- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,666
- Reaction score
- 39,922
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Hillary supporters-How do you think a Trump Presidency will hurt you
Unborn children do indeed have rights, regardless of whether or not we choose to violate them. Since this is an a priori argument, I would propose we simply leave it by.
In reality this is the law in China. In reality this happens. I answered your question, and you refuse to answer mine.
Didn't read the post before responding, eh?
He's been off on a big "Open/Closed Inclusive/Exclusive" kick lately. I read folks from all over, because there is no such thing as a commentator, aggregator, or presenter who isn't a pundit.
The law certainly does equal force - because those "consequences" will involve the use of force against you for refusing to follow the law.
:shrug: then there is no such thing as force. You can always, after all, choose to commit suicide, and then no one can make you do anything.
Nor should we worry about conservatives forcing anyone to do anything. If they pass a law making homosexuality punishable by death, well, you can always choose to not practice homosexuality or move out of the country - you aren't being forced. If they choose to pass a law banning all abortions, well, women aren't being forced to carry their pregnancies to term - they can choose not to have sex, choose to flee the country for abortions, or choose to commit suicide. They have a veritable plethora of choices.
All that, of course, is ridiculous. Because law is force. And that's fine. Force has several fully legitimate uses in our interactions with others.
:roll: gosh. I wonder why non-Libertarians such as myself are pointing it out, then. Man, that Hobbes, whatta libertarian :lol:
By your logic, virtually nothing forces anyone to do anything.
There were no restrictions on SSM. There was no force because people had choices.
The threat of force remains the use of force, however, regardless of your wish to redefine it away. When you use the power of the central government to try to dominate others and make them live as you prefer, rather than as they prefer, you naturally create backlash. It is the centralization of power that creates winner-take-all fights, increases partisan bitterness, reduces trust, reduces willingness and ability to compromise, and leads inevitably to widespread paranoia. It turns politics from a mutually beneficial game of compromise into a zero-sum competition where each side believes it is fighting for it's life.
Unborn children do indeed have rights, regardless of whether or not we choose to violate them. Since this is an a priori argument, I would propose we simply leave it by.
In reality this is the law in China. In reality this happens. I answered your question, and you refuse to answer mine.
Didn't read the post before responding, eh?
He's been off on a big "Open/Closed Inclusive/Exclusive" kick lately. I read folks from all over, because there is no such thing as a commentator, aggregator, or presenter who isn't a pundit.
The law certainly does equal force - because those "consequences" will involve the use of force against you for refusing to follow the law.
:shrug: then there is no such thing as force. You can always, after all, choose to commit suicide, and then no one can make you do anything.
Nor should we worry about conservatives forcing anyone to do anything. If they pass a law making homosexuality punishable by death, well, you can always choose to not practice homosexuality or move out of the country - you aren't being forced. If they choose to pass a law banning all abortions, well, women aren't being forced to carry their pregnancies to term - they can choose not to have sex, choose to flee the country for abortions, or choose to commit suicide. They have a veritable plethora of choices.
All that, of course, is ridiculous. Because law is force. And that's fine. Force has several fully legitimate uses in our interactions with others.
:roll: gosh. I wonder why non-Libertarians such as myself are pointing it out, then. Man, that Hobbes, whatta libertarian :lol:
By your logic, virtually nothing forces anyone to do anything.
There were no restrictions on SSM. There was no force because people had choices.
The threat of force remains the use of force, however, regardless of your wish to redefine it away. When you use the power of the central government to try to dominate others and make them live as you prefer, rather than as they prefer, you naturally create backlash. It is the centralization of power that creates winner-take-all fights, increases partisan bitterness, reduces trust, reduces willingness and ability to compromise, and leads inevitably to widespread paranoia. It turns politics from a mutually beneficial game of compromise into a zero-sum competition where each side believes it is fighting for it's life.
