Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[Curried Goats]

Once again, I did not say it should be nor did I suggest it is a compelling reason. I just said it's a reason. That's it.

So your argument is that you have a legal claim but that it isn't a compelling reason?

No it's not.

It is. The law me and my brothers thought up is as objectively real as any religion or law imagined by any other human being. How do you imagine yourself to be in a position to tell me what the laws me and my brothers crafted say?

I insist it belongs to me because the documentation and cancelled checks prove I do.

Okay but what do those things mean to me? You haven't given me a compelling reason by your own admission. Are you just here arguing uncompelling reasons? That's a twist I didn't see coming.

No. You said you didn't respect my claim because I didn't buy it from you. Again, you said "Why should I?".

I didn't say I didn't respect your claim because you didn't buy it from me. You're misremembering. In post #973 I was responding to your argument that ownership is derived from mutual agreement like when you buy a house from someone and I responded: mutual agreement with everyone? That transaction was between you and that guy. You didn't pay me for exclusive rights. Meaning you paid that guy to respect your claim. The premise here isn't that I also own the property and that you need to pay me as well. My premise is that the natural world objectively belongs to no one and if you want to come to some agreement with others about them agreeing not to access or use said natural resources that that is an agreement between yall. We haven't come to an agreement and you've yet to describe a compelling reason for me to agree to not partake of these natural resources.

The implication is that you do not respect my claim of ownership even if it's provably legal.

Why should I? Is that a compelling reason? Your first argument of this post is that you're not saying that I should even respect the law so why do you keep going back to it?

I get hung up because I understand language nuance. You don't. This is why I say you can't express yourself worth a shit and that your reading comprehension sucks.

Do you? Me and other people are able to have arguments without discussing what the meaning of is is in every post. In fact in much earlier this very thread you confused yourself over the meaning of value in an argument me and another poster were having where we understood each other just fine. So far this seems to be a YOU problem.

What "natural resources", the nuts from my pecan trees? It's a fucking house on a three quarter acre piece of land. If you want my pecans, I give you permission to come gather them.

Who's asking for your permission? My question is of your authority to begin with and where it comes from.

Why would I need to come to some agreement with you for you to recognize and respect my legal ownership of my house and property? The fuck are you talking about?

Because the legality of your ownership in and of itself isn't a compelling reason to me.

You idiot. What does this have to do with respecting or not respecting your ability to walk and go places?

That you not respecting my natural innate freedom to go where I please requires physical force against me whereas me not respecting your legal claim to natural resources does not. That's just me agreeing to disagree with your point of view.

1.) Again, "freedom" is subjective. "Ability" is more apt in this context.

You make that argument as if you think that's objectively true when it's only subjectively true. Freedom is perfectly apt as far as I'm concerned which is why I continue to use it.

2.) "That piece of nature" is not all there is to my property. It includes a house that is not a piece of nature.

Is it situated within the natural world? That you put an obstruction there is supposed to mean what to me?

I said that because the way you expressed it made no sense. If there's a threat of force in law, it is not inherent in my reliance on law. Either there is or there isn't. My reliance on law doesn't determine the threat of force.

Its inherent in law. If you're relying on the law then you are relying on something that inherently uses acts of physical force to compel compliance.

Negative. You said: "If I don't respect your legal claim then what?"

"Then what?" what? Do you expect me to initiate some kind of action simply because you don't respect my legal claim? Until you apply force of your own in some way, the ball's in your court.

That's the thing. I don't have to use violence against you to not respect your claim to property. I am using force to propel me where I want to go but that isn't an objective physical force being used against you. Allowing me to go where I want all over property you claim to be yours without doing anything about it calls into question this claim to ownership. You're the one who has to use force against me to assert your property rights. I don't have to use force against you to simply disagree with your belief that you own something and to access that something provided it's not directly on your person. That's the only time I recognize objective possession. When something is in your physical possession. In that case I would concede it would require force to access it against your will.

Law. What else?

The law is the law. You can't explain what it actually is better than that?

When? Where? How?

The point I'm trying to make when I ask this is that the legal system uses physical force when physical force is brought against it, or rather, against a person, people, property, etc. Physical force is not always brought to bear when a law is broken. In fact, it is not always brought to bear when it should be.

How was I supposed to discern that point from you simply asking When? Where? And How? But whatever. Finally you attempt an actual counter argument with some detail and structure.

Let's put aside self defense. If someone is attacking you then you are responding to physical force you're not the initiator of force. My argument isn't about force in regards to self defense, it's about that other thing you listed, force against property.

1. Force against property isn't force against your physical person, objectively speaking.

2. Things only subjectively belong to you. Now before you claim that legal claims are real understand that I mean in the context of the law itself being a subjective set of morals and ideas as you admitted to previously. That you and the legal system are of the opinion that a piece of land belongs to you and that you and they have the authority to tell others where they can and cannot go in the world is only a subjective belief that is not necessarily shared by others.

3. When people disagree with these subjective beliefs your only recourse to assert your ownership over anything not on your person is to compel people through the use of force.

Our government/s (mostly Democrats and Democrat states and cities) are decriminalizing criminal behavior.


But the law does not.


They're not simple concepts. That's the point.

Maybe not for you. You've appeared to have gotten emotional over democrats for some reason and maybe that's the problem. You're trying to discern "good" law from "bad" law as if your feelings on the law make a difference about what the law fundamentally is. Striping it down to its core isn't at all hard because it's a human endeavor and what drives all human endeavor is self interest. Democrats craft laws you disagree with because they have different interests than you.

I imagine the concept of law was simple enough at its inception but it is hopelessly complicated today.

Interests have gotten more complicated, that's all. Not only does the law have to respect the interest of more people than just land owning white males but also but technology and the loosening of social restrictions and taboos allows for a wider, more complicated array of interests.

Negative. "Here we go again" as in, the issue is infinitely more complex than "Law is force".

Not when you boil it down to what it is objectively which is a framework for how, when and where society is to apply physical force to compel people to adhere to the subjective morals and ideas and interests of said society. What the hell is complicated about recognizing people have self interests as individuals and collective interests as a society?

Wrong. You're looking at this bass ackwards. Laws are ideas that are ultimately about creating a more harmonious society.

For everyone or for the people who's interests these laws are made to serve? Harmonious in this context doesn't appear to an objective standard. Slave laws might of created harmony among slave merchants but it didn't for the slaves themselves.

Not all penalties involve violence.

Which ones don't ultimately end in violence? If I keep ignoring fines or notices to appear in court I'm good?

Either way, the ones that enforce property rights do.

If that's true, you haven't either.

You say I have been unable to describe law if it's not about force but you have been unable to describe force.

I've describe force for you numerous times now.

"Tangible" has three definitions in Webster's:

1a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
b : substantially real : material

2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
her grief was tangible

3: capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value
tangible assets
As you can see, the first definition is literal: physical touch. But the second definition is figurative. Therefore, "tangible" is subjective.

In some contexts, not the context I used it in guy. I even clarified it for you. This isn't a choose your own adventure novel. You making up whatever context you want for my arguments is just you arguing against Strawmen.

And what about how and where?

The reason you're having a hard time understanding where I'm coming from is that you insist on looking at the issue in strictly general terms, i.e., Law is always force and the manner of this force is always the same with every law, every person or entity and in every case.

Your perspective on this is overly simplistic.

Ok I see this claim. Can you defend it with something other than supposition? The reason I'm having a hard time understanding you is because you don't really try to explain how you think my perspective is too simplistic.

1. Is the law ever something other than a subjective set of ideas and morals?

2. Can people be made to adhere to morals and ideas that they don't want to without force or coercive threats of force?

Go ahead and try to make it more complicated than that. I welcome the challenge.

My "say so"? I specifically cited legal documentation you idiot.

So the say so of someone else? What's that supposed to mean to me? You already said up top that you didn't mean for this to be a compelling reason.

I'm not the one who said the law don't mean shit, you are.

I was. Explain how you make the law mean something to me when if it doesn't. Me and my brothers laws didn't seem to mean much to you.

You just contradicted yourself again dumbass. When you ask a question and I say the question and the answer are irrelevant to the topic, you bitch about it. At the same time you tell me you know my answers are going to be stupid even before you ask the question.

Goddamn you're a hypocrite.

No, you're just stupid....

You're argument is about pretending you speak for the topic, I'm just speaking for myself. I'm not forcing you to be fantasy role playing weirdo.

I'm saying that I never said the law has no bearing on anything.

So what are you saying? Is there some compelling reason I should care about your legal claims?

Is this the same daddy that's going to give you my resources?

What? Nature provides natural resources you moron.

Irrelevant. You claimed I was "Refusing to acknowledge that fact..." that there are physical consequences to breaking the law when it was clear from early on that I understood this.

And yet you seem confused when I say the law is force for those who don't agree to comply. Those physical consequences are the forces I'm referring to.

All this tells me is that you don't have much respect for law in general.

You haven't given me a compelling reason to yet. It's your argument guy.

No. Your arguments from the beginning were that, generally speaking, law is force. Now you're crawfishing to the specific physics of an officer using physical force to restrain a suspect.

That's what it always was, you just haven't understood it even though I've explained it as such repeatedly. The physical consequences for not adhering to the rule of law is the force of law I keep referencing. You're the only person I have this argument with that has trouble understanding this.

The nature of their existence is not force.


First describe force in all its contexts then we can can talk about what I think law is.

Me and Newton already have. F=MA

Anything with mass and acceleration interacting with another object is acting with force. This is an objective fact.

You asked me to name one thing that is objectively real that isn't part of the natural world. The context is that these things exist.

I said religions exist. I did not say or suggest that their beliefs are objectively real. Jesus what an idiot.

So in what ways do they exist? As thoughts and ideas? Humans having thoughts and ideas isn't a part of natural human biology? Where do you think your ideas come from if isnt human biology that allows you to have thoughts and ideas? Magic?

I just gave you a list in my last post. Religions objectively exist. They exist apart from my mind and they are not of the natural world. Therefore, there are two ways I can approach religion: with bias or objectively without bias.

In what way does religion exist apart from your mind or the mind of others since you already admitted religious beliefs aren't objectively real? Let's be specific because if religion can ultimately be boiled down to human thoughts and ideas then aren't humans having thoughts and ideas a natural result of human biology?

What would be the point if you know my answer will be stupid?

So I can understand the nature of your stupid.

Once again: religion; culture; fashions; politics...

You're talking about sensory stimulation which is something wholly different. The things that trigger our senses are not in and of our minds. Religion objectively exists even though the doctrine that makes up the religion is subjective.

Exactly. I'm talking about objective reality vs your subjective perspective. I have no clue what you were referring to previously about something existing outside of both.

What?


The fuck are you talking about? Statistically speaking, is it or is it not true that the majority of people who adopt a religion adopt the prevailing religion of their country and culture?

