liberty student: wilderness:I'm asking him if there is such a thing as a light bulb? It's a pretty simple question. Which you brought over from another discussion.
wilderness:I'm asking him if there is such a thing as a light bulb? It's a pretty simple question.
Which you brought over from another discussion.
yeah. it's the same standing dialogue which only proves my point further.
liberty student: It's not even relevant to this thread, except your attempt to corner or discredit him.
It's not even relevant to this thread, except your attempt to corner or discredit him.
He's a Republican conservative in a thread on how they try to discredit liberty and what not. It's completely relevant from what I see.
liberty student: I don't know what your goals are,
I don't know what your goals are,
I don't know yours, but mine's liberty.
liberty student:but except for your own self-gratification,
I suggest working on your dialogue. it will improve your assertions instead of making up these ghost stories to scare the kids in the middle of the night.
liberty student: I don't see how the last 10 posts about the light bulb have furthered anything.
I don't see how the last 10 posts about the light bulb have furthered anything.
since you didn't ask... you know we all don't get everything all the time.
liberty student: YMMV.
YMMV.
whatever that means.
wilderness:it will improve your assertions instead of making up these ghost stories to scare the kids in the middle of the night.
Which ghost stories?
liberty student: wilderness:it will improve your assertions instead of making up these ghost stories to scare the kids in the middle of the night. Which ghost stories?
I don't think you are accurate from time to time and you speculate about other people without proper dialogue. Of course I do the same, but we all can't shine 24/7. You are making assertions about me that are not true. Believe what you will, but without a respectable dialogue I can't help it if you feel and think the way you do. nobody's perfect and what you think I'm saying - might - not be what I'm actually saying. If you're trying to find water at this well, and you can't find the bucket to draw the water from then maybe you're not finding what you need with me, or maybe you're not trying to find anything from me. But you did start this conversation.
liberty student:What is the difference between minarchists and conservative Republicans? To me, it seems Republicans at least believe in the state they defend.
Abortion (sometimes), the "war" on drugs, non-defensive real wars, prostitution (the legality, not patronage), gay marriage, porn....
faber est suae quisque fortunae
wilderness:I don't think you are accurate from time to time and you speculate about other people without proper dialogue.
I asked you about the ghost stories to scare the kids in the middle of the night. What does that actually mean? In plain english.
wilderness:You are making assertions about me that are not true.
Such as? Please back up your claims with more than meandering word play.
JackCuyler: liberty student:What is the difference between minarchists and conservative Republicans? To me, it seems Republicans at least believe in the state they defend. Abortion (sometimes), the "war" on drugs, non-defensive real wars, prostitution (the legality, not patronage), gay marriage, porn....
Jack, isn't that my point? Minarchists accept a control system but expect liberty. They are sucked into a Utopia fantasy. It's classic doublethink. At least conservatives recognize the state for the blunt weapon it is, and expect to be able to wield it to their own ends. Minarchist libertarians are like people who want a gun in the house but won't load it.
liberty student: wilderness:I don't think you are accurate from time to time and you speculate about other people without proper dialogue. I asked you about the ghost stories to scare the kids in the middle of the night. What does that actually mean? In plain english.
1. Look where I said this - look where I responded to you with this comment.
2. Do you believe in ghosts? I don't think ghosts are real, but maybe you do, so, bad analogy on my part. So you are making up stuff about me - as I said - that isn't true/real. I went on to say I can't help it you feel or think this way. and what you think I'm saying - might - not be what I'm saying, etc... no big deal.
"I try to give the C4L a pass. But I notice how little promo they get on LRC, and that's indicative of the fact that liberty flows from C4L to LRC,and not the other way around."
Sorry, I mostly just lurk here, but what in the world does that mean?
Thanks,
John
johnclonts:Sorry, I mostly just lurk here
You should be sorry you mostly lurk. Get postin!
johnclonts:what in the world does that mean?
I meant that Lew Rockwell gets more press on C4L, than C4L gets on LRC. And that is indicative of the fact that radical anti-statism is the goal at LRC, not organizing under the state and voting for progress. If you've heard Lew Rockwell on Napolitano's show, when asked about politics, he is not a big fan of political action. Ron Paul didn't energize people to vote (or he would have done better) he energized people to see the state for what it is.
A gang of thieves. Nothing more, nothing less.
wilderness:So you are making up stuff about me - as I said - that isn't true/real.
