9/11 victims deserved their fate

[Agathon]

Courts have the power to coerce people to appear before them to answer charges and to coercively punish people for violating the natural rights of others. If a court doesn't have that power, it is functionally useless to deal with criminals.

Again.. in a Libertarian society, what gives the courts this power to coerce, a power which no other citizen has.

[Berzerker]

Kid, you keep changing your argument. You changed it 2 times and still haven't defended your original argument.

And show me where I took an argument out of context. I keep quoting you and that's your problem... You made a dumb statement that can't be defended so you switch to a new "anology" which fails just as badly as your initial assertion.

You still haven't answered the question: what justification do Libertarians give for legal authority?

"Natural rights" is not, and cannot be the answer, for the reasons stated above.

You say I didn't answer and then cite the answer I gave. Ask libertarians that question and see if they mention natural rights as the basis for a moral legal system. They certainly won't mention your social contract... They aren't commies like you...

[Agathon]

You say I didn't answer and then cite the answer I gave.

Because you're answering the wrong question. Or confusing two issues.

Question 1: what the is the content of the legal system.

Answer: natural rights.

Question 2: what gives certain persons (the courts) a power to coerce people that all other citizens do not have?

Answer: cannot be natural rights, since everyone has those, but not everyone is permitted to coerce in the manner that the courts are.

Now stop messing around and answer the second question.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ask libertarians that question and see if they mention natural rights as the basis for a moral legal system. They certainly won't mention your social contract... They aren't commies like you..

I thought libertarians liked John Locke. He definitely refered to a social contract.

[Agathon]

I thought libertarians liked John Locke. He definitely refered to a social contract.

So did I... about two pages ago.

[Berzerker]

Question 2: what gives certain persons (the courts) a power to coerce people that all other citizens do not have?

Answer: cannot be natural rights, since everyone has those, but not everyone is permitted to coerce in the manner that the courts are.

All other citizens do have that power. The authority the court has derives from the individual's authority and the individual has that authority because of natural rights. If you try to kill me I have the natural right to defend myself. The court/state, acting on behalf of the individual, derives its authority for and power of retribution from the individual's natural right(s) to self-defense and retribution. If there is no state, I still have my moral authority to defend myself and others have the right to avenge me should I fail. My God Aggie, we've had this debate before and thoroughly discussed natural rights.

I thought libertarians liked John Locke. He definitely refered to a social contract.

Not Aggies.

[Berzerker]

Now stop messing around and answer the second question.

Sheesh! I answered that a while ago but you dismissed it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid, you keep changing your argument. You changed it 2 times and still haven't defended your original argument.

Your question doesn't make any sense. That's not my claim.

And show me where I took an argument out of context. I keep quoting you and that's your problem... You made a dumb statement that can't be defended so you switch to a new "anology" which fails just as badly as your initial assertion.

I didn't say you took anything out of context, although you sometimes ignore context. I'm saying that you should create your own argument with a context of it's own for a change.

[Berzerker]

Kid

Your question doesn't make any sense. That's not my claim.

Here is what you said to justify placing blame on non-voters and voting opponents of the government:

I can say I'm opposed to jerking off all I want, but if I do it then I'm responsible

So why is the person who opposes jerking off and is consistent responsible for your inconsistency? Why does your inconsistency as a voter transfer guilt onto others who dont vote or vote against the current government. Maybe the problem is you offered up a bad analogy. Of course, you resorted to this analogy in response to my inquiry as to why you think people who dont vote or oppose the government are guilty for the actions of that government. Thats when Aggie threw his social contract into the mix.

I asked that and you jumped to a different "analogy" and then to a litany of past crimes by Americans that have nothing to do with...yes...you got it right...the CONTEXT.

I didn't say you took anything out of context, although you sometimes ignore context. I'm saying that you should create your own argument with a context of it's own for a change.

Where did I ignore context? And I've been "creating" my arguments all along and in context, the context provided by the parameters of the debate.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So why is the person who opposes jerking off and is consistent responsible for your inconsistency? Why does your inconsistency as a voter transfer guilt onto others who dont vote or vote against the current government. Maybe the problem is you offered up a bad analogy. Of course, you resorted to this analogy in response to my inquiry as to why you think people who dont vote or oppose the government are guilty for the actions of that government. Thats when Aggie threw his social contract into the mix.

Voting is only part of it. If you voted against politicians who support the sanctions, or you did not vote at all, fine by my argument, although I agree with Aggie on his argument. But if you turned around and paid your taxes, contributed or benefited from the economy in any way then you are partially responsible.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Does that mean you didn't accuse Aggie and Kid of supporting terrorists? TBH I don't care what bores you, I sure didn't have your sensibilities in mind when I responded to Aggies cut and paste post. I don't gripe at people for the way they debate but I do get tired of the hypocrisy of people using cut and paste only to whine when I do the same.

You really are fixated on where I might have fragged Aggie, aren't you? If it suits your fancy, it's in the BBC claims about coalition killing people thread about a week ago. I have biting things to say about his views quite often. You could find dozens of threads where we have called each other pooh heads.

You might not care what I think about your posting style, but you might care that I see him trashing your ass because he says things in a clear, coherent, and brief way when he is answered with cut and slash that is far too tedious to read through, post after post.

When you show that he did the same thing, then I snicker and say to myself, 'it figures'.

[Berzerker]

Kid

Voting is only part of it. If you voted against politicians who support the sanctions, or you did not vote at all, fine by my argument, although I agree with Aggie on his argument. But if you turned around and paid your taxes, contributed or benefited from the economy in any way then you are partially responsible.

WHY? When Jesus said "render unto Caesar" was he telling his followers to assume guilt for what others did with their money? They don't own the economy, they interfere in it to obtain money. Why does their violation of our economic freedom make us guilty for their interference abroad? Thats like saying you are guilty for what a mugger does with your money in the future after he mugs you.

NYE

You really are fixated on where I might have fragged Aggie, aren't you?

You said you did, so I asked where. Thats a fixation? Btw, you forgot Kid...

If it suits your fancy, it's in the BBC claims about coalition killing people thread about a week ago. I have biting things to say about his views quite often. You could find dozens of threads where we have called each other pooh heads.

I dont recall asking about the nicknames you have for each other.

You might not care what I think about your posting style, but you might care that I see him trashing your ass because he says things in a clear, coherent, and brief way when he is answered with cut and slash that is far too tedious to read through, post after post.

Hmm...would this trashing be in his cut and paste post you find so boring? And since you don't read my posts because they are too boring, how would you know who is getting trashed?

When you show that he did the same thing, then I snicker and say to myself, 'it figures'.

Why would I need to show you his posts, you've been reading them haven't you? How else would you know someone is getting trashed? Man you can't keep your story straight.

[notyoueither]

A bit sensitive, Berz? How many people do you think plough through all of one of your cut and slash jobs? Not very many would be my guess.

When you refuse to say your own thing, and instead resort to cutting up and responding to your critics line by line with useless observations like you 'dont recall asking about the nicknames you have for each other', you are getting your ass trashed.

[Zulu Elephant]

Thats like saying you are guilty for what a mugger does with your money in the future after he mugs you.

Just wandered into the argument and Im not taking sides but if a mugger says "give me your money so I can use if to buy a gun and shoot somebody" and you give him your money without a fight, doesnt that make you partially responsible.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I didn't ask about your writing style, I asked for the point you're making.

Perhaps you'd have preferred it in the equivalent of sound bites, but over here in Eurocommunistaland we have longer attention spans, and a greater sense of history.