That's true but I don't see how that goes to making your previous point. In fact you are referencing truth, i.e. fact in your statement. Objective observations deal with analysis of truths and facts rather than subjective beliefs. It doesn't matter if the fact you're analyzing is about a subjective belief like religion because it's about which religion they believe in rather than the beliefs of the religion itself.

I will assume you would agree with this, yes? Assuming that you do, would this not be an objective argument in a discussion about whose religion is the true religion?

What? Now you've lost me.

How long are you going to hide behind your red herring of property acquisition by force?

That's not a red herring, that's my argument. Your counter was mutual agreement. My response was, with everyone? What about the people who disagree and don't recognize that piece of land as yours or the law as legit or compelling? And since then it's just been you waffling back and forth about whether the use of physical force is employed to make the dissenters comply.

I acquire property by paying for it. The payment record and documentation determine ownership, not the law.

That satisfies the person you paid for it and the legal system that you willingly adhere to. Now what about for those whom that isn't a compelling response?

That's about seven or eight times now. Do I need to tell you a ninth time or do you need to get stoned first?

And it's about the millionth times I've asked you about the people who disagree.

I never indicated in any way that law has nothing to do with my acquiring and owning property. I merely said (multiple times) that it does not determine ownership.

So what does? Your feelings? You seem to think I'm asking you what determines this for you. I'm asking what determines your right to a piece of property for someone not compelled by your legal claim.

Irrelevant. You said: "law itself is based on subjective feelings no one is inclined by nature to adhere to without the use of physical force."

When they don't want to. You keep forgeting that part.

It is entirely subjective opinion that no one is inclined to abide by laws without the threat or use of physical force. This is a broadbrush claim that you are not qualified to make.

No. It's you only wanting to focus on the agreeable. My argument is about those who disagree. If you have a counter argument for how to make people comply with you who don't want to without force then let's hear it.

Right, because you want access to my resources, whatever those are.

Have we agreed they're yours? Why do you think that's the start of the discussion? My argument starts with the people who disagree with that premise.

But you've said law is force.


That doesn't answer my question. You said: "That I'm not inclined by nature to adhere to your laws. What compels me to is force."

Are you speaking for yourself or was this a statement referring to people in general?

It's a statement about human nature. You can't force people to agree with you, i.e. you can't make people believe in something they dont believe in, you can only force them to comply with you.

Again, you said: "That I'm not inclined by nature to adhere to your laws. What compels me to is force."

If you were not referring to yourself then why word it that way? Wouldn't it be more apt to say "Some are not inclined by nature to adhere to your laws. What compels them to is force."?

Because that how I chose to word it. You word things however you want.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So your argument is that you have a legal claim but that it isn't a compelling reason?

Nope. I said that I did not say it was compelling. How compelling it is is entirely up to the individual.

It is. The law me and my brothers thought up is as objectively real as any religion or law imagined by any other human being. How do you imagine yourself to be in a position to tell me what the laws me and my brothers crafted say?

Nope. I'm talking about the law of the land. You're talking about a situation where there IS no law of the land and everybody makes up their own.

Okay but what do those things mean to me?

Apparently nothing. The kicker is that your claim of ownership of your property means something to me. I respect your legal claim, you do not respect mine.

You haven't given me a compelling reason by your own admission.

Wrong again Lumpy. I did not admit to not having a compelling reason. Again, I said I did not say it was a compelling reason.

Might I suggest you read Reading Comprehension for Stoned Jamaicans? It may help you cure this penchant you have for making incorrect inferences. If I say that I did not say it was a compelling reason, that doesn't mean I'm saying it isn't a compelling reason and it doesn't mean I admit that it is not. Understand?

Are you just here arguing uncompelling reasons? That's a twist I didn't see coming.

"Compelling" is your word, not mine. You didn't ask for compelling reasons in the beginning, you only asked for reasons and I gave one to you. If you wanted compelling reasons then you should have stipulated that from the beginning.

I didn't say I didn't respect your claim because you didn't buy it from me. You're misremembering.

Bullshit you fucking liar. In Post #974, I specifically asked you:

"Are you saying you don’t respect my claim to my property because I didn’t pay you for it?"

Your response?

"Yes. I respect the objective power of superior force. I don't give one fuck about your imagination. You thinking you own something or a piece of land doesnt mean a damn thing to me without that force. Why would it?"

In post #973 I was responding to your argument that ownership is derived from mutual agreement like when you buy a house from someone and I responded: mutual agreement with everyone? That transaction was between you and that guy. You didn't pay me for exclusive rights. Meaning you paid that guy to respect your claim. The premise here isn't that I also own the property and that you need to pay me as well. My premise is that the natural world objectively belongs to no one and if you want to come to some agreement with others about them agreeing not to access or use said natural resources that that is an agreement between yall. We haven't come to an agreement and you've yet to describe a compelling reason for me to agree to not partake of these natural resources.

Blah blah blah You don't even remember telling me that you did not respect my claim to ownership because I didn't pay you for it.

Why should I? Is that a compelling reason?

What are you asking me for? Whether or not it's compelling is entirely up to you.

Your first argument of this post is that you're not saying that I should even respect the law so why do you keep going back to it?

What the fuck are you talking about? I said no such thing.

Do you?

You don't remember?

Me and other people are able to have arguments without discussing what the meaning of is is in every post.

You and I have never argued about "what the meaning of is is".

In fact in much earlier this very thread you confused yourself over the meaning of value in an argument me and another poster were having where we understood each other just fine. So far this seems to be a YOU problem.

So far you don't even remember what you said.

Who's asking for your permission?

Nobody. The obvious sarcasm notwithstanding, it was an offer, dumbass.

My question is of your authority to begin with and where it comes from.

You never said anything about authority.

Because the legality of your ownership in and of itself isn't a compelling reason to me.

If I bought it from you, you would respect the legality of it then, wouldn't you? For that matter, do you not respect the legality of ownership of your own house?

That you not respecting my natural innate freedom to go where I please requires physical force against me whereas me not respecting your legal claim to natural resources does not. That's just me agreeing to disagree with your point of view.

Explain to me how mere lack of respect is force and how it is force in one case but not the other. Idiot.

You make that argument as if you think that's objectively true when it's only subjectively true.

Did you not see the words "more apt"?

No shit, your reading comprehension really is fucking atrocious.

Freedom is perfectly apt as far as I'm concerned which is why I continue to use it.

You continue to use it only because I said something about it.

Is it situated within the natural world?

Does it have resources you want?

That you put an obstruction there is supposed to mean what to me?

What obstruction?

Its inherent in law.

No, it is not.

If you're relying on the law then you are relying on something that inherently uses acts of physical force to compel compliance.

When? Where? How? And the physical force is not meant to compel compliance, it is meant to subdue a person so they can be charged, tried and punished.

That's the thing. I don't have to use violence against you to not respect your claim to property.

And I don't have to use force to not respect your freedom to go where you please. Yet that is exactly what you just said.

You're talking in circles (again) and you're contradicting yourself (again).

I am using force to propel me where I want to go but that isn't an objective physical force being used against you. Allowing me to go where I want all over property you claim to be yours without doing anything about it calls into question this claim to ownership. You're the one who has to use force against me to assert your property rights. I don't have to use force against you to simply disagree with your belief that you own something and to access that something provided it's not directly on your person. That's the only time I recognize objective possession. When something is in your physical possession. In that case I would concede it would require force to access it against your will.

Blah blah blah. And you bitch about my droning on.

This didn't require an entire paragraph. You said "If I don't respect your legal claim then what?"
Is some kind of action called for or required by me just because you're not respecting my claim? There's nothing for me to do at that point because you haven't taken any action against me or my property.

The law is the law. You can't explain what it actually is better than that?

You asked me what law existed as. What was I going to say, law exists as a pixie dancing on a mushroom?

How was I supposed to discern that point from you simply asking When? Where? And How? But whatever. Finally you attempt an actual counter argument with some detail and structure.

I did not "simply ask When? Where? And How?" In Post #923 you said:

"Force was used to aquire (sic) it (property) originally and to maintain it.".
In Post #924 my response was:

"When? Who? Where? How much? And, since "force" is subjective, describe the force used in each case and by who."
I made it clear in the beginning that I was asking: When was force used? Who used force? Where was force used? And How Much force was used?

Grammatically speaking, "Force" is the subject of your sentence. Therefore, it's plainly obvious my questions referred to the subject. Did you think I was asking "When property" or "How much maintain"?

Let's put aside self defense. If someone is attacking you then you are responding to physical force you're not the initiator of force. My argument isn't about force in regards to self defense, it's about that other thing you listed, force against property

1. Force against property isn't force against your physical person, objectively speaking.

2. Things only subjectively belong to you. Now before you claim that legal claims are real understand that I mean in the context of the law itself being a subjective set of morals and ideas as you admitted to previously. That you and the legal system are of the opinion that a piece of land belongs to you and that you and they have the authority to tell others where they can and cannot go in the world is only a subjective belief that is not necessarily shared by others.

3. When people disagree with these subjective beliefs your only recourse to assert your ownership over anything not on your person is to compel people through the use of force.

Need I remind you that you are the one who brought physics into this?

Maybe not for you. You've appeared to have gotten emotional over democrats for some reason and maybe that's the problem.

Apparently the point went right over your head. Aren't they lawmakers? Aren't they part and parcel of your whole "Laws were made to protect special interests?" tirade? If so, why don't you have a problem with them too?

You're trying to discern "good" law from "bad" law as if your feelings on the law make a difference about what the law fundamentally is.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I didn't say anything about "good" laws or "bad" laws. The point is that some laws are not even being enforced or are not being enforced in the way they were initially prescribed.

Striping it down to its core isn't at all hard because it's a human endeavor and what drives all human endeavor is self interest. Democrats craft laws you disagree with because they have different interests than you.

I did not say anything about the laws Democrats craft. I said they are decriminalizing criminal behavior.

Interests have gotten more complicated, that's all. Not only does the law have to respect the interest of more people than just land owning white males but also but technology and the loosening of social restrictions and taboos allows for a wider, more complicated array of interests.

Like I said, it is hopelessly complicated today.

Explaining why it's complicated doesn't change the point.

Not when you boil it down to what it is objectively which is a framework for how, when and where society is to apply physical force to compel people to adhere to the subjective morals and ideas and interests of said society. What the hell is complicated about recognizing people have self interests as individuals and collective interests as a society?

Negative. "Law is force" does not work because no force is applied unless the law is broken.

For everyone or for the people who's interests these laws are made to serve?

You've appeared to have gotten emotional over rich people for some reason and maybe that's the problem.

Harmonious in this context doesn't appear to an objective standard.

"Harmonious" is subjective in any context, dumbass. I did not suggest in any way that it was an objective standard.