Such as?
liberty student: wilderness:So you are making up stuff about me - as I said - that isn't true/real. Such as?
ok. You are not reading your comment that I responded to, as I pointed out the last time you asked me this. good enough.
wilderness:ok. You are not reading your comment that I responded to, as I pointed out the last time you asked me this. good enough.
No, I did. You took it out of context. Use the first portion of that sentence.
liberty student:I don't know what your goals are, but except for your own self-gratification, I don't see how the last 10 posts about the light bulb have furthered anything.
Second, you mentioned "stories" (plural). What other stuff have I "made up about you"?
We're going to get to the bottom of this. If I owe you an apology, you're going to get it. But if you're crying wolf, then let it be known. Let's clear the air.
GilesStratton:I must be missing something, because I just don't get it.
So much truth packed into one short sentence.
liberty student: wilderness:ok. You are not reading your comment that I responded to, as I pointed out the last time you asked me this. good enough. No, I did. You took it out of context. Use the first portion of that sentence.
ok. I took it out of context. I apologize, but I'm really very tentative with you anymore - it's me ok. I honestly try to avoid discussing with you, unless I find it to be a really agreeable point (as in the 9/11 on a particular topic, if I remember correctly it had to do with 'questioning the government in general'), and then I felt much has passed and so I was merely laying out my opinion in another thread on PDA's and what I think. I didn't find that to be a debatable subject so I sort of slid in what I thought. I thought the thread was flowing fairly well and felt comfortable to converse with everybody in it.
ok, out of context, i find no need for further explanation.
liberty student: Second, you mentioned "stories" (plural). What other stuff have I "made up about you"?
The "shaming" that originated in this current, off thread topic discussion (by you and me ) - I apologize Silentx...(sorry can't remember how to spell whole name). If it appears that way, it appears that way. I'm not going to get into it. I really didn't try to shame him other than point out his republican conservative mantra which in this thread, of all other threads, i thought was more fair game than ever. Politics gets tough. Maybe that's shaming. I don't know.
I really felt Poptech was avoiding what I think lies at the heart of why it seems alot of disagreement happens with him (not always, some). It was my own little way of trying to lay some kind of agreeable foundation. Seriously, I was trying to get some kind of agreement between him and I in which to further build upon. But in my opinion, if somebody can't agree that A=A, then trying to talk about conservatives, minarchism, and anarchy is never going to happen as these are highly complex concepts. I even stopped discussing with him, maybe it was two nights ago I can't remember. It really wasn't going anywhere. Then I felt maybe I'd give it another go and try to dialogue again. I was trying to narrow the discussion down with him this time around because too much to talk about at once, for me, gets too complicated and I think distracting (for me, I don't know about other people they may be able to handle it better than I can).
liberty student: We're going to get to the bottom of this. If I owe you an apology, you're going to get it. But if you're crying wolf, then let it be known. Let's clear the air.
i was going to write something personal about myself and how I might appear at times, but it got boring. i'll simply end this with an - ok.
wilderness:I apologize
OK. And if I have wronged you, for that I apologize.
As they say in Office Space 'Hug it out b*tch'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
In honor of Laughing Man's new signature.
i was going to make a new thread, but this youtube (which is probably old) was posted on another website I venture for some news, and it fits in with Republican Conservatism. Now this video is all about Republicans, but to be fair I'll add the recent Democratic continuance of the one party Welfare-Warfare State that include a potential attack on Iran, the actual invasion of Somalia, the Obama hoodwink as he is not really changing/de-arming the missile defense system in Eastern Europe, the call for more troops in Iraq and Afghan, the hop across the border ventures into Pakistan, and the South American moves with Columbia opening up bases for the U.S. as Venezuela-Russia ties continue - oh - and etc... the list is TOO, TOO, TOO damn long.
liberty student:Non-sequitur.
Not at all, if something is a "natural state" you would expect it to show up in the real world somewhere, yet the planet is dominated by governments.
liberty student:No, it is the reductio ad absurdum if you believe it is necessary to have an absolute arbiter of law. So far, you have indicated that there must be an absolute authority.
If you have conflicting laws and multiple arbiters who is the authority? In an anarchist society why would I listen to any law? Who is going to make me?
liberty student:Yes I did. The people whose property the government stole.
