> Nick to Andre: > Nope, don't change the meaning of government that has been around and > abundantly defined since ancient greece. The government/State is coercive > by nature. I live in a civil society. Big difference. > > Andre: > I don't know why I bother Nick but here's my last thing and you can remain > floating up there with the daisies: government in America ( I presume you > live in that wonderful civil society) was agreed upon to exist as a power to > protect property rights. Read Locke's philosophy on this and your own > history.These are the self same rights you appear to cherish so much. > If anything is coercive it is in the name of exercising this protection and, > by implication, the protection of individuals who think just like you..
Nick: Andre, the government takes property and doesn't protect property. The government is a self-contradictory agency due to having to make policies in the name of the public good. It always ends up violating somebody's rights cause it has to take property and redistribute it's activities. The government coerces property rights. You actually make my point on how the government can't even follow it's own laws. > Nick previously: > Nope, I ascribe to a moral intellectual principle called the NAP. I live in > a civil society, and you advocate a law of the jungle government/State that > is coercive by nature. You see, in a civil society we sit, negotiate, and > reason with each other. But somebody advocating for a territorial coercive > monopoly government/State is a criminal. > > Andre: > Now I clearly see an argument presented which is twisted upon itself and > distorted beyond all recognition and blaming me for the outcome! Sounds you > have a real mate in Platt with this one...selectively picking and choosing > and turning the argument back upon the person asking the questions for > clarification in the first place. Nick: Nope, I pointed out that the government initiates physical coercion. It's is unlawful and criminal. You defend such unlawful coercion. You therefore are a criminal. Prove the NAP is wrong. Show me why I should initiate physical coercion against somebody. So far you haven't been able to, so, I'm sticking with peace. No need to get immoral like you. Andre: > Go back to sleep Nick and while you are at it: read this last line of your > own post... and ask yourself: 'Who wants to protect his own territory to the > hilt?' and what makes this of you then? Nick: I never said that. You are being deceptive and lying. So that's how you try to win an intellectual argument when you lost it. You have to resort to lying. Nick -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
