Why did President Lincoln violate freedom of the press laws if he wanted to "free the slaves" ?
- Thread starter Rob Roy
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Yet, you've never explained why anybody has any right to compel another person to associate with them or to make them use their property and their body to serve them absent that persons explicit consent I don't have that right, do you have that right?
As far as calling me a racist, that's a weak argument and nonsensical. I think all people, of every race should have the right to interact with others on a consensual and mutual basis and determine the use of their own property. You are the one that rejects that from high atop your perch on Hypocrite Mountain.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
As soon as I find my crayons, I'm gonna get right on that.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
TL/DR
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Erroneous assumption on your part. Wars don't decide which idea is better, they only decide who is better at killing.
Had I lived during the civil war, I'd have been against the Union Draft and for the abolition of slavery of all people, but I repeat myself.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Colloquialism. You could substitute another word or words, such as interacting with etc.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Then we agree, people of every color etc. should be able to determine the use of their property and who they will invite there etc. ?
People of every color have the right to chose a mutual interaction or reject a proffered interaction based on their reasons and not reasons another person has imposed upon them absent their consent ?
Tangerine_
Well-Known Member
No we're not in agreement. And I'm no where near awake enough to speak "Rob".
Bottom line. No one is forcing you to do anything on your private property. No matter what kind of spin you put on it.
Tangerine_
Well-Known Member
So you believe society should do away with implied consent when fire and rescue is needed. Got it.
Though I doubt this is the position you'd take if your home were engulfed in flames with you in it.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No one is forcing you to do anything on your private property. No matter what kind of spin you put on it.
Then we agree, the term "property taxes" is an oxymoron? Ahem...Zoning laws?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No I believe other alternatives should not be forcibly disallowed as they presently are.
For instance if YOU want to buy fire protection from a particular business you should be able to. I should be able to buy it or not from others and not be forced to subsidize your choice. In no case should either of us be forced to subsidize the others choices against our will.
You advocate for removal of choices under threat of violence. I do not.
Tangerine_
Well-Known Member
Nope. I knew when I acquired my properties taxes would be levied. Just like every other person who voluntarily enters into a purchase agreement.
Tangerine_
Well-Known Member
No, I advocate for safety for everyone. What you advocate is nonsense.
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Fee, fi, fo, fum, you suffer from delirium.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your argument relies on the presentation of two opposing concepts. Which is why it's wrong. You propose something can be "owned" by one party, but controlled by others as condition of the alleged ownership. That's absurd.
First "property" cannot be simultaneously owned and then come with a forcible annual tribute to pay for "services" which a person did not agree to. That is a contradiction. The fact that it regularly occurs that way, and has become "normal" simply means "hey we've got enough people believing in this invalid concept that we've taken a contradiction and somehow by virtue of successfully forcing people to follow along we've made it not a contradiction. That would be like trying to vote gravity out of existence.
So, you said they can't make you do things with your property. That's a self evident fail. If you don't pay them money, they'll steal your property. Try again.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So, a person is leaving others alone and a man with a badge comes and says if you don't give us tax money to pay for our ideas which you may not agree with, we will harm you.
Who is causing the unsafe conditions ?
What I advocate is freedom, what you advocate is a form of slavery where other people have a greater say in how you will use the product of your labor and your property. You can't deny that is how it happens, without exposing your contradiction, that's why you tried to justify it as being "for safety".
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That was pretty good, but it doesn't answer my question.
Can a person delegate a right he/she does not possess ?
Fee fi fo fum, you have government sauce dripping from your bum.
jonsnow399
Well-Known Member
You don't "own" any property. If you pay for it, it gives you the right to live on it (maybe) you are simply renting it from the govt.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Yes, that seems to be the problem.
The same could be said for your own body and the money you earn from the labor of your mind and body couldn't it?
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Yes, you do. That is why it is called "real" property (i.e. Real Estate) and is regulated and handled independently and completely differently than all other forms of merchandise.
Incorrect again. How else do you think real property is handed down from generation to generation? There are tracks of land and homes in this nation that have been owned by the same families for longer than the United States has existed.