What if no one owned it previously or they purchased it in a transaction that both parties agreed to?
liberty student:You're dodging. Were the Founders terrorists and traitors or not?
Dodging? You keep creating new arguments that I was never discussing. To the British government they were traitors, to the colonists they were revolutionaries. I have not heard the terrorist argument in relation to the founding fathers. Regardless it is subjective.
liberty student: Ditch the dictionary, stop googling furiously, and start researching libertarianism. As for who decides the moral code? That's a good question. I would say it is subjective. Others here would argue it is objective. Regardless, a libertarian is for non-aggression, which necessarily makes him an anti-statist.
Ditch the dictionary, stop googling furiously, and start researching libertarianism.
As for who decides the moral code? That's a good question. I would say it is subjective. Others here would argue it is objective. Regardless, a libertarian is for non-aggression, which necessarily makes him an anti-statist.
I will not for the definition of words.
Morality is always subjective. I can find no dictionary definition of the word libertarian that includes "non-agression". If you can show me a dictionary (non-wiki) that includes this definition I will be willing to accept it.
liberty student:I explained the logical consequences of holding that the American government and Constitution are legitimate. If you believe they are legitimate, then that means that the right of secession is a fundamental human right, as Jefferson wrote in the declaration. Which means the state has no right to force people to cooperate. If you don't believe secession is a right, or that the state is right to compel then it means the American government is illegitimate.
Legitimacy is subjective. Internationally a large majority of world governments consider the US "legitimate". Whether I believe the US government is legitimate has nothing to do with a belief in succession being a fundamental human right. Succession as history has shown requires the military might to do so. The word "succession" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence.
liberty student:An investigator cannot act as your agent in recovery.
Repossession of property happens all the time in the private sector.
liberty student:Absolutely it does. Libertarians understand the value of insurance, and the purpose it serves to provide a mechanism to price collective risk.
Alarm companies and private security are not considered "insurance" so neither would the police, they are services. Insurance is a hedge against unforeseen and unlikely events.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Governments exercise a degree of power over natural market and non-market voluntary interactions, but that power, in the eyes of history, is microscopic in comparision to that of the market. The State is a parasite on a much more powerful, life affirming organism, society itself. Markets, cooperatives, etc. ARE everywhere, the state has simply taken possession of a small portion of society.
You would obey laws for the same reason that you do now, there is a threat behind them, either banashiment, refusal of service, or violence depending on the instance. There is simply a much higher probability that the laws will be fair, while now, with the state, that probability is much lower.
Most sources of libertarian theory and ideas refernence a "Non-Aggression Principle/Axiom". While it doesn't seem to be a necessary view to hold to qualify as a libertarian, it is certainly a powerful component of the philosophies of most historical libertarians.
Angurse:And? Its inspired by his pioneering work, it isn't supposed to be a temple for him.
I made not claim of a temple only a rational belief that an institution named after someone would not only support beliefs not espoused by the person the institution was named after. This is logical. The claim that minarchist views are not acceptable at an institution named after a person who held these views is illogical.
Angurse:No, they use them in the specialised manner of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, much of these term arguments could be solved if you took the time to read this very site. And the idea that there is a "correct" form of English is just false.
So you suppot freely defining words and abolishing dictionaries? How would we communicate if you can define words how you please?
Angurse:whats that "velocity?" of money?
I was able to find that definition in a dictionary.
Velocity of Money (defined) "The rate at which a given dollar changes hands during a certain period of time. The faster money turns over, the higher the velocity. A higher velocity is associated with a higher dollar volume of transactions and could lead to inflation. Velocity is calculated by dividing gross domestic product by money supply. Economists who subscribe to monetarism believe that the changes in velocity are fairly predictable, and they study the causes of money growth and changes in velocity to estimate future economic growth."
Angurse:And to be totally laissez faire requires the absence of government entirely though.
Not at all, a government can exist to be the arbitrator and protector of property rights without interfering in the economy.
Angurse:Its not a statist or anarchist institution. Its an academic institution that focuses on economics, politics and philosophy who its named after is irrelevant.
I agree except that I believe the name to be very relevant but that is not what is being implied here by others.
Angurse:Well that settles it, property rights and liberty are an impossibility with a state, the dictionary even confirms it.
They are clearly possible. The dictionary makes no mention of this impossibility or evens mentions government.
Esuric:What exactly are you talking about? And which public schools did you go to? Most students spend about 6 years of their life learning about WW2, and how America saved the "free world."
