Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 26   Go Down

Author Topic: open carry protests  (Read 105910 times)

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #75 on: June 15, 2008, 10:15:27 pm »

Licensing fees don't go to the highways. Tolls go to the turnpikes... and a portion of registration goes to the Department of Safety - Division of Motor Vehicles with the other portion going to the municipality to offset road maintenance expenses.  Exactly how the municpality expends them is a matter of locality.

So now they don't pay for the roads?

Not imaginary... not inherent. The destruction of my car represents the destruction of my labor... and thus a period of my life... but my car is not inherent to my life.

Can your car be destroyed?  Yes.  Is it still real, regardless of it's potential to be destroyed?  Yes.

Ergo, your claim that just because a right can be violated, it does not actually exist, is false.

If H.sapiens are irrational... then how can logic be inherent to the human condition?

Logic is inherent in physical reality, not in the human condition.

People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.

No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

The moment you attempt to use reason to argue against self-ownership, you have admitted that your opponent does, indeed, own himself.  Else you would have no cause to use reason, and could just use force.  The moment you elect to set aside reason and attempt to use force to oppose his self-ownership, you have chosen to make yourself a non-reasoning entity and, therefor, no longer a person.  Once you choose to lower your status to that of an animal, he may violently oppose your attack just as he could violently oppose an attacking rabid dog, and not violate your rights (since you chose to give them up when you attacked him).

Self-defense (force in response to aggression) is justified, but the initiation of force is not.

By the way, this is a gross simplification.  As I said before, I'm not going to teach Liberty 101 here.  These are things which you should research on your own.  So don't go trying to poke holes in that and whining about how I glossed over the details.  That's the synopsis; go do the actual reading before complaining.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #76 on: June 15, 2008, 10:45:54 pm »

By the way, this is a gross simplification.  As I said before, I'm not going to teach Liberty 101 here.  These are things which you should research on your own.  So don't go trying to poke holes in that and whining about how I glossed over the details.  That's the synopsis; go do the actual reading before complaining.

Joe -

It would be useful if there were a link handy to point people in the direction of Liberty 101.  It would probably cut down on the number of obtuse questions about it, and it might even prevent you from getting carpal tunnel.   ;D
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #77 on: June 15, 2008, 10:50:02 pm »

By the way, this is a gross simplification.  As I said before, I'm not going to teach Liberty 101 here.  These are things which you should research on your own.  So don't go trying to poke holes in that and whining about how I glossed over the details.  That's the synopsis; go do the actual reading before complaining.
It would be useful if there were a link handy to point people in the direction of Liberty 101.  It would probably cut down on the number of obtuse questions about it, and it might even prevent you from getting carpal tunnel.   ;D

There are an awful lot of books on the subject.  I don't know of any online "reading list," although perhaps someone else is aware of one.  Searching the web for terms like "self ownership" and such can yield some references.

If I ever find the time, I'll write a book-length treatise on the subject, but I'm not likely to have that kind of time in the near future.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #78 on: June 15, 2008, 11:02:09 pm »

No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

Only ignorance or obstructiveness? Those are quite extremes to argue from. Neither is the case.

You may notice that John Edward Mercier above seems to be also using a different meaning than you.

You're telling us you're not using any non-standard definition: there is one right, self-ownership. And that all other rights are simply derivatives thereof. Yet, as you have said, there is only one right. What are these other rights, if there is only one right? To even attempt to differentiate "rights from privileges" is to misstate the relationship between them, and it uses "privilege" in an incorrect, colloquial sense.

I'm not saying, "You're wrong." Just that other people are using the same words to mean different things.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #79 on: June 16, 2008, 07:40:08 am »

Only ignorance or obstructiveness? Those are quite extremes to argue from. Neither is the case.

So you claim, but I have yet to see you make any actual contribution here.  Your posts seem to be designed for nothing but obstructiveness.