You're just arguing to argue at this point. You're not arguing against what I actually say, you're arguing against your own inferences and interpretations. You're even arguing against arguments you agree with by explaining them as if it changes the point.

Slave laws might of created harmony among slave merchants but it didn't for the slaves themselves.

What's your point? That there have been fucked up or unfair laws at various times doesn't negate the fact that laws were created to form a more harmonious or ordered society.

Which ones don't ultimately end in violence? If I keep ignoring fines or notices to appear in court I'm good?

What if you DO pay your fines or appear in court? If you are charged with a misdemeanor you have to pay a fine - which is not force or violence - but you've still broken the law.

Either way, the ones that enforce property rights do.

No, you don't just get to say "Law is force", cite physical violence of arrests and physics to support your claim, stray into paying fines for misdemeanors (which is not physical force) and then bring it back around to property rights again. Either law is force in a physical sense at all times as you've expressed it or it is not.

We both know it is not. Therefore, law is not force in and of itself and "force" is subjective.

I've describe force for you numerous times now.

You've described physical force but you haven't explained or taken into account that the when, where and how is different for each law and that penalties vary from state to state and from city to city.

In some contexts, not the context I used it in guy.

And what context was that?

I even clarified it for you.

In Post #1017 you asked: "In what tangible way does a law actually exist if it's not enforced?".

It is your assumption and your assumption alone that dictates that law must exist in a tangible way according to your context. There is no rule or precept that says that for a thing to exist, it must involve physical touch. We already came to a mutual understanding that things like religions objectively exist.

This isn't a choose your own adventure novel. You making up whatever context you want for my arguments is just you arguing against Strawmen.

It seems that is exactly what you have been doing. You said "Law is force" and created the context of physical force and violence at the beginning of and throughout this discussion. Then you fucked up and mentioned fines. You framed it in a way where a person refuses to pay the fines but the problem is, fines are assessed for breaking certain laws. This means that some laws can be broken without resulting in physical force consequences which in turn means that law is not force in and of itself.

Ok I see this claim. Can you defend it with something other than supposition?

Are you denying that Law is always force and the manner of this force is always the same with every law, every person or entity and in every case?

If you don't deny it then my supposition is correct. If you do deny it then it means you must agree with me that it's not as simple as "Law is force".

The reason I'm having a hard time understanding you is because you don't really try to explain how you think my perspective is too simplistic.

I just did.

1. Is the law ever something other than a subjective set of ideas and morals?

We both know laws are subjective ideals but that's not the real question. The real questions are: Does law exist? and, Is law a force?

2. Can people be made to adhere to morals and ideas that they don't want to without force or coercive threats of force?

Again, not the real question. If law is force then it is force even if you abide by them.

Go ahead and try to make it more complicated than that. I welcome the challenge.

I just did.

So the say so of someone else?

No. My say so, the say so of the person I'm buying from and the say so of the legal apparatus. Which means it is not just my say so as you said.

What's that supposed to mean to me? You already said up top that you didn't mean for this to be a compelling reason.

Wrong again Lumpy. I did not say I didn't mean for it to be a compelling reason. I simply said I didn't SAY it was a compelling reason.

Do you not yet understand that if I say "I didn't say it was a compelling reason" that it means I didn't say it was a compelling reason? Nothing else is implied here and there's no basis whatsoever to infer anything else.

I was. Explain how you make the law mean something to me when if it doesn't. Me and my brothers laws didn't seem to mean much to you.

If you break the law then obviously law doesn't mean anything to you in the first place. What's more, physical violence and prison won't even make law have any meaning for you.

You're changing the narrative again. At first it was simply "Law is force". Then it became "Law is physical violence if you disagree." And now it's "How do you make the law mean something to one who disrespects the law?"

No, you're just stupid....

How clever.

You're argument is about pretending you speak for the topic, I'm just speaking for myself.

I didn't make an argument, dumbass. I asked IM2 a question. You sticking your nose in and asking me a question that had no bearing on the gist of the exchange is what started this roller coaster ride.

I'm not forcing you to be fantasy role playing weirdo.

My asking IM2 a question was fantasy role playing?

So what are you saying? Is there some compelling reason I should care about your legal claims?

I'm saying that I never said the law has no bearing on anything. Whether you care about that or not is your choice.

What? Nature provides natural resources you moron.

I did say "pecans" didn't I? Or did you forget that already too?

And yet you seem confused when I say the law is force for those who don't agree to comply. Those physical consequences are the forces I'm referring to.

You said "Law is force" in the beginning. That's it.

You haven't given me a compelling reason to yet. It's your argument guy.

What exactly is my argument here? Saying you don't seem to have much respect for the law is not an argument, it's an opinion.

That's what it always was, you just haven't understood it even though I've explained it as such repeatedly. The physical consequences for not adhering to the rule of law is the force of law I keep referencing. You're the only person I have this argument with that has trouble understanding this.

And yet you are the one who brought up fines.

Me and Newton already have. F=MA

Anything with mass and acceleration interacting with another object is acting with force. This is an objective fact.

That's not a description of force in all its contexts. Webster's has no less than six main definitions with ten sub-definitions as a noun; and nine main definitions and eleven sub-definitions as a verb.

So in what ways do they exist? As thoughts and ideas?

You don't know?

Humans having thoughts and ideas isn't a part of natural human biology? Where do you think your ideas come from if isnt human biology that allows you to have thoughts and ideas? Magic?

You're talking about the beliefs and doctrine that define a religion. I'm talking about the fact of a religion's existence.

In what way does religion exist apart from your mind or the mind of others since you already admitted religious beliefs aren't objectively real? Let's be specific because if religion can ultimately be boiled down to human thoughts and ideas then aren't humans having thoughts and ideas a natural result of human biology?

Okay, put the joint down Captain Herbal Life. We can do this about the existence of religion for the next month so let's get back to what we were originally talking about: objectivity and its relation to the natural world. Again, the dictionary defines objectivity as an approach to, or perspective on something without personal bias.

Having said that, does Jamaican culture exist?

So I can understand the nature of your stupid.

We've been sparring over a year now, why is it taking you so long to understand the nature of my stupid? Could it be that you are the one that's stupid? I mean, I got the gist of your stupid a long time ago.

Exactly. I'm talking about objective reality vs your subjective perspective. I have no clue what you were referring to previously about something existing outside of both.

But the subject of Confederate statues triggers you, doesn't it? You get triggered on the subject without any physical interaction with a statue.

That's true but I don't see how that goes to making your previous point. In fact you are referencing truth, i.e. fact in your statement. Objective observations deal with analysis of truths and facts rather than subjective beliefs. It doesn't matter if the fact you're analyzing is about a subjective belief like religion because it's about which religion they believe in rather than the beliefs of the religion itself.

Are you seriously telling me that you cannot conceive of an objective argument that is not necessarily fact?

What? Now you've lost me.

I'm not surprised.

That's not a red herring, that's my argument.

Which is a red herring for one of two possible reasons:

1.) It is no longer done this way

2.) It is not done this way every time.

Your counter was mutual agreement.

No it wasn't.

My response was, with everyone?

Which is irrelevant because you said law is force.

What about the people who disagree and don't recognize that piece of land as yours or the law as legit or compelling? And since then it's just been you waffling back and forth about whether the use of physical force is employed to make the dissenters comply.

Because you initially stated that law is force, people disagreeing is irrelevant because this would mean force is applied whether you abide by the laws or not.

That satisfies the person you paid for it and the legal system that you willingly adhere to. Now what about for those whom that isn't a compelling response?

I guess they'll just have to suck on it. Who gives a shit if it's a compelling response to them or not?

And it's about the millionth times I've asked you about the people who disagree.

If law is force then that doesn't matter, does it?

So what does? Your feelings? You seem to think I'm asking you what determines this for you. I'm asking what determines your right to a piece of property for someone not compelled by your legal claim.

And I've told you a million times that my paying for it and the documentation of the transaction determine my ownership.

When they don't want to. You keep forgeting that part.

That's not what you said. You said "law itself is based on subjective feelings no one is inclined by nature to adhere to without the use of physical force.".

This statement plainly says no one is inclined by nature to adhere to laws. And did you not just say that thoughts and ideas are of the mind and therefore of biology and therefore part of the natural world?

Once again, you're contradicting yourself.

No. It's you only wanting to focus on the agreeable. My argument is about those who disagree. If you have a counter argument for how to make people comply with you who don't want to without force then let's hear it.

You said "...no one is inclined by nature to agree to...". Not only is it arrogant presumption and unsupportable, it does not explain why humans would create laws that they knew humans were not inclined to adhere to in the first place.

That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

Have we agreed they're yours?

That depends: Are you trying to take it because you think it's yours or do you know it's mine and you're just trying to steal it for yourself?

Why do you think that's the start of the discussion? My argument starts with the people who disagree with that premise.

No, it doesn't. Your argument started with "Law is force". You've been going in circles ever since adjusting the narrative to fit the current response or the current post. You blew "Law is force" out of the water the minute you brought up disagreement because if law is force then disagreement is irrelevant.

It's a statement about human nature. You can't force people to agree with you, i.e. you can't make people believe in something they dont believe in, you can only force them to comply with you.

This much is true. But human nature also has a conscience. This means most will avoid doing wrong, not in fear of legal consequences, but to keep their conscience clear.

Because that how I chose to word it. You word things however you want.

Your response is quite telling. I think you answered the question anyway.

 

[Curried Goats]

First I have to trim of some this fucking crying because this is just getting stupid...

Nope. I'm talking about the law of the land. You're talking about a situation where there IS no law of the land and everybody makes up their own.

Is the law of the land some metaphor or is the land speaking to you and telling you what it's laws are?

"Compelling" is your word, not mine. You didn't ask for compelling reasons in the beginning, you only asked for reasons and I gave one to you. If you wanted compelling reasons then you should have stipulated that from the beginning.

I figured that was implied. I didnt expect you to give me reasons that werent compelling. Like i said, that's a twist i didn't see coming.

Bullshit you fucking liar. In Post #974, I specifically asked you:

"Are you saying you don’t respect my claim to my property because I didn’t pay you for it?"

Your response?

"Yes. I respect the objective power of superior force. I don't give one fuck about your imagination. You thinking you own something or a piece of land doesnt mean a damn thing to me without that force. Why would it?"


Blah blah blah You don't even remember telling me that you did not respect my claim to ownership because I didn't pay you for it.

Re read that again you moron because you appear to have misunderstood what i was actually saying. I didn't say anything about you buying property from me. You asked if I didn't respect your claim to property because you didn't buy it from me and my response of yes was in reference to you not having bought, i.e. come to some agreement, to respect your claim. It was the respect of your claim I was saying that you didn't purchase from me or get agreement from me for.

