don, I hate to say it.. But you are a liar and that is a lie..
"No force, no Fraud" rememeber?
Now, suppose you prove this lie to me.. WHILE, I go dig up Harry Brown Quotes..
THEN, if you can prove this you can take me aside and tell me how we can have laws against some types of immoral behavior, but definately not others in your little Utopian dream world..
That should make for interesting conversation.. Your "Rules" and how you will enforce them..
Cha-cha..
don, I hate to say it.. But you are a liar and that is a lie..
Oh, really? And your demonstration of this would be what? Would you like to to explain to you what a political theory is, and why this kind of abrasive response is inappropriate? I can be wrong about a political theory--but I cannot be either a liar or a truthteller.
"No force, no Fraud" rememeber?
And what do you think statutory rape/fraud/battery means? Force and fraud are the center of my argument, which you would know had you read it with your headlights on. You and your cow forced yourselves on those kids, who had no choice but to be on that playground. However, even they were putatively consenting it doesn't change a thing. Kids can't arbitrarily consent to the same degree adult citizens can, so behavior that might not be coercive or fraudulant between consenting adults might be for kids. Where that point is set is up to the law fairly untrammeled by libertarian theory, just like at what age we give driver's licenses to people is up to the law, fairly untrammeled by libertarian theory.
Now, suppose you prove this lie to me.. WHILE, I go dig up Harry Brown Quotes..
Oh, piffle, like I'd consult a politician on the subject of libertarian theory. When you can show me a quote from Van Mieses or Hayak or any seriously regarded political philosopher that contradicts me, than I might feel obligated to respond.
THEN, if you can prove this you can take me aside and tell me how we can have laws against some types of immoral behavior, but definately not others in your little Utopian dream world..
Pretty easily. Unlike you, I don't presume that because I don't like something, I therefore have a right to claim it's objectively immoral, and prohibitable. When I try to determine whether a law is legitimate, I ask first if it's Consitutional, not if its immoral, Rescuing slaves and witchs was once declared immoral, and therefore illegal. Immoral is not a reliable touchstone, it's how Catholics and Protestents found an excuse to hang each other once they got hold of the reigns of government. That's a big reason why our founding fathers bequithed us a consitutionally limited Republic, instead of a democracy or a monarchy, precisely so that your notion of immoral could not be nailed into my forehead whenever you got hold of the lawmaker's perogatives.
Cha-cha..
rooty-toot-toot.