Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:
Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.
It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.
No force? So a fantasy world?
cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:
Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.
It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.
Good example. The bathroom use issue a couple years ago. "Convervatives" came down on Target and others saying "you can't do that". That stance is actually the liberal (modern usage) stance. The conservative stance is "you're a private business, you can do what you want, but you have to post your bathroom policies on your front door". Then the consumer chooses. We've haven't stepped in to a Target since then.
So you think it should be legal for men to use the bathroom with little girls. That's what you just said.
I think it should be legal for private business to do what they want regarding bathrooms, including not providing them. However, their bathroom policies should be clearly and prominently posted at the front doors, and a specific policy warning statement prominently posted on bathroom doors.
cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:
Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.
It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.
No force? So a fantasy world?
Read again.
Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:
Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.
It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.
No force? So a fantasy world?
Read again.
Okay, so force. You're forcing your ideal for society onto the rest of us. What am I missing?
If your definition of "conservative" defends the creation of sexually inappropriate spaces for our young girls… you're just *******izing terms.cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:
Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.
It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.
Good example. The bathroom use issue a couple years ago. "Convervatives" came down on Target and others saying "you can't do that". That stance is actually the liberal (modern usage) stance. The conservative stance is "you're a private business, you can do what you want, but you have to post your bathroom policies on your front door". Then the consumer chooses. We've haven't stepped in to a Target since then.
So you think it should be legal for men to use the bathroom with little girls. That's what you just said.
I think it should be legal for private business to do what they want regarding bathrooms, including not providing them. However, their bathroom policies should be clearly and prominently posted at the front doors, and a specific policy warning statement prominently posted on bathroom doors.
cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:
Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.
It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.
No force? So a fantasy world?
Read again.
Okay, so force. You're forcing your ideal for society onto the rest of us. What am I missing?
Now you're being intentionally obtuse.
Bob Lee said:CDUB98 said:Bob Lee said:CDUB98 said:
Oh, piss off.
The removal of Christianity was not because of Classical Liberalism, you know, the Founding Father type.
It facilitated it 100%.
Then you should never use the Founding Fathers and Constitution as your measuring stick, because THAT is Classical Liberalism. Not that 60s *****
the founders didn't have to resolve the issue of major conflicts of will as a result of displacement of the population by non-Christians. How did classical liberalism resolve it when it began? It removed Christianity from the public square.
GrapevineAg said:Bob Lee said:CDUB98 said:Bob Lee said:CDUB98 said:
Oh, piss off.
The removal of Christianity was not because of Classical Liberalism, you know, the Founding Father type.
It facilitated it 100%.
Then you should never use the Founding Fathers and Constitution as your measuring stick, because THAT is Classical Liberalism. Not that 60s *****
the founders didn't have to resolve the issue of major conflicts of will as a result of displacement of the population by non-Christians. How did classical liberalism resolve it when it began? It removed Christianity from the public square.
Seems like Christians removed large populations of native- and meso-Americans from the "public square". They displaced many people to reservations and the afterlife. Not exactly a paragon of conflict resolution.
🚨 BREAKING: Sec. Marco Rubio has just REVOKED the visas of foreign nationals who mocked, justified or made fun of Charlie Kirk's assassination
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 14, 2025
They are from: Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Paraguay and South Africa
GOOD! They have NO PLACE in the United States. Keep… pic.twitter.com/hg87NnVYiE
Bob Lee said:GrapevineAg said:Bob Lee said:CDUB98 said:Bob Lee said:CDUB98 said:
Oh, piss off.
The removal of Christianity was not because of Classical Liberalism, you know, the Founding Father type.
It facilitated it 100%.
Then you should never use the Founding Fathers and Constitution as your measuring stick, because THAT is Classical Liberalism. Not that 60s *****
the founders didn't have to resolve the issue of major conflicts of will as a result of displacement of the population by non-Christians. How did classical liberalism resolve it when it began? It removed Christianity from the public square.