If I bought it from you, you would respect the legality of it then, wouldn't you? For that matter, do you not respect the legality of ownership of your own house?

Guy, I'm just making an argument about what ownership actually is. I think you should respect the force of law because it will beat your ass unless you don't but I'm willing to actually be honest about the force that respects my claim.

Explain to me how mere lack of respect is force and how it is force in one case but not the other. Idiot.

Sure. Ill explain it to you as if you were a stunted child.

It doesn't require any force on my part to simply disagree intellectually with your subjective claims of ownership. I don't have to fight you over it. I just have to agree to disagree. Physical force however is needed in order for you to not respect my objective and innate freedom to go where I want because not respecting this freedom requires you or someone else to physically stop me. Not physically stopping me from going where I choose would be respecting my freedom to go where I please.

Did you not see the words "more apt"?

I see you displaying your feelings, yes. What of it? Your feelings don't make for compelling objective arguments.

When? Where? How? And the physical force is not meant to compel compliance, it is meant to subdue a person so they can be charged, tried and punished.

See. Finally guy. Why did it take this fucking long to just admit to the force of law?

Subduing a person so you can charge, try and punish them sure as fuck sounds like compelling compliance to me but whatever at least you finally admit to the objective physical forces that accompany not adhering to your subjective morals and ideas brings.

This didn't require an entire paragraph. You said "If I don't respect your legal claim then what?"
Is some kind of action called for or required by me just because you're not respecting my claim? There's nothing for me to do at that point because you haven't taken any action against me or my property.

Me saying I'm not respecting your claim is me saying I'm walking all over your claim and ignoring your protestations that this land belongs to you. Again, I figured that was implied but you're a unique brand of moron.

You asked me what law existed as. What was I going to say, law exists as a pixie dancing on a mushroom?

Is that what you think it is?

I want you to tell me what you think the law is. Your the one constantly referencing it. You can't describe what it is to you?

I did not "simply ask When? Where? And How?" In Post #923 you said:

"Force was used to aquire (sic) it (property) originally and to maintain it.".
In Post #924 my response was:

"When? Who? Where? How much? And, since "force" is subjective, describe the force used in each case and by who."
I made it clear in the beginning that I was asking: When was force used? Who used force? Where was force used? And How Much force was used?

And I explained to you that I meant force in the terms of the legal system compelling compliance like with they physically subdue someone, put them on trial and then punish them.

Need I remind you that you are the one who brought physics into this?

You mean I'm the one making objective arguments while you complain to me about your feelings? I know. I'm well aware....

Apparently the point went right over your head. Aren't they lawmakers? Aren't they part and parcel of your whole "Laws were made to protect special interests?" tirade? If so, why don't you have a problem with them too?

Because this argument isn't about what feelings I have about any particular law but rather about what the law is, fundamentally.

I did not say anything about the laws Democrats craft. I said they are decriminalizing criminal behavior.

Then it's not longer criminal. What made it criminal was the law itself. The law is a circular argument. You're a criminal only because the law has deemed certain activities criminal. If they decriminalize that thing then doing it is no longer criminal. That's how the works....

Negative. "Law is force" does not work because no force is applied unless the law is broken.

That's exactly my point. The law, which is a set of subjective morals and ideas, as you admitted to earlier, will use objective physical force against a person if they don't adhere to its subjective set of rules.

"Harmonious" is subjective in any context, dumbass. I did not suggest in any way that it was an objective standard.

So then by harmonious you mean self interest, as I said.

What's your point? That there have been fucked up or unfair laws at various times doesn't negate the fact that laws were created to form a more harmonious or ordered society.

At times? You recognize unfair and harmonious as subjective don't you? So why do you keep trying to use them as some objective standard? It not a fact that laws were created for harmony. It can't be because being subjective means that we don't all agree on what's harmonious. It would only be a fact if harmony was an objective standard you fucking Moron.

What if you DO pay your fines or appear in court? If you are charged with a misdemeanor you have to pay a fine - which is not force or violence - but you've still broken the law.

My argument isn't about the agreeable, it's about the disagreeable.

No, you don't just get to say "Law is force", cite physical violence of arrests and physics to support your claim, stray into paying fines for misdemeanors (which is not physical force) and then bring it back around to property rights again. Either law is force in a physical sense at all times as you've expressed it or it is not.

Forcing people to pay fines is physical you clown because what happens when they don't pay the fines? The government shrugs it's shoulders and says nevermind?

We both know it is not. Therefore, law is not force in and of itself and "force" is subjective.

You already admitted to it earlier with subduing and punishing you fucking clown.

You've described physical force but you haven't explained or taken into account that the when, where and how is different for each law and that penalties vary from state to state and from city to city.

Because why would I need to? The fact that there are penalties that they will impose on people is enough to prove my argument, moron.

It seems that is exactly what you have been doing. You said "Law is force" and created the context of physical force and violence at the beginning of and throughout this discussion. Then you fucked up and mentioned fines. You framed it in a way where a person refuses to pay the fines but the problem is, fines are assessed for breaking certain laws. This means that some laws can be broken without resulting in physical force consequences which in turn means that law is not force in and of itself.

What exactly is breaking a law? Is the law a physical thing or an idea in this context? If the response to me not agreeing with your subjective morals and ideas is to use physical force against me then you're proving my point, idiot.

Are you denying that Law is always force and the manner of this force is always the same with every law, every person or entity and in every case?

If you don't deny it then my supposition is correct. If you do deny it then it means you must agree with me that it's not as simple as "Law is force".

What? Who cares about the particulars of law. My argument doesn't require addressing it because it is about the fundamental nature of all law.

We both know laws are subjective ideals but that's not the real question. The real questions are: Does law exist? and, Is law a force?

No, my question is not about whether the law exists. My argument is that the law is a set of subjective morals and ideas that you force dissenters to comply with.

Again, not the real question. If law is force then it is force even if you abide by them.

My argument is about the people who don't abide.

You're changing the narrative again. At first it was simply "Law is force". Then it became "Law is physical violence if you disagree." And now it's "How do you make the law mean something to one who disrespects the law?"

How clever.

It's not my fault I have to keep refining this for your dumb ass. As I said this is a you issue. Me and the libertarian has this argument with like 5 lines of dialog.....

You said "Law is force" in the beginning. That's it.

That's from libertarian philosopher Frederic Bastiat. I was paraphrasing his argument from The Law where he makes the case that the law is force and that just law is only collective force organized for the purpose of self defense. When you organize to use force,i.e. the law, for purposes other than self defense then to him that was injustice.

That's not a description of force in all its contexts. Webster's has no less than six main definitions with ten sub-definitions as a noun; and nine main definitions and eleven sub-definitions as a verb.

F=MA is the objective definition, dumbass.

Okay, put the joint down Captain Herbal Life. We can do this about the existence of religion for the next month so let's get back to what we were originally talking about: objectivity and its relation to the natural world. Again, the dictionary defines objectivity as an approach to, or perspective on something without personal bias.

Where is the personal bias in F=MA?

Because you initially stated that law is force, people disagreeing is irrelevant because this would mean force is applied whether you abide by the laws or not.

No.... why would you need to use force against people in agreement with you? My argument is about the people who disagree. I've said that many times now.

And I've told you a million times that my paying for it and the documentation of the transaction determine my ownership.

To you. To someone who doesn't care what compels them to is the force of law.

That's not what you said. You said "law itself is based on subjective feelings no one is inclined by nature to adhere to without the use of physical force.".

Under the context that my argument is about those who disagree. Force isn't necessary for the willing.

This statement plainly says no one is inclined by nature to adhere to laws.

It was supposed to imply against their will but like usual the obvious needs to spelt out for ad nauseum....

And did you not just say that thoughts and ideas are of the mind and therefore of biology and therefore part of the natural world?

Once again, you're contradicting yourself.

Nope. that's just a fact. Ideas are manifestations of your biology. You just can't seem to fit these things into their proper context. There is the context of whether or not you're a person with the mental faculties to have idea, i.e., whether or not you're brain dead, that is an objective determination. You either you do or you don't. And then there's the context of whether the ideas manifested in you as result of your biology are subjective to you and your biological processes.

That depends: Are you trying to take it because you think it's yours or do you know it's mine and you're just trying to steal it for yourself?

Who said I'm trying to take it or steal it. Nature is nature. I'm just trying to enjoy it. You're the one making claims over nature in this argument.

This much is true. But human nature also has a conscience. This means most will avoid doing wrong, not in fear of legal consequences, but to keep their conscience clear.

Is wrong objective or subjective? When you say most people would avoid doing the wrong thing I don't know what that means to everyone on earth. Wrong means different things to different people.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

First I have to trim of some this fucking crying because this is just getting stupid...

Then quit crying so much.

Is the law of the land some metaphor or is the land speaking to you and telling you what it's laws are?

Yes.

I figured that was implied. I didnt expect you to give me reasons that werent compelling.

Yes you did.

Like i said, that's a twist i didn't see coming.

Re read that again you moron because you appear to have misunderstood what i was actually saying. I didn't say anything about you buying property from me. You asked if I didn't respect your claim to property because you didn't buy it from me and my response of yes was in reference to you not having bought, i.e. come to some agreement, to respect your claim. It was the respect of your claim I was saying that you didn't purchase from me or get agreement from me for.

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You're still saying you don't respect my claim to my property because I didn't buy it from you.

Guy, I'm just making an argument about what ownership actually is. I think you should respect the force of law because it will beat your ass unless you don't but I'm willing to actually be honest about the force that respects my claim.

So you're saying you don't even respect your claim to your own property?

Sure. Ill explain it to you as if you were a stunted child.

It doesn't require any force on my part to simply disagree intellectually with your subjective claims of ownership.

It doesn't require any force on my part either to simply disagree intellectually with your subjective claim that you can traipse around on my property. You know this, right?

I don't have to fight you over it. I just have to agree to disagree. Physical force however is needed in order for you to not respect my objective and innate freedom to go where I want because not respecting this freedom requires you or someone else to physically stop me.

Physical force is needed for me to not respect your ability to go where you please? Hell, I can do that sitting right here at the computer: I do not respect your ability to go where you please.

There, did you see my fist come out of your computer screen? No? Then I guess you were wrong.

Not physically stopping me from going where I choose would be respecting my freedom to go where I please.

Um, no. Not stopping you simply means I'm not choosing to force you off. It doesn't mean I respect or agree with you being there.

I see you displaying your feelings, yes. What of it? Your feelings don't make for compelling objective arguments.

Irrelevant. You said I made a subjective argument like it was objective. I did not. "More apt" means I think "ability" is subjectively more apt than "freedom" in this context.

Besides that, every argument you've made regarding BrokeLoser was you displaying your feelings. You accuse me of doing the exact same thing you've done in this discussion four or five times now. You're a fucking craven hypocrite.

