly has no competitors? Because they don't allow them. They destroy anyone who might get big, and revoke the freedom of free enterprise in that industry because it's profitable to own the market.

That definition is incorrect. A company can have exclusive power to trade or manufacture and sell a particular item without suppressing competition. The fact that I can make a rocket no one else can does not mean I destroyed my competition, there was no competition to destroy... and if you consider patents or an unbeatable competitive advantage 'destroying' the competition there is nothing wrong with 'destroying the competition' since all is done by consent of all parties.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 5:58:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 3:32:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Why do you think a monopoly has no competitors? Because they don't allow them. They destroy anyone who might get big, and revoke the freedom of free enterprise in that industry because it's profitable to own the market.

Your quote, which for all we know is from your mom, doesn't specify the source of the exclusive power. It could be the monopolist itself (i.e. anti-competitive practices), the government, natural barriers to entry and/or exit, or simply that potential competitors can make more money in other markets.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 6:06:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 5:44:50 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
That definition is incorrect. A company can have exclusive power to trade or manufacture and sell a particular item without suppressing competition. The fact that I can make a rocket no one else can does not mean I destroyed my competition, there was no competition to destroy... and if you consider patents or an unbeatable competitive advantage 'destroying' the competition there is nothing wrong with 'destroying the competition' since all is done by consent of all parties.

If by "all parties" you mean the government, sure.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 6:14:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 6:06:00 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/18/2013 5:44:50 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
That definition is incorrect. A company can have exclusive power to trade or manufacture and sell a particular item without suppressing competition. The fact that I can make a rocket no one else can does not mean I destroyed my competition, there was no competition to destroy... and if you consider patents or an unbeatable competitive advantage 'destroying' the competition there is nothing wrong with 'destroying the competition' since all is done by consent of all parties.

If by "all parties" you mean the government, sure.

I don't.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 9:25:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 6:14:55 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:06:00 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/18/2013 5:44:50 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
That definition is incorrect. A company can have exclusive power to trade or manufacture and sell a particular item without suppressing competition. The fact that I can make a rocket no one else can does not mean I destroyed my competition, there was no competition to destroy... and if you consider patents or an unbeatable competitive advantage 'destroying' the competition there is nothing wrong with 'destroying the competition' since all is done by consent of all parties.

If by "all parties" you mean the government, sure.

I don't.

Then maybe you should explain what the hell you're talking about. The applicant applies for the patent, the government either rejects the application or grants the patent. I count one consenter, two if you count the applicant himself. So do you mean "all parties" in the circular sense of all parties that consent? Yeah, that's true of patents, murders, and everything else.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:30:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 9:25:14 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:14:55 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/18/2013 6:06:00 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/18/2013 5:44:50 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
That definition is incorrect. A company can have exclusive power to trade or manufacture and sell a particular item without suppressing competition. The fact that I can make a rocket no one else can does not mean I destroyed my competition, there was no competition to destroy... and if you consider patents or an unbeatable competitive advantage 'destroying' the competition there is nothing wrong with 'destroying the competition' since all is done by consent of all parties.

If by "all parties" you mean the government, sure.

I don't.

Then maybe you should explain what the hell you're talking about. The applicant applies for the patent, the government either rejects the application or grants the patent. I count one consenter, two if you count the applicant himself. So do you mean "all parties" in the circular sense of all parties that consent? Yeah, that's true of patents, murders, and everything else.

A patent is to protect intellectual property. When the office turns down a patent they are not saying "we don't care about your rights" they are saying "you didn't come up with this".

Just like the government is not a party to a contract even though people pay the government to enforce contracts.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 12:56:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 11:30:34 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
A patent is to protect intellectual property. When the office turns down a patent they are not saying "we don't care about your rights" they are saying "you didn't come up with this".

Technically, they're saying "you didn't come up with this first". To imply that because one didn't come up with something first one didn't come up with it contradicts our rich history of multiple independent innovators. The "right" to monopolize for x years that which one came up with an unknown amount of time before others otherwise would have is, as much as and even more obviously than the rest of your declared "rights", completely contrived.

Just like the government is not a party to a contract even though people pay the government to enforce contracts.

So that's what I'm paying it for! And here I thought it was being taken against my will.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:35:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 12:56:00 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:30:34 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
A patent is to protect intellectual property. When the office turns down a patent they are not saying "we don't care about your rights" they are saying "you didn't come up with this".

Technically, they're saying "you didn't come up with this first". To imply that because one didn't come up with something first one didn't come up with it contradicts our rich history of multiple independent innovators. The "right" to monopolize for x years that which one came up with an unknown amount of time before others otherwise would have is, as much as and even more obviously than the rest of your declared "rights", completely contrived.

Better less contrived than more.

Just like the government is not a party to a contract even though people pay the government to enforce contracts.

So that's what I'm paying it for! And here I thought it was being taken against my will.

Taxes are, but taxes are not the only way to fund a government. I spoke of the ideal.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:41:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 1:35:47 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/19/2013 12:56:00 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:30:34 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
A patent is to protect intellectual property. When the office turns down a patent they are not saying "we don't care about your rights" they are saying "you didn't come up with this".

Technically, they're saying "you didn't come up with this first". To imply that because one didn't come up with something first one didn't come up with it contradicts our rich history of multiple independent innovators. The "right" to monopolize for x years that which one came up with an unknown amount of time before others otherwise would have is, as much as and even more obviously than the rest of your declared "rights", completely contrived.

