Replies

"Your claimed "social contract" implies..."

Ok. The foundation you used to attribute to me a belief that I did not claim was based on more than my statement "An implication which may be correct."

I'll grant you that.

Now as to "please don't try and take the ridiculous position that you don't believe force can be initiated against me."

I probably believe that to the same degree you appear to believe it, but in regard to different things.

Back in post 371 you wrote:

I can avoid any and all of the many implied contracts embodied in our culture. I don't have to let you ring my doorbell: I can put a sign up that says, "No visitors: violators will be shot." I can invite you to lunch by saying, "Yo, Kris, come on over for lunch--but if you tick me off, I promise I'll shoot you. Matter of fact, sign this, in case the police want some proof..."

Nobody but you would be initiating force in those instances. And you said people like me are "so scary."

And someplace in this mess you said that you told your boss you’d throw him out of your house if he spoke in therein in a manner of which you disapproved.

Granting that when you said "throw him out" you were using a figure of speech, what are you going to do if he goes limp on the living room floor and refuses to leave? How will you get him out without inititating force?

I probably believe that to the same degree you appear to believe it, but in regard to different things.

I believe that force may never be initiated against anyone for any reason, with no exceptions. Is that what you believe?

And someplace in this mess you said that you told your boss you’d throw him out of your house if he spoke in therein in a manner of which you disapproved.

Sigh--it's endless. Now I have to try and get through to you what "initiation of force" means. Hint: self-defense is not an initiation of force.

How will you get him out without inititating force?

A trespasser has initiated the use of force by trespassing. Pumping him full of lead is defense of one's self and/or property.

Kris, were you around FR when OWK used to drive everyone nuts with his dogmatic defense of anarchistic libertarianism?

'One Who Knows' had this same obsession about Spooner type anti-constitutional theory. -- Under his theories, no men could ever agree to act as a group without ongoing complete agreement within the group.
- If any member of a group disagreed, at any time for any reason, he was free to ignore his prior agreement.

No one was ever able to make OWK understand that anarchy does not work. Men must be held to honor prior commitments.

Our most important prior commitment was agreed to on Dec 15, 1791.