See. Finally guy. Why did it take this fucking long to just admit to the force of law?

I never said there was no force associated with law, I just haven't agreed to your take on force in law. I said law is not force and I've said force is not always applied and not always to the same degree or the same way. I also pointed out that the breaking of law does not always involve physical force.

So I haven't admitted to anything.

Subduing a person so you can charge, try and punish them sure as fuck sounds like compelling compliance to me but whatever at least you finally admit to the objective physical forces that accompany not adhering to your subjective morals and ideas brings.

If physical force is being used then the law has already been broken. Compliance is irrelevant at that point.

Me saying I'm not respecting your claim is me saying I'm walking all over your claim and ignoring your protestations that this land belongs to you. Again, I figured that was implied but you're a unique brand of moron.

Walking on my property is not required to not respect my claim, dumbass. Not respecting my claim and walking on my property are two different things. I figured you would understand that but you're a unique brand of dumbass.

Is that what you think it is?

Yeah, sure. It makes as much sense as anything you've come up with such as disrespect merely being a feeling in one scenario but physical force in another. That's yet another of your asinine philosophies.

I want you to tell me what you think the law is. Your the one constantly referencing it.

What? This whole thing started because of your discussion with dblack. As far back as Post #700, Page #35 on July 30th, you said to dblack: "And again, all laws and all governments represent force."
You were already harping about law and force to others before it came up in our string.

You can't describe what it is to you?

I can. But I'm not interested in talking about what I think law is, I'm only interested in telling you law is not force.

You're the one making the claim; I'm just refuting your claim. Besides all you'll do is just say it's stupid or subjective and post a laugh emoji.

And I explained to you that I meant force in the terms of the legal system compelling compliance like with they physically subdue someone, put them on trial and then punish them.

Irrelevant. You said you didn't understand what I was asking for but I made that clear the first time I asked.

You mean I'm the one making objective arguments while you complain to me about your feelings? I know. I'm well aware....

Talking about force in physics in the context of physics is an objective argument. Talking about force in physics in the context of law is not.

Because this argument isn't about what feelings I have about any particular law but rather about what the law is, fundamentally.

And that was exactly my point: law is not always enforced and is not always enforced the way it was meant to be. therefore, law is not force.

Then it's not longer criminal. What made it criminal was the law itself. The law is a circular argument. You're a criminal only because the law has deemed certain activities criminal. If they decriminalize that thing then doing it is no longer criminal. That's how the works....

So where does common sense and objectivity factor into this?

That's exactly my point. The law, which is a set of subjective morals and ideas, as you admitted to earlier, will use objective physical force against a person if they don't adhere to its subjective set of rules.

But you said law is force. Just saying "Law is force" is saying law itself is force when it is not.

So then by harmonious you mean self interest, as I said.

Negative. That remark right there is subjective itself. Even if we agree law is subjective, there still remains the question of: subjective to what?

Its being subjective does not necessarily mean it is subjective to the self interests of certain groups. It could be subjective to any number of things.

At times? You recognize unfair and harmonious as subjective don't you? So why do you keep trying to use them as some objective standard?

Where did I do that?

It not a fact that laws were created for harmony. It can't be because being subjective means that we don't all agree on what's harmonious.

It doesn't matter that people have different ideas of what harmony and order means to them. Generally speaking, most want harmony and order don't they? And don't most of them view law as being the main tool to achieve that?

The subjectivity of "harmony" and "order" is irrelevant to the point that people want some kind of harmony and order in society, whatever that may mean to the individual.

It would only be a fact if harmony was an objective standard you fucking Moron.

The subjectivity of harmony is irrelevant to the point you fucking moron.

My argument isn't about the agreeable, it's about the disagreeable.

So then, law is not force, is it? If force only comes into play when one breaks the law then we can't say law itself is force because no force is being applied if you don't break the law.

Forcing people to pay fines is physical you clown

It is? I've had to pay fines before but I don't remember anybody physically putting their hands on me and forcing me to write the check.

because what happens when they don't pay the fines? The government shrugs it's shoulders and says nevermind?

If you choose not to pay the fine then you're not being forced, are you?

Law does not force us to do or not do anything.

You already admitted to it earlier with subduing and punishing you fucking clown.

When one breaks the law, yes. If law is force, as you say, it is forcing you to comply. But it doesn't.

Because why would I need to? The fact that there are penalties that they will impose on people is enough to prove my argument, moron.

But penalties are not always assessed, are they?

What exactly is breaking a law?

You don't know?

Is the law a physical thing or an idea in this context?

Why does that matter?

If the response to me not agreeing with your subjective morals and ideas is to use physical force against me then you're proving my point, idiot.

What if I don't use physical force? Not using physical force is always an option and a possibility. Therefore, law is not force.

What? Who cares about the particulars of law. My argument doesn't require addressing it because it is about the fundamental nature of all law.

What does "fundamental" mean to you? Isn't that what you asked me when I used that word?

That said, the point I'm trying to make is that physical force is not applied in the case of every law.

No, my question is not about whether the law exists. My argument is that the law is a set of subjective morals and ideas that you force dissenters to comply with.

Using force is a choice. Therefore, law is not force.

My argument is about the people who don't abide.

Then, as I said, law is not force, is it?

It's not my fault I have to keep refining this for your dumb ass.

Yes, it IS your fault if you keep changing the narrative.

You're not refining anything, you're just changing the narrative as you go along.

As I said this is a you issue. Me and the libertarian has this argument with like 5 lines of dialog.....

I don't care.

That's from libertarian philosopher Frederic Bastiat. I was paraphrasing his argument from The Law where he makes the case that the law is force and that just law is only collective force organized for the purpose of self defense. When you organize to use force,i.e. the law, for purposes other than self defense then to him that was injustice.

But "Injustice" is subjective, isn't it?

If you're going to break everything down to physics and the natural world then you'll have to face the fact that everything is subjective, including ideas you happen to agree with.

F=MA is the objective definition, dumbass.

What's NOT objective is if or when force is used.

Where is the personal bias in F=MA?

Irrelevant. We're talking about objectivity and its relationship to the natural world. You think objectivity only pertains to the natural world but it does not.

No.... why would you need to use force against people in agreement with you?

Exactly. So, once again, law is not force.

My argument is about the people who disagree. I've said that many times now.

If law is force then agreeing or disagreeing is not relevant.

To you. To someone who doesn't care what compels them to is the force of law.

The law does not compel anyone to agree with me that my property belongs to me. I could show him the legal deed and he could just say it's forged.

Under the context that my argument is about those who disagree. Force isn't necessary for the willing.

It's not necessary for those who are not willing. As I said, using force is always a choice.

It was supposed to imply against their will but like usual the obvious needs to spelt out for ad nauseum....

I'm not the one who needs to have it spelled out, you are. As I said before, your perspectives on law are overly simplistic. Because of this, you overlook all the vagaries, factors and ramifications that figure in to the matter such as choice and the subjectivity of force itself.

Nope. that's just a fact. Ideas are manifestations of your biology. You just can't seem to fit these things into their proper context. There is the context of whether or not you're a person with the mental faculties to have idea, i.e., whether or not you're brain dead, that is an objective determination. You either you do or you don't. And then there's the context of whether the ideas manifested in you as result of your biology are subjective to you and your biological processes.

Blah blah blah. If thoughts and ideas are subjective and are a manifestation of biology, we can't very well say humans are not inclined by nature to abide by law since some abide by laws according to their subjective nature and others do not by their subjective nature. Then of course there's the question of, if we are not inclined by nature to adhere to laws then what inclined us to make them?

Who said I'm trying to take it or steal it.

It was a question, dumbass.

Nature is nature. I'm just trying to enjoy it. You're the one making claims over nature in this argument.

Uh, no, I am not.

Are we talking about nature or property ownership? These are two different things and I make no claims in regard to nature. I make my claim in regard to my property.

See? You changed the narrative again.

Is wrong objective or subjective? When you say most people would avoid doing the wrong thing I don't know what that means to everyone on earth.

Well, that's your problem, isn't it?

Wrong means different things to different people.

Irrelevant. Like I said above regarding the word "harmony", it doesn't matter that "Right" and "wrong" are subjective. That's not the point. The point is most people will avoid doing "wrong" according to their conscience and what they deem to be right and wrong.

 

[Curried Goats]

You're still saying you don't respect my claim to my property because I didn't buy it from you.

I'm saying you didn't pay me to respect your claim. You can pretend it meant something else but I'm telling you what it actually meant. It meant we've yet to come to an agreement that you own anything.

It doesn't require any force on my part either to simply disagree intellectually with your subjective claim that you can traipse around on my property. You know this, right?

I never said it did. It requires force for you to actually remove me off land that you claim is yours. Simply telling me of a claim that I don't respect isn't going to cut it.

Physical force is needed for me to not respect your ability to go where you please?

Yes. When i say not respecting my natural freedom to go where i please I'm talking about someone physically trying to stop me. Allowing me to go where I please, even if you don't like it would still constitute respecting my freedom.

Hell, I can do that sitting right here at the computer: I do not respect your ability to go where you please.

Yeah but that doesn't get anyone to honor your claims.

Um, no. Not stopping you simply means I'm not choosing to force you off. It doesn't mean I respect or agree with you being there.

It does. You seem to think I'm making an argument about your feelings here when I'm actually making an argument about the physical world. If you aren't enforcing your claim and anyone can come and go as they please then your claim isn't actually worth anything except maybe emotional comfort but I don't care how you feel. What's the value of claims that can be ignored?

I never said there was no force associated with law, I just haven't agreed to your take on force in law. I said law is not force and I've said force is not always applied and not always to the same degree or the same way. I also pointed out that the breaking of law does not always involve physical force.

I don't care about laws that aren't enforced. My argument is about the enforcement of laws and property rights in particular.

If physical force is being used then the law has already been broken. Compliance is irrelevant at that point.

We've already established the law is a subjective set of ideas and morals, haven't we? So when you talk about physical force only being used when the law is broken you're talking about using objective physical violence against someone for not agreeing to your subjective set of ideas and morals.

Walking on my property is not required to not respect my claim, dumbass. Not respecting my claim and walking on my property are two different things. I figured you would understand that but you're a unique brand of dumbass.

You're the one not understanding me. How is it you think I'm not understanding myself?

When I say I'm not respecting your claim I'm referring to walking all over land you claim is yours and enjoying the natural bounty of its resources.

What? This whole thing started because of your discussion with dblack. As far back as Post #700, Page #35 on July 30th, you said to dblack: "And again, all laws and all governments represent force."
You were already harping about law and force to others before it came up in our string.

Yep. dblack understands what I mean when I say the law is force just as I understood what was meant when Bastiat wrote it and he wrote it the 19th century. Like I said, this is a you problem.