Seems like Christians removed large populations of native- and meso-Americans from the "public square". They displaced many people to reservations and the afterlife. Not exactly a paragon of conflict resolution.
I noticed cannibalism is pretty much eradicated here in the states. Seems like the conflict has been resolved, no?
This also furthers my point. We weren't so delusional back then that we just slapped coexist bumper stickers on our buggies and wagons, and let the savages do what savages do
GrapevineAg said:Bob Lee said:GrapevineAg said:Bob Lee said:CDUB98 said:Bob Lee said:CDUB98 said:
Oh, piss off.
The removal of Christianity was not because of Classical Liberalism, you know, the Founding Father type.
It facilitated it 100%.
Then you should never use the Founding Fathers and Constitution as your measuring stick, because THAT is Classical Liberalism. Not that 60s *****
the founders didn't have to resolve the issue of major conflicts of will as a result of displacement of the population by non-Christians. How did classical liberalism resolve it when it began? It removed Christianity from the public square.
Seems like Christians removed large populations of native- and meso-Americans from the "public square". They displaced many people to reservations and the afterlife. Not exactly a paragon of conflict resolution.
I noticed cannibalism is pretty much eradicated here in the states. Seems like the conflict has been resolved, no?
This also furthers my point. We weren't so delusional back then that we just slapped coexist bumper stickers on our buggies and wagons, and let the savages do what savages do
What a blimp. Seems like your point is to eradicate those who don't share your beliefs, and call all non-Christians savages. Ha, we traded cannibalism for burning at the stake, the rack, and iron maidens - what a glorious improvement!
GrapevineAg said:
"Kill all the heathens!" is always the answer. You're no different than the Muslims.
captkirk said:🚨 BREAKING: Sec. Marco Rubio has just REVOKED the visas of foreign nationals who mocked, justified or made fun of Charlie Kirk's assassination
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 14, 2025
They are from: Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Paraguay and South Africa
GOOD! They have NO PLACE in the United States. Keep… pic.twitter.com/hg87NnVYiE
Quote:
What a blimp. Seems like your point is to eradicate those who don't share your beliefs,
Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:
Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.
It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.
No force? So a fantasy world?
Read again.
Okay, so force. You're forcing your ideal for society onto the rest of us. What am I missing?
Now you're being intentionally obtuse.
It's literally not. Because the problem is that in a society where drugs, sodomy, grooming, etc are permitted, people are being made to live in a society with all those things, and among the kind of people who do those things, and there are no purely private sins. Those people are going to be pediatricians, and school teachers, and interact with our children, and they're not going to leave their lifestyles at home with them. Your only reply is that I should just not participate in society. Don't drive down main street. I can just stay home. And my point is that's dumb. We can just not have those things, which would be way better for EVERYONE. Not the least of which are those deviants who would be destroying their lives but for the laws that discourage self abuse.
cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:
Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.
It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.
No force? So a fantasy world?
Read again.
Okay, so force. You're forcing your ideal for society onto the rest of us. What am I missing?
Now you're being intentionally obtuse.
It's literally not. Because the problem is that in a society where drugs, sodomy, grooming, etc are permitted, people are being made to live in a society with all those things, and among the kind of people who do those things, and there are no purely private sins. Those people are going to be pediatricians, and school teachers, and interact with our children, and they're not going to leave their lifestyles at home with them. Your only reply is that I should just not participate in society. Don't drive down main street. I can just stay home. And my point is that's dumb. We can just not have those things, which would be way better for EVERYONE. Not the least of which are those deviants who would be destroying their lives but for the laws that discourage self abuse.
Wow, you're really all over the place here. Take a breath...
It's understandable, because true liberty is a new concept to many. Nowhere did I imply that sodomy and grooming should be "permitted". Those involve the initiation of force meaning that it is appropriate for coercive government to intervene. As to drugs, unless you want the white man's drug (alcohol) to be prohibited you don't have a leg to stand on.