That depends on the school and the text book.
Esuric:Who exactly are you? You sound like some ignorant moron who thinks he's better than anyone outside of the United States. Your nationalistic bullshit completely invalidates your positions, as it exposes you as a confused arrogant statist.
A United States citizen. I made no claim of being better than anyone. You continue to misuse the word statist.
Esuric:Bush passed a 35% ad valorem steel tariff.
Yes this was stupid but he also lifted it a year later. Obama just imposed a 35% tire tariff.
Esuric:Legal positivism, gross.
If there is an anarchist society why would I obey any law?
Esuric:Follow this train of thought all the way through: if individuals require some kind of central body, a regulator, in order to prevent utter disaster and catastrophe, then different states must require the same kind of regulator, but only on a global scale. You're indirectly supporting globalized government when you claim that peaceful cooperation amongst individual entities is not possible. Why would I kill someone who's extremely valuable to me? China doesn't attack Montenegro because China wants (maybe needs) something from Montenegro. Likewise, why would I attack my neighbor on the left if he owns the local grocery store? I need him for food, and presumably he knows how to operate and manage a grocery store. Sure, I may decide one day that I want all of his food for myself, but how would the community react (he same community who needs that same grocer for food every day)? Humans act because they desire certain ends, the means towards those ends must lead to desired outcomes, or they wont act in that way. The belief that people can't cooperate in a peaceful manor in order to achieve their desired ends contradicts 99% of everyday life.
Your theory is the world exists constantly in a peaceful state and wars between countries do not exist and never happen. Historically militarily stronger countries have invaded other weaker countries for natural resources. If you are militarily strong enough other countries merely react with words. But as you well know even on a world scale humans attempt to setup up government arbitrators such as the WTO.
Poptech: If there is an anarchist society why would I obey any law?
you continue to not surprise me. very telling, very telling
wilderness:You need to step it up and start proving why anybody has to accept your positive desires.
You don't, you only have to accept that I have a right to my opinions as do you.
wilderness:Are you telling me you've never seen a light bulb? I've asked this simply question to you I don't know how many times.
I never stated this, I know what a light bulb is, this was never my point. I was talking about stating something vs proving it. Your light bulb analogy was flawed and I proved it so. Only someone who has been shown through demonstration of a light bulb giving off light would accept it. If you showed one to someone who has never seen one before, why would they believe you? My point again is you cannot just think you are right but prove it. This was never about me not believing light bulbs exist.
wilderness:the words I am using, that you complain about "people's English here" are concepts that are centuries old.
Century old words are clearly defined.
Poptech:Yes this was stupid and he also lifted then a year later.
Because there was a case brought against the US in the WTO.
Poptech:If there is an anarchist society why would I obey any law?
The series of laws will be enforced by a polycentric system of law.
Poptech:Your theory is the world exists constantly in a peaceful state and wars between countries do not exist and never happen. Historically militarily stronger countries have invaded other weaker countries for natural resources. If you are militarily strong enough other countries merely react with words. But as you well know even on a world scale humans attempt to setup up government arbitrators such as the WTO.
New battlegrounds are being formulated. It is no longer a matter of how many nukes a country has or how many soldiers they can conscript.
Poptech:Not at all, if something is a "natural state" you would expect it to show up in the real world somewhere, yet the planet is dominated by governments.
Negative proof fallacy.
Poptech:If you have conflicting laws and multiple arbiters who is the authority?
Who is the authority between Japan and Portugal? Who is the ultimate arbiter between Australia and New Zealand?
You tell me. You're the one arguing for an ultimate arbiter, the state. If that is correct, then surely you believe all of the various states, like with different individuals, needs some final arbiter, or ultimate authority. Correct?
Poptech:What if no one owned it previously or they purchased it in a transaction that both parties agreed to?
The government can only purchase property with stolen wealth. The government cannot homestead. Only individuals can originally appropriate nature by mixing their labour with it.
Poptech:To the British government they were traitors, to the colonists they were revolutionaries. I have not heard the terrorist argument in relation to the founding fathers. Regardless it is subjective.
It's not subjective. If you believe the state is legitimate, and do not support the right of individuals to secede, then that would mean the Founders were terrorists and treasonous. However, if you believe they had the right of self-determination, that individual rights are inalienable etc, then you have to believe that people have a fundamental human right to secede, and the blanket social contract of the state (constitution) is non-binding.