I can. But I'm not interested in talking about what I think law is, I'm only interested in telling you law is not force.

What is law that can't or won't be enforced? A strong suggestion?

You're the one making the claim; I'm just refuting your claim. Besides all you'll do is just say it's stupid or subjective and post a laugh emoji.

You not being able to understand a 19th century philosopher or the force inherent in enforcing the law is funny to me, what can I say?

Talking about force in physics in the context of physics is an objective argument. Talking about force in physics in the context of law is not.

Why not? The argument isn't about how I feel about the force of law. It's about the objective physical force the legal system uses and claims (subjectively) that it is justified in using in order to exert its will.

And that was exactly my point: law is not always enforced and is not always enforced the way it was meant to be. therefore, law is not force.

I'm talking about laws that are enforced, not laws that aren't enforced. Force is right there in the word you dumb Bingo.....

Laws that arent enforced are like ideas you never act on. They only exist in the ether.

But you said law is force. Just saying "Law is force" is saying law itself is force when it is not.

How is it me, a 19th century philosopher and dblack can all understand what this means and you cant? Help me undertsand where your mental deficiency orignates so that I can help you. What's confusing you exactly?

Negative. That remark right there is subjective itself. Even if we agree law is subjective, there still remains the question of: subjective to what?

It's not. It's accurate and I already told you what it the law was subjective to. It's a result of negotiations between everyone's subjective self interests.

Its being subjective does not necessarily mean it is subjective to the self interests of certain groups. It could be subjective to any number of things.

Other things? Do you mean other people? The law is written by people for the interests of people. What other things are you talking about?

It doesn't matter that people have different ideas of what harmony and order means to them. Generally speaking, most want harmony and order don't they? And don't most of them view law as being the main tool to achieve that?

It kind of matters. Harmony to the Founders was them allowing some people to own other people as property. That's not my idea of harmony. Hence it's subjective nature.

The subjectivity of "harmony" and "order" is irrelevant to the point that people want some kind of harmony and order in society, whatever that may mean to the individual.

Sounds to me like you're just talking about self interest but for some reason being weirdly aspirational about it. Harmony....

You trying fucking sell me something?

It's a funny word to use to describe what could be anything from progressive policy to nazi concentration camps.

The subjectivity of harmony is irrelevant to the point you fucking moron.

What's the point?

So then, law is not force, is it? If force only comes into play when one breaks the law then we can't say law itself is force because no force is being applied if you don't break the law.

The law being a group of people's subjective set of ideas and morals, right? So what I'm reading is you arguing that if I don't agree to your subjective set of ideas or morals you'll force me to? Do I have that correct? Because that seems to be exactly my point.

It is? I've had to pay fines before but I don't remember anybody physically putting their hands on me and forcing me to write the check.

Because you paid it. What happens when you don't pay?

If you choose not to pay the fine then you're not being forced, are you?

If they aren't enforcing their law then this isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about laws that are enforced. I'm talking about situations where objective physical force is being used against people for not agreeing to a subjective set of morals and ideas.

Law does not force us to do or not do anything.

Then what are the law enforcement officers, guns and handcuffs for?

When one breaks the law, yes. If law is force, as you say, it is forcing you to comply. But it doesn't.

What? This isnt exactly coherent. Is it yes or no? Do you acknowledge that the law uses force against people who don't follow its subjective set of ideas or morals?

What if I don't use physical force? Not using physical force is always an option and a possibility. Therefore, law is not force.

In that case the law isn't anything more than something you imagined or fantasized about.

What does "fundamental" mean to you? Isn't that what you asked me when I used that word?

It means that inherently all law is a subjective set of ideas and morals and so enforcing law is inherently about using objective physical force against others to make them comply with your subjective set of beliefs.

That said, the point I'm trying to make is that physical force is not applied in the case of every law.

It is for the laws that get enforced. I don't care about subjective ideas or morals that aren't forced on others. That isn't what my argument is about.

Using force is a choice. Therefore, law is not force.

What?

You're not refining anything, you're just changing the narrative as you go along.

My argument remains the same. It's not my fault after pages and pages you still don't understand what me, dblack and Frederic Bastiat understood with a couple of sentences. It is fucking hilarious though.

But "Injustice" is subjective, isn't it?

It is. I don't agree with Bastiats conclusion on justice and injustice, I'm just referencing him as the source of the line that the law is force. That I understand and agree with him on.

If you're going to break everything down to physics and the natural world then you'll have to face the fact that everything is subjective, including ideas you happen to agree with.

Whether or not physical force is being used to enforce a subjective set of ideas or morals is not a matter of my subjective beliefs. That is objectively what is happening when laws are being enforced.

What's NOT objective is if or when force is used.

No, that is objective you moron. If laws are being enforced then physical force or the threat of physical force is being used. It's right there in the damn word.

Irrelevant. We're talking about objectivity and its relationship to the natural world. You think objectivity only pertains to the natural world but it does not.

What else does it pertain to?

The law does not compel anyone to agree with me that my property belongs to me. I could show him the legal deed and he could just say it's forged.

And what happens in this scenario when he disagrees with you? He doesn't even have to say its forged. He could just tell you he doesnt care about the entire legal system that recognizes your deed as meaningful. Do you both agree to disagree and he gets to use whatever land and resources he wants? Because if that's the case it wasn't much of a claim.

I'm not the one who needs to have it spelled out, you are. As I said before, your perspectives on law are overly simplistic. Because of this, you overlook all the vagaries, factors and ramifications that figure in to the matter such as choice and the subjectivity of force itself.

If these vagaries, factors and ramifications exist that dispute my argument why are you being so vague about them?

What are they exactly?

Blah blah blah. If thoughts and ideas are subjective and are a manifestation of biology, we can't very well say humans are not inclined by nature to abide by law since some abide by laws according to their subjective nature and others do not by their subjective nature. Then of course there's the question of, if we are not inclined by nature to adhere to laws then what inclined us to make them?

Not inclined by nature to abide ideas and morals they don't adhere to themselves. I thought that was implicit but I forget sometimes how much you need your hand held.

For the people who it's not in their nature to believe the things you do you require force to compel them to.

Are we talking about nature or property ownership? These are two different things and I make no claims in regard to nature. I make my claim in regard to my property.

I'm talking the physical world verse your imagination. I don't need your consent about what my physical capabilities are or what exists in the physical world because those things exist no matter how you feel about them. They are objectively real. Even the structure you claim as your house and all the things in it exist objectively as physical objects. It doesn't matter whether you or I consent to them existing because they exist. And it's doesn't matter whether or not you consent to me having the physically ability to walk around it because I either have the physical capability to walk around or I dont. In contrast it's only in your imagination and the imagination of the American legal system that I require your consent to do so. But I don't have to use physical force against you to go where I please and do as I please, only natural capability and a place to go. You and society on the other hand only imagine that I need consent and your only recourse to claim ownership when consent isn't given is force.

See? You changed the narrative again.

Nope. Same argument just worded slightly different to see if that's one that finally clicks in your Bingo brain.

Well, that's your problem, isn't it?

Your Bingo brain? Not really. I largely find it amusing.

Irrelevant. Like I said above regarding the word "harmony", it doesn't matter that "Right" and "wrong" are subjective. That's not the point. The point is most people will avoid doing "wrong" according to their conscience and what they deem to be right and wrong.

Which ostensibly means nothing when right and wrong can mean anything. Try saying something of substance. Even if just once to see how it feels.....

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I'm saying you didn't pay me to respect your claim.

Like I said, you're still saying you don't respect my claim to my property because I didn't buy it from you.

You can pretend it meant something else but I'm telling you what it actually meant. It meant we've yet to come to an agreement that you own anything.

Why would we need to agree in the first place? If I own it, I own it. Your disagreement is irrelevant.

I never said it did. It requires force for you to actually remove me off land that you claim is yours. Simply telling me of a claim that I don't respect isn't going to cut it.

That's not what you said. You said: "Physical force however is needed in order for you to not respect my objective and innate freedom to go where I want because not respecting this freedom requires you or someone else to physically stop me."

You said before that physical force is required for me to not respect your freedom to go where you want. Now you're changing the narrative (again) to say physical force is required to remove you. Disrespecting and physically removing you are two different things.

Yes. When i say not respecting my natural freedom to go where i please I'm talking about someone physically trying to stop me. Allowing me to go where I please, even if you don't like it would still constitute respecting my freedom.

Negative Ghost Rider. I can disrespect or disagree that you have the right to trespass on my property without trying to force you off. Disagreeing and physical force are two different things.

Another thing, you say you have an inherent freedom to go where you please. Does this not mean I have the inherent freedom to stake a claim on property? The only thing required to go where you please is physical ability. The only thing required for me to stake a claim is, you guessed it, physical ability.

Yeah but that doesn't get anyone to honor your claims.

Irrelevant. I can disrespect or disagree that you have the freedom to trespass without trying to force you off.

It does.

No, it does not.

You seem to think I'm making an argument about your feelings here when I'm actually making an argument about the physical world. If you aren't enforcing your claim and anyone can come and go as they please then your claim isn't actually worth anything except maybe emotional comfort but I don't care how you feel. What's the value of claims that can be ignored?

What's the value of your freedom to go where you please if it can be ignored?

I don't care about laws that aren't enforced. My argument is about the enforcement of laws and property rights in particular.

Irrelevant. You misconstrued my position on the relationship between law and force.

We've already established the law is a subjective set of ideas and morals, haven't we? So when you talk about physical force only being used when the law is broken you're talking about using objective physical violence against someone for not agreeing to your subjective set of ideas and morals.

You said laws were implemented to encourage (if not force) compliance. If a law is broken, compliance was not met and so therefore is irrelevant.

You're the one not understanding me. How is it you think I'm not understanding myself?

So are you saying you do understand that not respecting my claim and walking on my property are two different things?

When I say I'm not respecting your claim I'm referring to walking all over land you claim is yours and enjoying the natural bounty of its resources.

Again, my pecans?

Yep. dblack understands what I mean when I say the law is force just as I understood what was meant when Bastiat wrote it and he wrote it the 19th century. Like I said, this is a you problem.

Irrelevant. You said: "I want you to tell me what you think the law is. Your the one constantly referencing it."
My point was that you are the one who brought up law in this discussion and you did so before I joined in. The subjectivity of law is the premise of your entire argument for Christ's sake.

What is law that can't or won't be enforced? A strong suggestion?

You tell me. I'm not the one not enforcing certain laws. And that's the point; law is only force as far as we are willing to enforce them and sometimes we don't.

You not being able to understand a 19th century philosopher or the force inherent in enforcing the law is funny to me, what can I say?

Who the fuck are you talking about? No philosopher has been mentioned as far as I can remember.