Of course there are behavioral standards, and sometimes those should be legal standards, a teacher sexes a child, they go to prison, etc. Your issue is that YOU want to be the one to decide societal standards, well so do I, but I know that it is immoral of me to force my beliefs on others as long as they are not initiating force.
I don't know how old you are, but these concepts will become clearer to you with age and maturity. I reject the notion that 536 people in Washington DC are collectively wiser that 380 million Americans, each deciding their best life course .
You also conflate "legal" with "permitted" or "accepted". "Government" is not a synonym for "Society". I shouldn't have to permit anything I don't want to on my private property, which would include my place of business. The tangled web that is government is so pervasive, so endemic, that people just have difficulty envisioning anything different. For any example you give, there's a law propping up what you don't want. God imbued each of us with a soul, and the complete ownership of that soul is his gift to us. Government that seeks to abrogate ownership of my God given soul is the height of immorality, regardless noble intentions.
It is up to communities of humans, each acting as they see fit, to protect against other humans initiating force. And no, that doesn't mean that you get to force people to do what YOU want.
I gave my children first edition of Hosper's book for Christmas a few years ago. I'd be proud to send you one. Spend one hour with it a day over three days. You may at least come to and understanding of the concept and move away from the cartoonish arguments.
Libertariansim
cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:Bob Lee said:cecil77 said:
Because I don't want to force you to do anything, other than not force anyone else.
It is the initiation of force that is the target. And that takes many, many forms, many of which are appropriate targets for coercive government. Many aren't. It's a complex discussion.
No force? So a fantasy world?
Read again.
Okay, so force. You're forcing your ideal for society onto the rest of us. What am I missing?
Now you're being intentionally obtuse.
It's literally not. Because the problem is that in a society where drugs, sodomy, grooming, etc are permitted, people are being made to live in a society with all those things, and among the kind of people who do those things, and there are no purely private sins. Those people are going to be pediatricians, and school teachers, and interact with our children, and they're not going to leave their lifestyles at home with them. Your only reply is that I should just not participate in society. Don't drive down main street. I can just stay home. And my point is that's dumb. We can just not have those things, which would be way better for EVERYONE. Not the least of which are those deviants who would be destroying their lives but for the laws that discourage self abuse.
Wow, you're really all over the place here. Take a breath...
It's understandable, because true liberty is a new concept to many. Nowhere did I imply that sodomy and grooming should be "permitted". Those involve the initiation of force meaning that it is appropriate for coercive government to intervene. As to drugs, unless you want the white man's drug (alcohol) to be prohibited you don't have a leg to stand on.
Of course there are behavioral standards, and sometimes those should be legal standards, a teacher sexes a child, they go to prison, etc. Your issue is that YOU want to be the one to decide societal standards, well so do I, but I know that it is immoral of me to force my beliefs on others as long as they are not initiating force.
I don't know how old you are, but these concepts will become clearer to you with age and maturity. I reject the notion that 536 people in Washington DC are collectively wiser that 380 million Americans, each deciding their best life course .
You also conflate "legal" with "permitted" or "accepted". "Government" is not a synonym for "Society". I shouldn't have to permit anything I don't want to on my private property, which would include my place of business. The tangled web that is government is so pervasive, so endemic, that people just have difficulty envisioning anything different. For any example you give, there's a law propping up what you don't want. God imbued each of us with a soul, and the complete ownership of that soul is his gift to us. Government that seeks to abrogate ownership of my God given soul is the height of immorality, regardless noble intentions.
It is up to communities of humans, each acting as they see fit, to protect against other humans initiating force. And no, that doesn't mean that you get to force people to do what YOU want.
I gave my children first edition of Hosper's book for Christmas a few years ago. I'd be proud to send you one. Spend one hour with it a day over three days. You may at least come to and understanding of the concept and move away from the cartoonish arguments.
Libertariansim
Waiting on a Natty said:
Lots of people drive from San Antonio to Boerne (and other places) to get their DL renewed. So my guess these ME people drove over to Boerne from the Medical Center area of San Antonio.