Better less contrived than more.

Perhaps, but complete contrivance is the maximum. How would it be more contrived not to grant an arbitrarily long monopoly than to grant one?

Just like the government is not a party to a contract even though people pay the government to enforce contracts.

So that's what I'm paying it for! And here I thought it was being taken against my will.

Taxes are, but taxes are not the only way to fund a government. I spoke of the ideal.

Speaking of "the ideal" as if it's the reality is the definition of vulgar libertarianism.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:44:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 3:21:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
I wanted to get everyone's opinion on what they think is the balance between governmental law and individual rights. If you don't believe in either individual rights or governmental law, that's fine too. I am just seeking everyone's opinion.

Individual rights are defined by government law.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 2:00:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 1:41:50 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 1:35:47 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/19/2013 12:56:00 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:30:34 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
A patent is to protect intellectual property. When the office turns down a patent they are not saying "we don't care about your rights" they are saying "you didn't come up with this".

Technically, they're saying "you didn't come up with this first". To imply that because one didn't come up with something first one didn't come up with it contradicts our rich history of multiple independent innovators. The "right" to monopolize for x years that which one came up with an unknown amount of time before others otherwise would have is, as much as and even more obviously than the rest of your declared "rights", completely contrived.

Better less contrived than more.

Perhaps, but complete contrivance is the maximum. How would it be more contrived not to grant an arbitrarily long monopoly than to grant one?

That the idea is their property results from it being a product of their effort and self.

The contrived part is saying there is a limit on their monopoly since after it became public you could not establish that anyone else came up with the idea independently.

Just like the government is not a party to a contract even though people pay the government to enforce contracts.

So that's what I'm paying it for! And here I thought it was being taken against my will.

Taxes are, but taxes are not the only way to fund a government. I spoke of the ideal.

Speaking of "the ideal" as if it's the reality is the definition of vulgar libertarianism.

As if it's the default, not reality; and I am blushing with pride at such an observation.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 2:01:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 1:44:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/12/2013 3:21:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
I wanted to get everyone's opinion on what they think is the balance between governmental law and individual rights. If you don't believe in either individual rights or governmental law, that's fine too. I am just seeking everyone's opinion.

Individual rights are defined by government law.

If God is just you will find yourself in a cruel dictatorship one day.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 2:06:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 2:01:08 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/19/2013 1:44:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/12/2013 3:21:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
I wanted to get everyone's opinion on what they think is the balance between governmental law and individual rights. If you don't believe in either individual rights or governmental law, that's fine too. I am just seeking everyone's opinion.

Individual rights are defined by government law.

If God is just you will find yourself in a cruel dictatorship one day.

Why? Am I advocating dictatorship?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 2:20:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 5:58:38 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/18/2013 3:32:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Why do you think a monopoly has no competitors? Because they don't allow them. They destroy anyone who might get big, and revoke the freedom of free enterprise in that industry because it's profitable to own the market.

Your quote, which for all we know is from your mom, doesn't specify the source of the exclusive power. It could be the monopolist itself (i.e. anti-competitive practices), the government, natural barriers to entry and/or exit, or simply that potential competitors can make more money in other markets.

That quote was from here, if you are curious. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
It is the legal definition of Monopoly. It doesn't have to list of one source... You can become a monopoly through many means. You can't list just one. There isn't one sole source where that power can come from.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 2:36:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 2:06:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/19/2013 2:01:08 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/19/2013 1:44:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/12/2013 3:21:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
I wanted to get everyone's opinion on what they think is the balance between governmental law and individual rights. If you don't believe in either individual rights or governmental law, that's fine too. I am just seeking everyone's opinion.

Individual rights are defined by government law.

If God is just you will find yourself in a cruel dictatorship one day.

Why? Am I advocating dictatorship?

You are advocating unconditional obedience to the government, so by extension yes.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 2:49:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 2:36:36 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/19/2013 2:06:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/19/2013 2:01:08 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/19/2013 1:44:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/12/2013 3:21:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
I wanted to get everyone's opinion on what they think is the balance between governmental law and individual rights. If you don't believe in either individual rights or governmental law, that's fine too. I am just seeking everyone's opinion.

Individual rights are defined by government law.

If God is just you will find yourself in a cruel dictatorship one day.

Why? Am I advocating dictatorship?

You are advocating unconditional obedience to the government, so by extension yes.

In a participatory government, you would be obeying yourself.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 4:23:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 2:49:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/19/2013 2:36:36 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/19/2013 2:06:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/19/2013 2:01:08 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/19/2013 1:44:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/12/2013 3:21:22 PM, Haroush wrote:
I wanted to get everyone's opinion on what they think is the balance between governmental law and individual rights. If you don't believe in either individual rights or governmental law, that's fine too. I am just seeking everyone's opinion.

Individual rights are defined by government law.

If God is just you will find yourself in a cruel dictatorship one day.

Why? Am I advocating dictatorship?

You are advocating unconditional obedience to the government, so by extension yes.

In a participatory government, you would be obeying yourself.

In a moral government you're rights would not be in danger. Your statement was contingent neither on the type of government nor the content of its laws.

Obeying yourself? What kind of collectivist nonsense is that? I am an individual not a crowd.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.