But anyway, by definition, "enforce" means to "Constrain; Compel". However, when and if we choose to constrain or compel to obey the law or to prosecute when law is violated is subjective. Therefore, law is not force.

Why not? The argument isn't about how I feel about the force of law. It's about the objective physical force the legal system uses and claims (subjectively) that it is justified in using in order to exert its will.

So you're breaking law down to physical force being applied to an unmoving object. But isn't the choice to use force or not to use force a factor to consider?

I'm talking about laws that are enforced, not laws that aren't enforced. Force is right there in the word you dumb Bingo.....

Laws that arent enforced are like ideas you never act on. They only exist in the ether.

In other words, law is not force, which is what you've said before.

How is it me, a 19th century philosopher and dblack can all understand what this means and you cant? Help me undertsand where your mental deficiency orignates so that I can help you. What's confusing you exactly?

I'm not confused about anything except for this philosopher you keep bringing up that was never mentioned by me or by you to me.

It's not. It's accurate and I already told you what it the law was subjective to. It's a result of negotiations between everyone's subjective self interests.

Negative. You're making an objective claim that something that is inherently subjective (law) is always about self interest. That is a claim you are simply not qualified to make.

Other things? Do you mean other people? The law is written by people for the interests of people. What other things are you talking about?

So now you want an objective list of reasons as to why a subjective concept was created?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You really do not fully grasp the scope of the philosophy you're always spouting.

It kind of matters. Harmony to the Founders was them allowing some people to own other people as property. That's not my idea of harmony. Hence it's subjective nature.

I never suggested that "harmony" was objective so what's your point?

Sounds to me like you're just talking about self interest but for some reason being weirdly aspirational about it. Harmony....

When you talk about changing the law you cite "collective will" but when I talk about law it's "self interest".

You're full of shit.

You trying fucking sell me something?

It's a funny word to use to describe what could be anything from progressive policy to nazi concentration camps.

Wait a minute, are you saying law was created to, what, build an inharmonious and disordered society?

If this is not what you're saying then all you're doing is telling me "harmony" is subjective which was never in dispute to begin with.

What's the point?

That it's the reason for creating a system of law, dumbass.

The law being a group of people's subjective set of ideas and morals, right? So what I'm reading is you arguing that if I don't agree to your subjective set of ideas or morals you'll force me to? Do I have that correct? Because that seems to be exactly my point.

I'm not the one talking about force, you are.

Because you paid it. What happens when you don't pay?

Irrelevant. You are the one who said law is force but no one forced me to pay a fine. In fact, it's possible that even if I don't, they may not come after me. As a perfect example of what I'm talking about, I'll tell you a quick story about what happened to me and two of my younger brothers years ago.

We were fishing from a platform on the side of the road that was built for that purpose. A game warden came along and checked for fishing licenses among the people there and cited me and my brothers for fishing without a license. The fine was fifty dollars apiece.
When I got home I immediately wrote a check and sent it off. However, neither of my brothers had any intention of doing so. Nevertheless, my brothers never paid their fines but never heard a word on the matter from Wildlife and Fisheries.

If they aren't enforcing their law then this isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about laws that are enforced. I'm talking about situations where objective physical force is being used against people for not agreeing to a subjective set of morals and ideas.

The problem here is that you're saying that force is inherent in law and yet force is not always applied.

Then what are the law enforcement officers, guns and handcuffs for?

Who's wielding the gun and handcuffs, the law or the officer?

What? This isnt exactly coherent. Is it yes or no? Do you acknowledge that the law uses force against people who don't follow its subjective set of ideas or morals?

No, I don't. The law forces no one to do anything or not do anything. The law enforcement apparatus will force you to be held and prosecuted for the crime.

In that case the law isn't anything more than something you imagined or fantasized about.

Irrelevant. For the hundredth time, you said law is force.

It means that inherently all law is a subjective set of ideas and morals and so enforcing law is inherently about using objective physical force against others to make them comply with your subjective set of beliefs.

You said: "...it (force) is about the fundamental nature of all law."
Yet, as I've pointed out numerous times, force is not always applied. That being the case, force is not the fundamental nature of law. It may or may not be the fundamental nature of how a specific entity (country, state, city, etc.) approaches law and how they enforce it but since the application, the non-application and the degree and type of force used is all subjective, we can't very well say law is force or that force is the fundamental nature of law.

It is for the laws that get enforced. I don't care about subjective ideas or morals that aren't forced on others. That isn't what my argument is about.

Given that you would have your subjective ideas about economics being forced on others, I really do not understand why this is an issue for you.

What?

Exactly.

My argument remains the same. It's not my fault after pages and pages you still don't understand what me, dblack and Frederic Bastiat understood with a couple of sentences. It is fucking hilarious though.

What's fucking hilarious is that you're presenting the words of a philosopher as objective truth.

It is. I don't agree with Bastiats conclusion on justice and injustice, I'm just referencing him as the source of the line that the law is force. That I understand and agree with him on.

Is your agreeing with him supposed to mean it is objective truth?

Whether or not physical force is being used to enforce a subjective set of ideas or morals is not a matter of my subjective beliefs. That is objectively what is happening when laws are being enforced.

Physical force is not always used.

No, that is objective you moron. If laws are being enforced then physical force or the threat of physical force is being used. It's right there in the damn word.

Wrong. Physical force is not always used and it is not used for every law.

What else does it pertain to?

I've already explained this.

And what happens in this scenario when he disagrees with you? He doesn't even have to say its forged. He could just tell you he doesnt care about the entire legal system that recognizes your deed as meaningful. Do you both agree to disagree and he gets to use whatever land and resources he wants? Because if that's the case it wasn't much of a claim.

Irrelevant. The law does not compel anyone to agree with my claim.

If these vagaries, factors and ramifications exist that dispute my argument why are you being so vague about them?

"Vague"? I've told you twenty times now that law is not force and I've given countless reasons to support this. Are you blind?

What are they exactly?

No. Again you want an objective list for a subjective concept. Figure it out yourself.

Not inclined by nature to abide ideas and morals they don't adhere to themselves. I thought that was implicit but I forget sometimes how much you need your hand held.

For the people who it's not in their nature to believe the things you do you require force to compel them to.

Again, you said: "law itself is based on subjective feelings no one is inclined by nature to adhere to without the use of physical force.".
And again, this statement plainly says no one is inclined by nature to adhere to law based on subjective feelings.

If this is not what you meant then you need to learn to express yourself better and stop relying on little cartoons.

I'm talking the physical world verse your imagination. I don't need your consent about what my physical capabilities are or what exists in the physical world because those things exist no matter how you feel about them. They are objectively real. Even the structure you claim as your house and all the things in it exist objectively as physical objects. It doesn't matter whether you or I consent to them existing because they exist. And it's doesn't matter whether or not you consent to me having the physically ability to walk around it because I either have the physical capability to walk around or I dont. In contrast it's only in your imagination and the imagination of the American legal system that I require your consent to do so. But I don't have to use physical force against you to go where I please and do as I please, only natural capability and a place to go. You and society on the other hand only imagine that I need consent and your only recourse to claim ownership when consent isn't given is force.

Don't give me that shit about you not having to use physical force. If I have a security fence around my property with a locked gate and you climb that fence or break the lock to "go where you please" then you have forced your way onto my property.

Nope. Same argument just worded slightly different to see if that's one that finally clicks in your Bingo brain.

Bullshit. You flip flopped from property ownership to nature and then back again.

Your Bingo brain? Not really. I largely find it amusing.

My "Bingo brain" is why you don't know what 'most people would avoid doing the wrong thing' means to everyone on earth?

Which ostensibly means nothing when right and wrong can mean anything. Try saying something of substance. Even if just once to see how it feels.....

I did say "...most people will avoid doing "wrong" according to their conscience and what they deem to be right and wrong." did I not?

Did you see anything in that statement to suggest I thought their ideas of right and wrong are objective?

Try arguing against what I actually say instead of these strawmen. Even if just once to see how it feels.....

Fucking idiot.

 

[Curried Goats]

Like I said, you're still saying you don't respect my claim to my property because I didn't buy it from you.

And I'm explaining to you what that actually means. Buying my respect would be one way for us to have come to some sort of an agreement.

Why would we need to agree in the first place? If I own it, I own it. Your disagreement is irrelevant.

You don't own anything to the person not inclined to adhere to your subjective set of ideas and morals. Your options for the person who refuses to acknowledge your subjective set of ideas is to come to accept that someone else is going to go where they please on property you claim to be yours, come to another agreement with them, or force them off.

That's not what you said. You said: "Physical force however is needed in order for you to not respect my objective and innate freedom to go where I want because not respecting this freedom requires you or someone else to physically stop me."

You said before that physical force is required for me to not respect your freedom to go where you want. Now you're changing the narrative (again) to say physical force is required to remove you. Disrespecting and physically removing you are two different things.

No...I'm explaining the narrative to you you dumb Bingo....

You simply did not understand what I meant by respect.

Negative Ghost Rider. I can disrespect or disagree that you have the right to trespass on my property without trying to force you off. Disagreeing and physical force are two different things.

If you want to use respect differently than I was thats fine but you dont get to define how I was using it. You seem to be referring to your feelings, I was using it in reference to physical acts, i.e., walking all over your claim or being physically forced off a claim.

Another thing, you say you have an inherent freedom to go where you please. Does this not mean I have the inherent freedom to stake a claim on property? The only thing required to go where you please is physical ability. The only thing required for me to stake a claim is, you guessed it, physical ability.

Do you have the natural freedom to claim ownership over something. Sure. You have the freedom to do whatever your physical capabilities allow you to. I never said you weren't free to do as you please. My argument is that you require physical force against others to make good on claims of ownership. Claiming ownership over a thing isn't just about you doing something, it's also about trying to restrict others from doing something as well, like the fence and lock you mention later.

What's the value of your freedom to go where you please if it can be ignored?

Value is subjective. To some people freedom is everything so they fight to the death for it. In that case the value of freedom is life itself. If you're unwilling to fight for your claim then it isn't worth anything to you or anyone else.

You said laws were implemented to encourage (if not force) compliance. If a law is broken, compliance was not met and so therefore is irrelevant.

When threats of physical force do not work that's when the government moves on to actual physical force. That's when the law enforcement officers show up with the guns and handcuffs.

So are you saying you do understand that not respecting my claim and walking on my property are two different things?

I can understand that you're using the word respect differently than I am, I don't know why you can't do the same other than you just being a massive moron.

Irrelevant. You said: "I want you to tell me what you think the law is. Your the one constantly referencing it."
My point was that you are the one who brought up law in this discussion and you did so before I joined in. The subjectivity of law is the premise of your entire argument for Christ's sake.