You're telling us you're not using any non-standard definition: there is one right, self-ownership. And that all other rights are simply derivatives thereof. Yet, as you have said, there is only one right. What are these other rights, if there is only one right?

Anything that derives from self-ownership.  Self-defense, for example.

To even attempt to differentiate "rights from privileges" is to misstate the relationship between them, and it uses "privilege" in an incorrect, colloquial sense.

Um, no.  But you're welcome to try and prove that sort of nonsense.

I'm not saying, "You're wrong." Just that other people are using the same words to mean different things.

Yes, they certainly are.  Through ignorance or dishonesty.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #80 on: June 16, 2008, 10:42:14 am »

Your posts seem to be designed for nothing but obstructiveness.

...

I'm not saying, "You're wrong." Just that other people are using the same words to mean different things.

Yes, they certainly are.  Through ignorance or dishonesty.

Joe

I can understand your position. I usually ask to back up what you say. To elucidate what you mean. To tell us what you're talking about. And why you think a certain way. If a person wanted to avoid doing these things--communicating clearly--he might certainly call my posts obstructionist. It's certainly as effective as the other avoidance arguments, so far essentially consisting of "you're wrong", "you're stupid", or some combination of the two.

If mere questioning dogmatic assertions of opinion, presented as well-known facts, where those opinions rationalize acts of violence against others, earns me the new labels of "ignorant" or "dishonest", I'll gladly take them. I will be in good, honest company.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #81 on: June 16, 2008, 10:48:40 am »

I can understand your position. I usually ask to back up what you say. To elucidate what you mean. To tell us what you're talking about. And why you think a certain way. If a person wanted to avoid doing these things--communicating clearly--he might certainly call my posts obstructionist. It's certainly as effective as the other avoidance arguments, so far essentially consisting of "you're wrong", "you're stupid", or some combination of the two.

Your posts seem to be generally devoid of content, other than simply demanding that people prove your claims wrong.  You make repeated positive assertions, then claim that you didn't, and insist that everyone else prove you wrong, rather than proving your own claims.  And then demanding that they prove things which are so basic that it is clear you are just being obstructionist.  Demanding someone prove self-ownership is like demanding that someone prove that the Earth is round - it's immature, obstructionist behavior, generally reminiscent of the behavior of politicians.

If mere questioning dogmatic assertions of opinion, presented as well-known facts, where those opinions rationalize acts of violence against others, earns me the new labels of "ignorant" or "dishonest", I'll gladly take them. I will be in good, honest company.

Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #82 on: June 16, 2008, 11:19:00 am »

Your posts seem to be generally devoid of content, other than simply demanding that people prove your claims wrong.  You make repeated positive assertions, then claim that you didn't, and insist that everyone else prove you wrong, rather than proving your own claims.  And then demanding that they prove things which are so basic that it is clear you are just being obstructionist.  Demanding someone prove self-ownership is like demanding that someone prove that the Earth is round - it's immature, obstructionist behavior, generally reminiscent of the behavior of politicians.

I haven't ask anyone to disprove my claims. I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

I've only asked for some positions to be proved or explained or expanded upon. I've pointed out where there have been ambiguities in word usage. Particularly, when dealing with language common to different ethical and legal sytems (e.g., rights) it can become unclear what is meant. To further complicate matters, people internalize their own conceptions of these systems and combine them with their personal beliefs. But rather than come to any understanding of what's being spoken of, you seem to hold fast that your beliefs and definitions are the only absolute, correct ones. In all likelihood, we will continue to disagree on this point in perpetuity.

I've never demanded you do these things. I've certainly asked though. And even then, only because, as a rhetorical argument, support has been lacking.

Again with the name calling? If you simply don't want or are not able to discuss civilly, completely, and honestly, then don't.

Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.