It's a simple logical progression in either direction. I'd appreciate that you deal with the reductios rather than claiming subjectivity.
Poptech:I can find no dictionary definition of the word libertarian that includes "non-agression". If you can show me a dictionary (non-wiki) that includes this definition I will be willing to accept it.
I'm sure you will find it in TEOL or FANL. I don't care about dictionaries or wikis. I also linked you recently to Stephan Kinsella's article on Libertarianism. That article was fantastic, and should be a primer for anyone wanting to understand what libertarianism is.
Poptech:The word "succession" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence.
What do you think the declaration was, but a declaration of independence (secession)? C'mon now. Have you read the Kentucky Resolutions?
I'll skip the security issue for now. We really need to focus on your doublethink about the state.
wilderness:Poptech is a Republican conservative.
That is a lie, I am a limited government libertarian.
Poptech: wilderness:You need to step it up and start proving why anybody has to accept your positive desires. You don't, you only have to accept that I have a right to my opinions as do you.
and your opinion desires coercion. a government is instant coercion. so I don't accept it - no thanks.
Poptech: wilderness:Are you telling me you've never seen a light bulb? I've asked this simply question to you I don't know how many times. I never stated this, I know what a light bulb is, this was never my point. I was talking about stating something vs proving it. Your light bulb analogy was flawed and I proved it so. Only someone who has been shown through demonstration of a light bulb giving off light would accept it. If you showed one to someone who has never seen one before, why would they believe you? My point again is you cannot just think you are right but prove it. This was never about me not believing light bulbs exist.
I simply asked you if A=A or a light bulb is a light bulb - no more, no less. You said my argument "A=A" is flawed. Look back. I wanted to know how A is not-A or whatever else you might be claiming. I wanted to know what is flawed about that argument. I tried to keep the conversation within focus, but you kept bringing up "prove it". How do I prove that A=A? - and why would I need to?
Poptech: wilderness:the words I am using, that you complain about "people's English here" are concepts that are centuries old. Century old words are clearly defined.
indeed
Poptech:That is a lie, I am a limited government libertarian.
Mi amigo, that's simply not possible, because,
limited government is an oxymoron
and
{any size} government libertarian is an oxymoron
Poptech: wilderness:Poptech is a Republican conservative. That is a lie, I am a limited government libertarian.
Explain this then. Why did you say this? Also I find your posts in this thread to be defense. Why is that considering the title of this thread? Also why are you seemingly defending Republicans such as Bush over Obama? Why is your distinction between these two important?
Abortion, personally I believe in the right to life but not for religious reasons. Politically I could careless about it
The "war" on drugs is a waste of money but I am more concerned with propaganda that Pot is "safe"
I support defensive wars (not Vietnam, Korea ect...) but how this is interpreted will be subjective
Prostitution should be legal
Marriage should not be a state issue. No law should be passed forcing someone to accept a form of marriage they do not agree with
Porn should be legal
Okay, people seem to misunderstand what I am talking about with my ideal government. This seems to have become a thread that's totally diverted from the topic I wished to discuss.
My ideal minarchist government would be one that's just there. It would abide to the people that want to send voluntary donations to it. It would not create laws or control anything other than the services that it would provide aside from the ones that it would receive from the people that gave it money. There would be no taxes. No transcription.
I don't think that it would be more of a utopia than an anarchist society. Either anarhcism or minarchism would be fine with me. I don't think that it's impossible for there to be an extremely limited government. There would have to be real constraints on it. I think that the argument that every government causes violence, and, violence exists because of governments is false- as violence has been a natural human part of human behavior, and violence towards one another (in war) would probably not change unless drastic changes were made so people would be more acceptable to the idea of free trade and peacful cooperation.
That's just my thoughts anyways.
SilentXtarian: It would not create laws or control anything other than the services that it would provide aside from the ones that it would receive from the people that gave it money.
Which services? And would it have a monopoly on them?
Why is the title of this thread about conservatives and how they discredit us - yet - that's not what you are asking? I believe you may have unintentionally added something to your OP and titled it incorrectly. I don't know. You tell me.
wilderness:Explain this then. Why did you say this? Also I find your posts in this thread to be defense. Why is that considering the title of this thread? Also why are you seemingly defending Republicans such as Bush over Obama? Why is your distinction between these two important?