Yes, I want to make sure we're understanding one another. You seem confused by that desire. Its helpful in a conversation. You didn't understand what I meant by respect. I didn't know what you thought the law was until you acknowledged it as a subjective set of ideas and morals. It's helpful to get clarification rather than to pretend the person meant something else. At least if you're interested in honest debate.

You tell me. I'm not the one not enforcing certain laws. And that's the point; law is only force as far as we are willing to enforce them and sometimes we don't.

I need to explain to you that there is no force between objects thats arent interacting? How fucking dumb are you?

Of course I'm only talking about laws that are being forced on people. Why would this conversation be about things that aren't happening?

Who the fuck are you talking about? No philosopher has been mentioned as far as I can remember.

I mentioned Frederic Bastiat in either the last post or the post before that as the source of the phrase the law is force. I'm paraphrasing parts of his argument from The Law which he wrote in the 19th century. It's a great critique of government and law despite his beliefs in natural, inalienable rights being nonsense.

But anyway, by definition, "enforce" means to "Constrain; Compel". However, when and if we choose to constrain or compel to obey the law or to prosecute when law is violated is subjective. Therefore, law is not force.

What? You're making a different argument than I am and trying to use the conclusion of your argument on mine. That's not how debate works Bingo.

I would agree with you that it is subjective when society chooses to enforce law. However when society does enforce laws that is an objective use of force to compel people to adhere to a subjective set of ideas and morals.

So you're breaking law down to physical force being applied to an unmoving object. But isn't the choice to use force or not to use force a factor to consider?

A factor to consider in what? A different debate than the one I'm having?

I'm not confused about anything except for this philosopher you keep bringing up that was never mentioned by me or by you to me.

You are demonstrably confused by the simple argument that the law is force and I'm happy for you to take the tactic of confusion and stupidity for as long as you like.

This is from another discussion I stumbled over on this board, coincidently also involving dblack who gave the reply.

Government rules by force.

Exactly. Which is why it should only be employed when it's truly necessary. It shouldn't be a tool to score "free shit" for special interest groups.

Notice how dblack didn't reply with, well what about when the government isn't interacting with you?

No one else is confused by the phrases the force of law or the law is force or the government rules by force except you apparently. Everyone else understands this to be in the context of when it is interacting with people.

Negative. You're making an objective claim that something that is inherently subjective (law) is always about self interest. That is a claim you are simply not qualified to make.

Why exactly am I unqualified to make this claim? And in what context do you reference the subjectivity of law?

It's subjective to the interests of people you moron. That is what makes law subjective in the first place. Its not only an argument about law but about why humans do anything. Your actions are in service of your interests.The actions you take that aren't in service of your own interests are the ones you're being forced in to.

So now you want an objective list of reasons as to why a subjective concept was created?

I didn't ask anything about objective reasons you illiterate dipshit. Where do you see the word objective in that question?

You argued there were others reasons beyond self interest for the creation of law and I'm asking you what you imagine those other reasons to be.

I never suggested that "harmony" was objective so what's your point?

My point was pretty fucking clear. Its that harmony is a funny word to use to describe anything from universal healthcare to slave plantations.

Do you find slave plantations particularly harmonious? I'm comfortable describing them as acts of self interests (for slave owners), I personally wouldn't describe them as attempts at harmony.

When you talk about changing the law you cite "collective will" but when I talk about law it's "self interest".

You're full of shit.

I've cited both because it is both. In our democratic society the law is a collection of self interests from the voting public (or the financially influential depending on your current level of cynicism). In a dictatorship the law represents the self interest of one person. It always boils down to self interest it's just a matter of who's.

Wait a minute, are you saying law was created to, what, build an inharmonious and disordered society?

Given the subjective and metaphorical nature of the term inharmonious I don't even know what you mean by that. Harmonious and Inharmonious can both refer to universal healthcare and slave plantations depending on your perspective. I wouldn't use words that are inherently subjective to try and make an objective claim. That's your lane. I used self interest. Disorder on the other hand can be an objective term and no, I'm not saying laws were created to sow disorder. Slave plantations were orderly when they operated as they were meant to, they were just ordered in accordance to the self interest of the Slaver rather than the slaves.

Irrelevant. You are the one who said law is force but no one forced me to pay a fine. In fact, it's possible that even if I don't, they may not come after me. As a perfect example of what I'm talking about, I'll tell you a quick story about what happened to me and two of my younger brothers years ago.

We were fishing from a platform on the side of the road that was built for that purpose. A game warden came along and checked for fishing licenses among the people there and cited me and my brothers for fishing without a license. The fine was fifty dollars apiece.
When I got home I immediately wrote a check and sent it off. However, neither of my brothers had any intention of doing so. Nevertheless, my brothers never paid their fines but never heard a word on the matter from Wildlife and Fisheries.

And the moral of that story is what? That the law didn't act on your brother in that instance? My point is that when the law acts it acts to force people to adhere to a subjective set of ideas and morals. Instead of trying to argue with me about all the times the law isn't active why don't you address my actual argument which is about when it is?

The problem here is that you're saying that force is inherent in law and yet force is not always applied.

Its inherent when it is applied. Why would I care or be arguing about something that isn't happening?

Who's wielding the gun and handcuffs, the law or the officer?

The officer on behalf of the law. Do I need to spell everything out for you and hold your hand through every argument? Because I don't mind at all treating you like a child, I'm just wondering if you're going to kick and scream the entire trip....

No, I don't. The law forces no one to do anything or not do anything. The law enforcement apparatus will force you to be held and prosecuted for the crime.

I don't care if you want to call it the law enforcement apparatus instead. Call it whatever makes you feel better just so long as we're clear that crimes are violations of a subjective set of ideas and morals.

Irrelevant. For the hundredth time, you said law is force.


You said: "...it (force) is about the fundamental nature of all law."
Yet, as I've pointed out numerous times, force is not always applied. That being the case, force is not the fundamental nature of law. It may or may not be the fundamental nature of how a specific entity (country, state, city, etc.) approaches law and how they enforce it but since the application, the non-application and the degree and type of force used is all subjective, we can't very well say law is force or that force is the fundamental nature of law.

You can't because you're a moron. Me and other posters say it freely and understand easily what is meant.

Again, this is a you problem that I'm happy to help you keep highlighting.

Given that you would have your subjective ideas about economics being forced on others, I really do not understand why this is an issue for you.

What do you think my issue is? My argument to dblack and to many libertarians who try to pretend to be above using force for self interest is to challenge them on that notion and then laugh when they run away.

Exactly.

What's fucking hilarious is that you're presenting the words of a philosopher as objective truth.

Except that's not what I'm doing. The objective truth is the objective truth. I'm just pointing out how many different people, including someone from the 19th century, can understand the idea expressed behind the phrases force of law or the law is force or government rules with force in contrast to your repeated incapability to understand for my own amusement and the amusement of anyone still reading.

"Vague"? I've told you twenty times now that law is not force and I've given countless reasons to support this. Are you blind?

They all amount to being about when the law isn't being applied, my argument is about whenever it is.

Again, you said: "law itself is based on subjective feelings no one is inclined by nature to adhere to without the use of physical force.".
And again, this statement plainly says no one is inclined by nature to adhere to law based on subjective feelings.

Ok.... what are you confused by? The statement itself through its function acknowledges that there are some people's who's nature it is to adhere to these ideas or we wouldn't have the law to begin with. That's...how... that.... works. It's an easy logical connection to make if you're not a raging retard.

The law itself is based on subjective feelings.... these feelings come from people who's nature it is to cooperate to make law. Where else would they fucking come from guy? Magic? Goblins? Why do I have to spell that out for you like you're a child who can't think for himself? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Also please don't mistake my profanity for anger. I'm not mad at you. In fact it's hard for me to express just how amused I am by your own magnificent stupidity.

Don't give me that shit about you not having to use physical force. If I have a security fence around my property with a locked gate and you climb that fence or break the lock to "go where you please" then you have forced your way onto my property.

Thats not objective physical force against you my guy. You're talking about force against a fence. The only force being used against you in this scenario is a subjective one you and the law imagine.

Bullshit. You flip flopped from property ownership to nature and then back again.

I don't know what this means. I've talked about both.

My "Bingo brain" is why you don't know what 'most people would avoid doing the wrong thing' means to everyone on earth?

I did say "...most people will avoid doing "wrong" according to their conscience and what they deem to be right and wrong." did I not?

Your Bingo brain is why you don't realize you're saying nothing because right and wrong mean anything and everything.

 

[dblack]

How many keyboards have you guys worn out on this thread alone?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

How many keyboards have you guys worn out on this thread alone?

I'm working on my third one.

Actually, I thought we were done with it because he hadn't responded in two weeks. Then out of the blue...

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm working on my third one.

Actually, I thought we were done with it because he hadn't responded in two weeks. Then out of the blue...

I have a life guy. I don't always have time to sit down and respond to your inane essays.

 

[Curried Goats]

How many keyboards have you guys worn out on this thread alone?

He could of surrendered as easily as you did. I guess he chose confusion as a stall tactic but I'm more than happy to watch him stumble around confused.

 

[dblack]

He could of surrendered as easily as you did.

Lol. You're a funny guy. Like a clown!

 

[Curried Goats]

Lol. You're a funny guy. Like a clown!

You're inability to respond to my arguments speaks for itself.

Take your emotional plea to Johnny Horse, what exactly is a, truly necessary act of government? Is that like an objectively true thing or just your opinion on what's necessary? And what the difference between the special interest groups that want something from government and yourself, who also wants something from government? Are your wants different? Are they special wants?

 

[dblack]

You're inability to respond to my arguments speaks for itself.

You're awesome!

 

[Curried Goats]

You're awesome!

And you remain demonstrably incapable.

I'm not forcing you into making these bad arguments you can't defend.

 

[dblack]

And you remain demonstrably incapable.

My hero!

 

[Curried Goats]

My hero!

Adorn me with fan fiction and fantasy in lieu of counter argument. I'm amused either way.

Do I get a cape in this comic?

 

[dblack]

Adorn me with fan fiction and fantasy in lieu of counter argument. I'm amused either way.

Is there one? An argument? To counter? Huh.

 

[Curried Goats]

Is there one? An argument? To counter? Huh.

You want me to make it again for you? Sure Slowbus.

There are no objective truly necessary parts of government. There's just the type of government you want compared to the type anyone else wants. And your wants aren't special. They're wants likes everyone else's wants.

 

[dblack]

You want me to make it again for you? Sure Slowbus.

There are no objective truly necessary parts of government. There's just the type of government you want compared to the type anyone else wants. And your wants aren't special. They're wants likes everyone else's wants.

That's an argument?? You're just making an unsupported claim. Here's my response - you're full of shit. Also, an unsupported claim, but your nonsense isn't worth more.

I have to be honest, I have a hard time taking you seriously. Your posts rarely make a cogent point, so I'm usually at a bit of loss as to how to respond.