Joe

I'm not sure what possible evidence you would have to support that. Nor is it really maintainable: it's simply false. At very best, it's a gross exaggeration of what I've said on quiet enjoyment.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #83 on: June 16, 2008, 11:47:25 am »

The problem is the difference between natural order and social contract. Natural order is simply might makes right.
Social contract can be between any size group... Joe sees it in an individual sense (neighbor to neighbor) and BD you see it in a large social sense. This is why the term 'general good' within many documents has debate surrounding it.
We each sense the need for general good, but at different levels. As the populous has grown it has shifted more towards society... but liberty requires it more towards the individual.

Like he doesn't get that road maintenance is paid for... ergo, there must be a means to pay for them.
The fact that the local agents may not collect the full amount they expend every year... or worse use excess for some other means... is completely a local act of management.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #84 on: June 16, 2008, 11:50:20 am »

More importantly he's posting of the system preferred rather than existing. Its not impractical to believe that his system would function at least as well, as the current system is not inherent...
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #85 on: June 16, 2008, 12:51:08 pm »

I haven't ask anyone to disprove my claims. I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

Yes, you have.  And I've quoted you doing it, in other threads.

I've only asked for some positions to be proved or explained or expanded upon. I've pointed out where there have been ambiguities in word usage. Particularly, when dealing with language common to different ethical and legal sytems (e.g., rights) it can become unclear what is meant. To further complicate matters, people internalize their own conceptions of these systems and combine them with their personal beliefs. But rather than come to any understanding of what's being spoken of, you seem to hold fast that your beliefs and definitions are the only absolute, correct ones. In all likelihood, we will continue to disagree on this point in perpetuity.

You are using non-standard definitions which you apparently seem to make up out of thin air.

Again with the name calling? If you simply don't want or are not able to discuss civilly, completely, and honestly, then don't.

What name calling is that?

Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.
I'm not sure what possible evidence you would have to support that. Nor is it really maintainable: it's simply false. At very best, it's a gross exaggeration of what I've said on quiet enjoyment.

No, it's exactly what you've said.

The problem is the difference between natural order and social contract. Natural order is simply might makes right.

Social contract nonsense is might makes right.  "We outnumber you, so we are in charge!"  Yeah, that's so very civilized...::)

We each sense the need for general good, but at different levels. As the populous has grown it has shifted more towards society... but liberty requires it more towards the individual.

The general good can only exist by enhancing the good of the individual.  Every attempt to shift towards a societal view of liberty has been destructive.

Like he doesn't get that road maintenance is paid for... ergo, there must be a means to pay for them.

Who doesn't get that?  The question was whether registration and license fees were the means that were being used.  Which is clearly not the case.  Ergo, registration and licensing is not paying for the roads, and failing to get one or both does not impact road maintenance.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #86 on: June 16, 2008, 01:13:23 pm »

Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.
I'm not sure what possible evidence you would have to support that. Nor is it really maintainable: it's simply false. At very best, it's a gross exaggeration of what I've said on quiet enjoyment.

No, it's exactly what you've said.

Show me.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2008, 01:15:42 pm »

Without social contract the right to life, liberty, and property would only exist through individual might... natural order.

Local roads are maintained through property tax... the portion of registration paid to the local municipality is a property tax.
Whether it is used directly, or not... depends on the local management of revenue.

Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #88 on: June 16, 2008, 01:21:31 pm »

Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.
I'm not sure what possible evidence you would have to support that. Nor is it really maintainable: it's simply false. At very best, it's a gross exaggeration of what I've said on quiet enjoyment.

No, it's exactly what you've said.

Show me.
Noise Ordinances have been found to be subjective...
But if you could give an example it might make us understand your position.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #89 on: June 16, 2008, 01:27:33 pm »

Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.
I'm not sure what possible evidence you would have to support that. Nor is it really maintainable: it's simply false. At very best, it's a gross exaggeration of what I've said on quiet enjoyment.

No, it's exactly what you've said.

Show me.
Noise Ordinances have been found to be subjective...
But if you could give an example it might make us understand your position.


An example of what? I'm confused on who or what you're addressing.
I was responding to MaineShark. To show me where I exactly said I have a right to engage in violence against others at my whim.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 26   Go Up