Subject:
|
Re: Patriotism or Mass Hysteria?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:00:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
347 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > > Equal protection under the law means that the government (which has
> > > > the force initiation monopoly, remember)
> > >
> > > Actually, it must be remembered that the government, then using force in
> > > accordance with written law, is exercising contract enforcement, which is
> > > 100% approved by Libertarian philosophy.
> >
> > That's not a settled point, so I'd wish you wouldn't assert it as if it were.
>
> You're kidding, right? You're saying, in effect, that you are free to
> assert your opinions as facts, but I'm held to a higher rhetorical standard?
No, we're to the same standard I would say.
> > > Maybe I don't like it, maybe you don't like it, but that's how the
> > > contract functions. You're under no forced obligation to remain in the
> > > contract, of course.
> >
> > Nor is that settled.
>
> Since you're the one on the outside making the claim contrary to the
> existing system, it is up to you to prove your point; it is not up to me to
> disprove it.
> I will consider the point ceded if you merely hit me with a bunch of links
> or simply declare matter "ploughed ground" or "already decided by the market
> of ideas" without giving a better defense.
There's no better defense than the market of ideas in this sphere but I do
not have to prove a point to your satisfaction or else "cede" it. There are
other possible outcomes.
> > But larger-ly, what's the bearing? Do you disagree that a just government
> > (whether you think a non libertarian government is just or not) ought to
> > afford all citizens equal protection, or not?
>
> My post made no claims re: equal protection but was instead taking issue
> with your off-hand statement put forth as if it were self-evident fact
Well... ISN'T it settled fact that governments have the monopoly on lawful
force initiation? Help me out here. Don't go all Scott Arthur on me, just
say what you're trying to say. Do they or don't they?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Patriotism or Mass Hysteria?
|
| (...) Pardon? If we're held to the same standard, then why do you feel free to dispense little nuggets as if they're revealed truth, but you require me to prove my arguments? (...) Let's hear them. Perhaps, instead of saying "you" in that context, I (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Patriotism or Mass Hysteria?
|
| (...) You're kidding, right? You're saying, in effect, that you are free to assert your opinions as facts, but I'm held to a higher rhetorical standard? (...) Since you're the one on the outside making the claim contrary to the existing system, it (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
