You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: New NFL Policy To Prevent Players from Kneeling During Sky Cloth Ceremony
You should define it, it was your quote.
I appreciate that Adam has said that he’s an incrementalist because the plan violates violates voluntaryist principle and I don’t agree that it’s okay to violate it a little bit for the greater good because you say things like the American people and you say you would have the consent of everyone.
So, what greater good is it that you're willing to sacrifice?
Just so the greater good crowd knows there was good reason for throwing them under the bus.
How are voluntary, free market interactions out of line with Voluntaryist property ethic?
And please answer the question. What is the “greater good” and why is it more important than individual self-ownership?
This is why we go round and round. You ignore my question, then you ask me a couple of questions when you always refuse to acknowledge the answer and you just continue as if you never heard it.
I'll answer your questions if you give me your word to specifically address the answers. Not fair not to in an honest conversation, don't you think?
If I can understand what you mean by the assertion that I am sacrificing the greater good, I could answer, but I feel you refuse to define terms.
Have I told a white lie? I have lied before, sure.
Now please answer my question. What is the “greater good” and why is it more important than individual self-ownership?
Heck with it, I'll answer.
They're not.
The greater good would be "everyone's self-ownership" which you are all too willing to sacrifice because the truth is there is NO perfect way to return all the property that's been stolen. You've said it, Adam's said it, everyone already knows it.
Adam has said nothing is written in stone, he's just trying to do the right thing and has asked for suggestions, has stated he'd like to see free market solutions.
What more could he do?
You understand that “everyone’s self-ownership” is only made of of individuals, right? This is voluntaryist 101. Without protecting the self-ownership of the individual (the smallest minority) there is no way to protect “everyone’s” ISO. That is the whole point.
The right thing for Adam to do would be to not force his will on anyone. Which he has both said he will and won’t do as “not” president.
You stand against Adam because you think his plan violates the ISO when it's that very principle he's trying to bring to everyone.
completely illogical
He told you that you should love this campaign because there is no force and you don't have to do anything that you don't want to do.
seriously, do you not see how twisted your perspective has become.
ISO is not something one man “brings to everyone.” If the individual is violated, “everyone” is violated as well. Not illogical at all. Fairly easy to understand.
Adam said there is no force, but also that some force may be necessary (in implementing centralized policy, fingerprinting, etc) That’s the whole problem.
You conveniently leave these things out.
Let me help you.
I can say “I love guns” and “I don’t love guns.”
Now, for someone (a Graham supporter) to say “GRAHAM LOVES GUNS! HE SAID SO!” When a pro-gun fella speaks out against me, and “GRAHAM HATES GUNS! HE SAID SO!” when an anti-gun person speaks out against me is a very convenient and entirely absurd position for a zealous supporter of Graham to take.
Do you see it yet?
It's not the man, it's the idea and the people able to hear the message of no more state will take back their own sovereignty, individually, one by one.
fingerprinting? that seems out of character.. not happening
He has no power to do that though, and the Office of the President never will. The best he could do is pardon Ross and other unjustly caged people. He'll never be elected though because it isn't an election. We do not pick the candidates. Ron Paul was forced out of the system unfairly because the system is controlled. Why would any sane person think someone else would succeed where Ron Paul failed? It's not going to happen.
Success to me will be if, in the course of his campaign, a lot of people are woken up to the idea that maybe we don't need government. And that maybe every ill we face is either directly or indirectly a result of having a government.
However it goes, I support the effort and the good it will do.
I certainly rather people hear Adam's message than watch tv.
And THANK YOU for pointing out that voluntary free market solutions are not in violation of ISO!