What I stated was clear. It was to explain the main factions in the Republican party, which too many people here are ignorant of and just lump groups together. Just like the minarchist vs. anarcho-capitalists vs. objectivists exist in the libertarian sphere so do different factions in the conservative one. My point was not to black ball all of the republican party as many who consider themselves financial conservatives are really minarchist libertarians but instead to reach out to those who you can convince and minarchist libertarians will be able to convince financial conservatives (I am not talking about supply siders) that they are really minarchist libertarians. So I am not allowed to state my opinion that Obama is more of a socialist than Bush? I see Obamacare, Obamastimulus and Cap and Trade to be much more damaging to the economy than anything Bush did. This does not mean I was in support of TARP or the Prescription Drug Program. And while I opposed the Steel tariff at least he removed it. Obama just put a tariff on tires.
Laughing man, the state wouldn't have a monopoly of the services. It would allow for free competition to the services it has. Kind of like the Post Office. It would be ran like a private enterprise here.
And wilderness- no I wasn't trying to mislead you with this topic. This was originally about Republican conservatives, but if you read through all of these pages, you'll see that my topic has been hijacked somewhere along the lines. I wasn't trying to mislead you with the OP.
I think that Republicans discredit us by talking about socialism... when their whole ideology of supply-side economics is based on revolving around the federal reserve and the state.
Poptech: wilderness:Explain this then. Why did you say this? Also I find your posts in this thread to be defense. Why is that considering the title of this thread? Also why are you seemingly defending Republicans such as Bush over Obama? Why is your distinction between these two important? What I stated was clear. It was to explain the main factions in the Republican party, which too many people here are ignorant of and just lump groups together. Just like the minarchist vs. anarcho-capitalists vs. objectivists exist in the libertarian sphere so do different factions in the conservative one. My point was not to black ball all of the republican party as many who consider themselves financial conservatives are really minarchist libertarians but instead to reach out to those who you can convince and minarchist libertarians will be able to convince financial conservatives (I am not talking about supply siders) that they are really minarchist libertarians. So I am not allowed to state my opinion that Obama is more of a socialist than Bush? I see Obamacare, Obamastimulus and Cap and Trade to be much more damaging to the economy than anything Bush did. This does not mean I was in support of TARP or the Prescription Drug Program. And while I opposed the Steel tariff at least he removed it. Obama just put a tariff on tires.
How can you honestly say that when the first bailouts of this melt-down were started under a Republican adminsitration? Also, how can you say that despite the fact that it's commonly known that George W Bush actually pushed for a lot of government regulation during his tenure as President- more so than Obama has so far? I'd say they're both equally statist.
SilentXtarian: And wilderness- no I wasn't trying to mislead you with this topic. This was originally about Republican conservatives, but if you read through all of these pages, you'll see that my topic has been hijacked somewhere along the lines. I wasn't trying to mislead you with the OP.
Ok. my bad.
Mlee:You would obey laws for the same reason that you do now, there is a threat behind them, either banashiment, refusal of service, or violence depending on the instance. There is simply a much higher probability that the laws will be fair, while now, with the state, that probability is much lower.
Banishment from where? I am a billionaire (theoretical) who owns my own property, I do not need your service and I can defend myself from all violence.
There is no probability that anyone to obey any laws if there is no on to enforce them.
liberty student:{any size} government libertarian is an oxymoron
Only based on you redefining words that the rest of the English speaking word does not accept. Can you show me a definition of the word libertarian that means "no government". Why would the word anarchist exists then? And why is it called anarcho-capitalism and not libertarian-capitalism then? If what you are saying is valid then when you state to someone "libertarian-capitalism" they will understand that means "no government".
Do those not familiar with Rothbard understand liertarian-capitalism to mean "no government"?
wilderness:and your opinion desires coercion. a government is instant coercion. so I don't accept it - no thanks.
Do you accept I have the right to my opinion? I did not state you agree with my opinion.
wilderness:I simply asked you if A=A or a light bulb is a light bulb - no more, no less. You said my argument "A=A" is flawed. Look back. I wanted to know how A is not-A or whatever else you might be claiming. I wanted to know what is flawed about that argument. I tried to keep the conversation within focus, but you kept bringing up "prove it". How do I prove that A=A? - and why would I need to?
It is flawed in relation to the context of my initial argument as I have stated many times.