Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Stories Commentaries
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Stories Commentaries (Read 664 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #20 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:39pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:15pm:
I still see no percentage there.

Since we know that women, blacks, Native Americans, and non-landowners were not allowed to consent or not consent, the percent I would estimate about ten or less.

That is assuming that all white male landowners agreed.  But you are correct, there was rarely more than a few percent more "patriots" than "torries" in any given location.  So it was like 51% of the 10%.

Yeah.

Consent of the governed is awesome!  If you are in that 5.1% . . .
I've heard that anarchist crap about consent being absent unless everyone agrees until it makes my head hurt.

How many people consent to having no government at all? Give me a percentage... No, don't bother. Unless everyone consents, you can't do it!
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8727
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #21 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:47pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:15pm:
Since we know that women, blacks, Native Americans, and non-landowners were not allowed to consent or not consent {...}


Right, but you think Hussein's Iraqi citizens did consent because they were allowed to vote for Hussein.  Sure they did.

You still don't (want to} understand consent. It's part of the whole troll space you occupy.  Voting is not consent.  You can have consent without voting or voting without consent
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8727
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #22 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:51pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:39pm:
I've heard that anarchist crap about consent being absent unless everyone agrees until it makes my head hurt.

How many people consent to having no government at all? Give me a percentage... No, don't bother. Unless everyone consents, you can't do it!


It's the one thing LBM is honest about.  He would LOVE to have it be unanimous.  He would never vote for it.  It's his dream that he could end civilization by just saying no.  He may be a socialist, but if he could bring it all down by saying no?  His answer would be no, no, no, no, no!!!!!!!

The rest of his crap is his whining that no one cares that he doesn't consent and he doesn't want us to have a government without his OK, which he would never give.  He will vote for socialists though, he does every election
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #23 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 2:01pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:39pm:
I've heard that anarchist crap about consent being absent unless everyone agrees until it makes my head hurt.

How many people consent to having no government at all? Give me a percentage... No, don't bother. Unless everyone consents, you can't do it!


I think each individual should have to consent before he or she is forced to give money to government.  Call me crazy.

But, what I'm pointing out is that even under your "majority rules, so suck it" standard for consent, there was no consent for the Continental Congress.

How about this:  If there is 94.9% consent to any government which is the percent that did not consent to the continental congress, I'll say that the remaining 5.1% are just out of luck.


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #24 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 2:17pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 2:01pm:
I think each individual should have to consent before he or she is forced to give money to government.  Call me crazy.


You're crazy! Cheesy
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #25 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 2:19pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 2:01pm:
But, what I'm pointing out is that even under your "majority rules, so suck it" standard for consent, there was no consent for the Continental Congress.


The slaves didn't care whether they were enslaved under colonial laws, or under State laws, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution. It was all the same to them. (Edit: Some slaves fought in the Revolution, no doubt with the hope that all that talk about Liberty would end up being extended to them... Alas, the people controlling the slave state governments prevented it.)

Women at the time almost all believed that women were incapable of making good decisions about these sorts of things, and consented to let the men handle it. Happily, women have learned that some of them are capable of making good decisions on such matters, just like some men are.

In case you didn't know, democracy destroys civilizations, it doesn't create them, and it certainly never leads to liberty and the protection of rights.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8727
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #26 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 2:28pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 2:01pm:
I think each individual should have to consent before he or she is forced to give money to government.  Call me crazy


Crazy?  No.  I'll call you greedy.  You're a a dead beat because you don't want to pay your own bills.  And you'll go to any lengths to get out of paying your own bills
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #27 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 5:11pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 2:28pm:
Crazy?  No.  I'll call you greedy.  You're a a dead beat because you don't want to pay your own bills.  And you'll go to any lengths to get out of paying your own bills
kaz, did you at least look through the index of the commentaries?

Did you find anything of interest to you?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #28 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 5:13pm
Print Post  
Ha! Why did no one call me on the misconstruction in my title?

It's not "Stories" idiot, it's "Story's".
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #29 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 5:27pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:51pm:
It's the one thing LBM is honest about.  He would LOVE to have it be unanimous.  He would never vote for it.  It's his dream that he could end civilization by just saying no.  He may be a socialist, but if he could bring it all down by saying no?  His answer would be no, no, no, no, no!!!!!!!



Let me ask you and Jeff about this:

I play in a poker tournament about once a week.  When it gets down to the final table, it is common for one of the players to suggest a “chop” meaning that we will split the prize pool instead of playing to the end.  That ensures that all of the final ten get some money, rather than the winner getting 600, second place getting 300, third getting 200 and fourth getting 100 (if the pot happens to be 1200).  Sometimes someone with more chips will offer a proportional chop so that he gets more in proportion to his stack size. 

This offer is often taken because of that final ten, half will get nothing if we don’t chop.  But the convention is that there must be one hundred percent agreement or no chop.  So one lone person can say “noooooooooo!”  That happened the first time I made it to the final ten.  Everyone was willing except one guy said, “Nah, I don’t care about the money, I want to keep playing.”  End of discussion.  Nobody whined, nobody called him an anarchist, nothing.

Happy ending, I made it to the final five and then he did want to chop.  He was a sport because at that point winning 600 or 100 is more luck than skill, unless your skills allowed you to have an overwhelming chip advantage at that point.

I don’t know if you will find that enlightening and I know Jeff won’t answer the question, but I don’t care,  I love talking about poker.

What was this thread about, again?
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Stories Commentaries
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy