What kind of idiots ride public transportation?

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:07:40 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2011-02-22, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2011-02-18, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2011-02-17, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bull**** Campaign > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Under libertarianism everybody would need a big fat SUV just to be
>>>>>> safe. Then oil and other resources would have to be drained just keep
>>>>>> up with the demand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's totally irrational.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because you are using a definition of libertarianism that is designed to
>>>>>keep people in the fear-based status-quo rather than embracing freedom.
>>>>>If you wish to improve your understanding, start with this:
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
>
>>>> If 6 people live next to each other on 10,000 sf lots and all is fine,
>>>> the air smells sweet, would it be aggression if one of those 6 people
>>>> decided to go into the manure manufacturing business and as a result
>>>> made the whole neighborhood smell like ****?
>
>>>There are numerous people who have dealt with these problems over the
>>>years. Your question is better answered by their articles than I can do
>>>here. But such activity would likely damage the use of the neighbors'
>>>property and there ways to address this. research it if you're
>>>interested.
>
>> I'm not interested in what "numerous people" have to say. I want to
>> know what you think with a simple yes or no to the question of whether
>> the above scenario is "aggression". The fact that you are unwilling
>> to answer such a simple question is all the answer that's needed to
>> know that you can't defend your beliefs in any sort of non-abstract
>> real world situation.
>
>You want to go way off topic into libertarian theory. I will not rewrite
>what you can easily find and read on your own should you actually be
>interested in learning about it. I wager you're not since you want to
>make this about me.
>
>I fail to see how this thread should be a thread on "my beliefs". Should
>I make it a thread on your beliefs? And as far as defending beliefs, I
>don't see you defending your violence based system. You, like others
>simply consider it a given and with no need for defense. Thus, I am
>considering my beliefs the same, as a natural given. Perhaps maybe you
>should convince me of the superiority of your beliefs before demanding
>me to defend mine.
>
>As to what I feel, there are two basic ways to address it in a property
>rights sense. Pay the effected neighbors for their loss or pay for the
>equipment/facilities to control the smell. This then leads into dispute
>resolution concepts and much more. To properly introduce you to the
>concepts, options, and so on would take writing many pages. I see no
>need to redo this for you. You can read it on your own if you are
>interested.
>
>Here's a good place to start:
>http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
>"Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution"
>By Murray N. Rothbard


It's a simple question yet you can't answer it. Do you or don't you
believe in non-physical aggression? And as a concrete example, is an
extremely foul smelling manure factory in your neighbors back yard an
aggressive act?

On 2011-03-03, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:07:40 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2011-02-22, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2011-02-18, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 2011-02-17, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bull**** Campaign > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Under libertarianism everybody would need a big fat SUV just to be
>>>>>>> safe. Then oil and other resources would have to be drained just keep
>>>>>>> up with the demand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's totally irrational.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because you are using a definition of libertarianism that is designed to
>>>>>>keep people in the fear-based status-quo rather than embracing freedom.
>>>>>>If you wish to improve your understanding, start with this:
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
>>
>>>>> If 6 people live next to each other on 10,000 sf lots and all is fine,
>>>>> the air smells sweet, would it be aggression if one of those 6 people
>>>>> decided to go into the manure manufacturing business and as a result
>>>>> made the whole neighborhood smell like ****?
>>
>>>>There are numerous people who have dealt with these problems over the
>>>>years. Your question is better answered by their articles than I can do
>>>>here. But such activity would likely damage the use of the neighbors'
>>>>property and there ways to address this. research it if you're
>>>>interested.
>>
>>> I'm not interested in what "numerous people" have to say. I want to
>>> know what you think with a simple yes or no to the question of whether
>>> the above scenario is "aggression". The fact that you are unwilling
>>> to answer such a simple question is all the answer that's needed to
>>> know that you can't defend your beliefs in any sort of non-abstract
>>> real world situation.
>>
>>You want to go way off topic into libertarian theory. I will not rewrite
>>what you can easily find and read on your own should you actually be
>>interested in learning about it. I wager you're not since you want to
>>make this about me.
>>
>>I fail to see how this thread should be a thread on "my beliefs". Should
>>I make it a thread on your beliefs? And as far as defending beliefs, I
>>don't see you defending your violence based system. You, like others
>>simply consider it a given and with no need for defense. Thus, I am
>>considering my beliefs the same, as a natural given. Perhaps maybe you
>>should convince me of the superiority of your beliefs before demanding
>>me to defend mine.
>>
>>As to what I feel, there are two basic ways to address it in a property
>>rights sense. Pay the effected neighbors for their loss or pay for the
>>equipment/facilities to control the smell. This then leads into dispute
>>resolution concepts and much more. To properly introduce you to the
>>concepts, options, and so on would take writing many pages. I see no
>>need to redo this for you. You can read it on your own if you are
>>interested.
>>
>>Here's a good place to start:
>>http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
>>"Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution"
>>By Murray N. Rothbard
>
>
> It's a simple question yet you can't answer it. Do you or don't you
> believe in non-physical aggression? And as a concrete example, is an
> extremely foul smelling manure factory in your neighbors back yard an
> aggressive act?

It's been answered. See above. I will not give you the simplistic
sound bite one word answer you want to run away with. It is not a one
word topic. Unless of course if you want to be that way with the
violence based system you prefer. For instance, do you or don't you
believe in killing a person who builds a fence 6 inches taller than
allowed by the government's rules if he sufficently resists said
government? (resists by not removing or changing the fence and not
paying any fines, judgments, tickets, penalties, etc and so forth)

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:52:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2011-03-03, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:07:40 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2011-02-22, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2011-02-18, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 2011-02-17, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bull**** Campaign > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Under libertarianism everybody would need a big fat SUV just to be
>>>>>>>> safe. Then oil and other resources would have to be drained just keep
>>>>>>>> up with the demand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's totally irrational.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because you are using a definition of libertarianism that is designed to
>>>>>>>keep people in the fear-based status-quo rather than embracing freedom.
>>>>>>>If you wish to improve your understanding, start with this:
>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
>>>
>>>>>> If 6 people live next to each other on 10,000 sf lots and all is fine,
>>>>>> the air smells sweet, would it be aggression if one of those 6 people
>>>>>> decided to go into the manure manufacturing business and as a result
>>>>>> made the whole neighborhood smell like ****?
>>>
>>>>>There are numerous people who have dealt with these problems over the
>>>>>years. Your question is better answered by their articles than I can do
>>>>>here. But such activity would likely damage the use of the neighbors'
>>>>>property and there ways to address this. research it if you're
>>>>>interested.
>>>
>>>> I'm not interested in what "numerous people" have to say. I want to
>>>> know what you think with a simple yes or no to the question of whether
>>>> the above scenario is "aggression". The fact that you are unwilling
>>>> to answer such a simple question is all the answer that's needed to
>>>> know that you can't defend your beliefs in any sort of non-abstract
>>>> real world situation.
>>>
>>>You want to go way off topic into libertarian theory. I will not rewrite
>>>what you can easily find and read on your own should you actually be
>>>interested in learning about it. I wager you're not since you want to
>>>make this about me.
>>>
>>>I fail to see how this thread should be a thread on "my beliefs". Should
>>>I make it a thread on your beliefs? And as far as defending beliefs, I
>>>don't see you defending your violence based system. You, like others
>>>simply consider it a given and with no need for defense. Thus, I am
>>>considering my beliefs the same, as a natural given. Perhaps maybe you
>>>should convince me of the superiority of your beliefs before demanding
>>>me to defend mine.
>>>
>>>As to what I feel, there are two basic ways to address it in a property
>>>rights sense. Pay the effected neighbors for their loss or pay for the
>>>equipment/facilities to control the smell. This then leads into dispute
>>>resolution concepts and much more. To properly introduce you to the
>>>concepts, options, and so on would take writing many pages. I see no
>>>need to redo this for you. You can read it on your own if you are
>>>interested.
>>>
>>>Here's a good place to start:
>>>http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
>>>"Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution"
>>>By Murray N. Rothbard
>>
>>
>> It's a simple question yet you can't answer it. Do you or don't you
>> believe in non-physical aggression? And as a concrete example, is an
>> extremely foul smelling manure factory in your neighbors back yard an
>> aggressive act?
>
>It's been answered. See above

No it hasn't. You explained what would happen IF it was answered and
IF the answer was yes. But you haven't answered whether it's yes or
no.

.. I will not give you the simplistic
>sound bite one word answer you want to run away with. It is not a one
>word topic.

It is a simple question, you've been presented with ALL the facts that
exist for this example.

Unless of course if you want to be that way with the
>violence based system you prefer. For instance, do you or don't you
>believe in killing a person who builds a fence 6 inches taller than
>allowed by the government's rules if he sufficently resists said
>government? (resists by not removing or changing the fence and not
>paying any fines, judgments, tickets, penalties, etc and so forth)
>


That's easy. NO, I don't believe in killing someone for building a
fence 6" too high. See how easy that is to answer based on the facts
presented?

On 2011-03-05, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:52:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2011-03-03, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:07:40 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2011-02-22, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 2011-02-18, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-17, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bull**** Campaign > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Under libertarianism everybody would need a big fat SUV just to be
>>>>>>>>> safe. Then oil and other resources would have to be drained just keep
>>>>>>>>> up with the demand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's totally irrational.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Because you are using a definition of libertarianism that is designed to
>>>>>>>>keep people in the fear-based status-quo rather than embracing freedom.
>>>>>>>>If you wish to improve your understanding, start with this:
>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
>>>>
>>>>>>> If 6 people live next to each other on 10,000 sf lots and all is fine,
>>>>>>> the air smells sweet, would it be aggression if one of those 6 people
>>>>>>> decided to go into the manure manufacturing business and as a result
>>>>>>> made the whole neighborhood smell like ****?
>>>>
>>>>>>There are numerous people who have dealt with these problems over the
>>>>>>years. Your question is better answered by their articles than I can do
>>>>>>here. But such activity would likely damage the use of the neighbors'
>>>>>>property and there ways to address this. research it if you're
>>>>>>interested.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not interested in what "numerous people" have to say. I want to
>>>>> know what you think with a simple yes or no to the question of whether
>>>>> the above scenario is "aggression". The fact that you are unwilling
>>>>> to answer such a simple question is all the answer that's needed to
>>>>> know that you can't defend your beliefs in any sort of non-abstract
>>>>> real world situation.
>>>>
>>>>You want to go way off topic into libertarian theory. I will not rewrite
>>>>what you can easily find and read on your own should you actually be
>>>>interested in learning about it. I wager you're not since you want to
>>>>make this about me.
>>>>
>>>>I fail to see how this thread should be a thread on "my beliefs". Should
>>>>I make it a thread on your beliefs? And as far as defending beliefs, I
>>>>don't see you defending your violence based system. You, like others
>>>>simply consider it a given and with no need for defense. Thus, I am
>>>>considering my beliefs the same, as a natural given. Perhaps maybe you
>>>>should convince me of the superiority of your beliefs before demanding
>>>>me to defend mine.
>>>>
>>>>As to what I feel, there are two basic ways to address it in a property
>>>>rights sense. Pay the effected neighbors for their loss or pay for the
>>>>equipment/facilities to control the smell. This then leads into dispute
>>>>resolution concepts and much more. To properly introduce you to the
>>>>concepts, options, and so on would take writing many pages. I see no
>>>>need to redo this for you. You can read it on your own if you are
>>>>interested.
>>>>
>>>>Here's a good place to start:
>>>>http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
>>>>"Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution"
>>>>By Murray N. Rothbard
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a simple question yet you can't answer it. Do you or don't you
>>> believe in non-physical aggression? And as a concrete example, is an
>>> extremely foul smelling manure factory in your neighbors back yard an
>>> aggressive act?
>>
>>It's been answered. See above

> No it hasn't. You explained what would happen IF it was answered and
> IF the answer was yes. But you haven't answered whether it's yes or
> no.

In other words you don't want a real answer like I gave, you want a one
word answer you can then run away with.

> . I will not give you the simplistic
>>sound bite one word answer you want to run away with. It is not a one
>>word topic.

> It is a simple question, you've been presented with ALL the facts that
> exist for this example.

You want to run off and build strawmen from a one word answer. Your
dislike of me not falling into your trap is irrelevant, your question
was answered.

> Unless of course if you want to be that way with the
>>violence based system you prefer. For instance, do you or don't you
>>believe in killing a person who builds a fence 6 inches taller than
>>allowed by the government's rules if he sufficently resists said
>>government? (resists by not removing or changing the fence and not
>>paying any fines, judgments, tickets, penalties, etc and so forth)


> That's easy. NO, I don't believe in killing someone for building a
> fence 6" too high. See how easy that is to answer based on the facts
> presented?

Then what's your disagreement with me then? If you're not willing to see
someone who resists "authority" killed, then you should have no
disagreement with me.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:46:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2011-03-05, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:52:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2011-03-03, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:07:40 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2011-02-22, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 2011-02-18, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-17, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bull**** Campaign > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Under libertarianism everybody would need a big fat SUV just to be
>>>>>>>>>> safe. Then oil and other resources would have to be drained just keep
>>>>>>>>>> up with the demand.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's totally irrational.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because you are using a definition of libertarianism that is designed to
>>>>>>>>>keep people in the fear-based status-quo rather than embracing freedom.
>>>>>>>>>If you wish to improve your understanding, start with this:
>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If 6 people live next to each other on 10,000 sf lots and all is fine,
>>>>>>>> the air smells sweet, would it be aggression if one of those 6 people
>>>>>>>> decided to go into the manure manufacturing business and as a result
>>>>>>>> made the whole neighborhood smell like ****?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>There are numerous people who have dealt with these problems over the
>>>>>>>years. Your question is better answered by their articles than I can do
>>>>>>>here. But such activity would likely damage the use of the neighbors'
>>>>>>>property and there ways to address this. research it if you're
>>>>>>>interested.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not interested in what "numerous people" have to say. I want to
>>>>>> know what you think with a simple yes or no to the question of whether
>>>>>> the above scenario is "aggression". The fact that you are unwilling
>>>>>> to answer such a simple question is all the answer that's needed to
>>>>>> know that you can't defend your beliefs in any sort of non-abstract
>>>>>> real world situation.
>>>>>
>>>>>You want to go way off topic into libertarian theory. I will not rewrite
>>>>>what you can easily find and read on your own should you actually be
>>>>>interested in learning about it. I wager you're not since you want to
>>>>>make this about me.
>>>>>
>>>>>I fail to see how this thread should be a thread on "my beliefs". Should
>>>>>I make it a thread on your beliefs? And as far as defending beliefs, I
>>>>>don't see you defending your violence based system. You, like others
>>>>>simply consider it a given and with no need for defense. Thus, I am
>>>>>considering my beliefs the same, as a natural given. Perhaps maybe you
>>>>>should convince me of the superiority of your beliefs before demanding
>>>>>me to defend mine.
>>>>>
>>>>>As to what I feel, there are two basic ways to address it in a property
>>>>>rights sense. Pay the effected neighbors for their loss or pay for the
>>>>>equipment/facilities to control the smell. This then leads into dispute
>>>>>resolution concepts and much more. To properly introduce you to the
>>>>>concepts, options, and so on would take writing many pages. I see no
>>>>>need to redo this for you. You can read it on your own if you are
>>>>>interested.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's a good place to start:
>>>>>http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
>>>>>"Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution"
>>>>>By Murray N. Rothbard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a simple question yet you can't answer it. Do you or don't you
>>>> believe in non-physical aggression? And as a concrete example, is an
>>>> extremely foul smelling manure factory in your neighbors back yard an
>>>> aggressive act?
>>>
>>>It's been answered. See above
>
>> No it hasn't. You explained what would happen IF it was answered and
>> IF the answer was yes. But you haven't answered whether it's yes or
>> no.
>
>In other words you don't want a real answer like I gave, you want a one
>word answer you can then run away with.
>
>> . I will not give you the simplistic
>>>sound bite one word answer you want to run away with. It is not a one
>>>word topic.
>
>> It is a simple question, you've been presented with ALL the facts that
>> exist for this example.
>
>You want to run off and build strawmen from a one word answer. Your
>dislike of me not falling into your trap is irrelevant, your question
>was answered.
>
>> Unless of course if you want to be that way with the
>>>violence based system you prefer. For instance, do you or don't you
>>>believe in killing a person who builds a fence 6 inches taller than
>>>allowed by the government's rules if he sufficently resists said
>>>government? (resists by not removing or changing the fence and not
>>>paying any fines, judgments, tickets, penalties, etc and so forth)
>
>
>> That's easy. NO, I don't believe in killing someone for building a
>> fence 6" too high. See how easy that is to answer based on the facts
>> presented?
>
>Then what's your disagreement with me then? If you're not willing to see
>someone who resists "authority" killed, then you should have no
>disagreement with me.
>

Great. But that has nothing to do with the question I asked. I never
suggested anyone be killed.

The question is: Several people buy houses next to each other and
live in them as residences for many years. Everyone is happy. Then
one of them decides to turn their home into a manure processing plant
and as a result the entire neighborhood smells horribly of bullcrap.
If that a form or aggression against the other neighbors or is it not?
You say "aggression" is wrong. Is this "aggression"?
I don't know how the question could be any simpler. It's either
aggression or it isn't, yes or no!!

On 2011-03-07, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:46:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2011-03-05, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:52:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2011-03-03, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:07:40 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 2011-02-22, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-18, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-17, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bull**** Campaign > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Under libertarianism everybody would need a big fat SUV just to be
>>>>>>>>>>> safe. Then oil and other resources would have to be drained just keep
>>>>>>>>>>> up with the demand.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's totally irrational.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Because you are using a definition of libertarianism that is designed to
>>>>>>>>>>keep people in the fear-based status-quo rather than embracing freedom.
>>>>>>>>>>If you wish to improve your understanding, start with this:
>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If 6 people live next to each other on 10,000 sf lots and all is fine,
>>>>>>>>> the air smells sweet, would it be aggression if one of those 6 people
>>>>>>>>> decided to go into the manure manufacturing business and as a result
>>>>>>>>> made the whole neighborhood smell like ****?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There are numerous people who have dealt with these problems over the
>>>>>>>>years. Your question is better answered by their articles than I can do
>>>>>>>>here. But such activity would likely damage the use of the neighbors'
>>>>>>>>property and there ways to address this. research it if you're
>>>>>>>>interested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not interested in what "numerous people" have to say. I want to
>>>>>>> know what you think with a simple yes or no to the question of whether
>>>>>>> the above scenario is "aggression". The fact that you are unwilling
>>>>>>> to answer such a simple question is all the answer that's needed to
>>>>>>> know that you can't defend your beliefs in any sort of non-abstract
>>>>>>> real world situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You want to go way off topic into libertarian theory. I will not rewrite
>>>>>>what you can easily find and read on your own should you actually be
>>>>>>interested in learning about it. I wager you're not since you want to
>>>>>>make this about me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I fail to see how this thread should be a thread on "my beliefs". Should
>>>>>>I make it a thread on your beliefs? And as far as defending beliefs, I
>>>>>>don't see you defending your violence based system. You, like others
>>>>>>simply consider it a given and with no need for defense. Thus, I am
>>>>>>considering my beliefs the same, as a natural given. Perhaps maybe you
>>>>>>should convince me of the superiority of your beliefs before demanding
>>>>>>me to defend mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As to what I feel, there are two basic ways to address it in a property
>>>>>>rights sense. Pay the effected neighbors for their loss or pay for the
>>>>>>equipment/facilities to control the smell. This then leads into dispute
>>>>>>resolution concepts and much more. To properly introduce you to the
>>>>>>concepts, options, and so on would take writing many pages. I see no
>>>>>>need to redo this for you. You can read it on your own if you are
>>>>>>interested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's a good place to start:
>>>>>>http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
>>>>>>"Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution"
>>>>>>By Murray N. Rothbard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a simple question yet you can't answer it. Do you or don't you
>>>>> believe in non-physical aggression? And as a concrete example, is an
>>>>> extremely foul smelling manure factory in your neighbors back yard an
>>>>> aggressive act?
>>>>
>>>>It's been answered. See above
>>
>>> No it hasn't. You explained what would happen IF it was answered and
>>> IF the answer was yes. But you haven't answered whether it's yes or
>>> no.
>>
>>In other words you don't want a real answer like I gave, you want a one
>>word answer you can then run away with.
>>
>>> . I will not give you the simplistic
>>>>sound bite one word answer you want to run away with. It is not a one
>>>>word topic.
>>
>>> It is a simple question, you've been presented with ALL the facts that
>>> exist for this example.
>>
>>You want to run off and build strawmen from a one word answer. Your
>>dislike of me not falling into your trap is irrelevant, your question
>>was answered.
>>
>>> Unless of course if you want to be that way with the
>>>>violence based system you prefer. For instance, do you or don't you
>>>>believe in killing a person who builds a fence 6 inches taller than
>>>>allowed by the government's rules if he sufficently resists said
>>>>government? (resists by not removing or changing the fence and not
>>>>paying any fines, judgments, tickets, penalties, etc and so forth)
>>
>>
>>> That's easy. NO, I don't believe in killing someone for building a
>>> fence 6" too high. See how easy that is to answer based on the facts
>>> presented?
>>
>>Then what's your disagreement with me then? If you're not willing to see
>>someone who resists "authority" killed, then you should have no
>>disagreement with me.
>>
>
> Great. But that has nothing to do with the question I asked. I never
> suggested anyone be killed.

You want the state to be the one creating regulations. The state
enforces every regulation, every law with an implicit death penalty to
anyone who sufficently resists its commands.

> The question is: Several people buy houses next to each other and
> live in them as residences for many years. Everyone is happy. Then
> one of them decides to turn their home into a manure processing plant
> and as a result the entire neighborhood smells horribly of bullcrap.
> If that a form or aggression against the other neighbors or is it not?
> You say "aggression" is wrong. Is this "aggression"?
> I don't know how the question could be any simpler. It's either
> aggression or it isn't, yes or no!!

I answered and you repeated the answer back to me in simple form so
you understood it. I would have the neighbors compensated or
prevenitive measures put in. You'd have the government step in.
Government if sufficently resisted will kill the manure processor.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 00:45:37 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2011-03-07, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:46:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2011-03-05, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:52:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2011-03-03, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:07:40 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 2011-02-22, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-18, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-17, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bull**** Campaign > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Under libertarianism everybody would need a big fat SUV just to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> safe. Then oil and other resources would have to be drained just keep
>>>>>>>>>>>> up with the demand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's totally irrational.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Because you are using a definition of libertarianism that is designed to
>>>>>>>>>>>keep people in the fear-based status-quo rather than embracing freedom.
>>>>>>>>>>>If you wish to improve your understanding, start with this:
>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If 6 people live next to each other on 10,000 sf lots and all is fine,
>>>>>>>>>> the air smells sweet, would it be aggression if one of those 6 people
>>>>>>>>>> decided to go into the manure manufacturing business and as a result
>>>>>>>>>> made the whole neighborhood smell like ****?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There are numerous people who have dealt with these problems over the
>>>>>>>>>years. Your question is better answered by their articles than I can do
>>>>>>>>>here. But such activity would likely damage the use of the neighbors'
>>>>>>>>>property and there ways to address this. research it if you're
>>>>>>>>>interested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not interested in what "numerous people" have to say. I want to
>>>>>>>> know what you think with a simple yes or no to the question of whether
>>>>>>>> the above scenario is "aggression". The fact that you are unwilling
>>>>>>>> to answer such a simple question is all the answer that's needed to
>>>>>>>> know that you can't defend your beliefs in any sort of non-abstract
>>>>>>>> real world situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You want to go way off topic into libertarian theory. I will not rewrite
>>>>>>>what you can easily find and read on your own should you actually be
>>>>>>>interested in learning about it. I wager you're not since you want to
>>>>>>>make this about me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I fail to see how this thread should be a thread on "my beliefs". Should
>>>>>>>I make it a thread on your beliefs? And as far as defending beliefs, I
>>>>>>>don't see you defending your violence based system. You, like others
>>>>>>>simply consider it a given and with no need for defense. Thus, I am
>>>>>>>considering my beliefs the same, as a natural given. Perhaps maybe you
>>>>>>>should convince me of the superiority of your beliefs before demanding
>>>>>>>me to defend mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As to what I feel, there are two basic ways to address it in a property
>>>>>>>rights sense. Pay the effected neighbors for their loss or pay for the
>>>>>>>equipment/facilities to control the smell. This then leads into dispute
>>>>>>>resolution concepts and much more. To properly introduce you to the
>>>>>>>concepts, options, and so on would take writing many pages. I see no
>>>>>>>need to redo this for you. You can read it on your own if you are
>>>>>>>interested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Here's a good place to start:
>>>>>>>http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
>>>>>>>"Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution"
>>>>>>>By Murray N. Rothbard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a simple question yet you can't answer it. Do you or don't you
>>>>>> believe in non-physical aggression? And as a concrete example, is an
>>>>>> extremely foul smelling manure factory in your neighbors back yard an
>>>>>> aggressive act?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's been answered. See above
>>>
>>>> No it hasn't. You explained what would happen IF it was answered and
>>>> IF the answer was yes. But you haven't answered whether it's yes or
>>>> no.
>>>
>>>In other words you don't want a real answer like I gave, you want a one
>>>word answer you can then run away with.
>>>
>>>> . I will not give you the simplistic
>>>>>sound bite one word answer you want to run away with. It is not a one
>>>>>word topic.
>>>
>>>> It is a simple question, you've been presented with ALL the facts that
>>>> exist for this example.
>>>
>>>You want to run off and build strawmen from a one word answer. Your
>>>dislike of me not falling into your trap is irrelevant, your question
>>>was answered.
>>>
>>>> Unless of course if you want to be that way with the
>>>>>violence based system you prefer. For instance, do you or don't you
>>>>>believe in killing a person who builds a fence 6 inches taller than
>>>>>allowed by the government's rules if he sufficently resists said
>>>>>government? (resists by not removing or changing the fence and not
>>>>>paying any fines, judgments, tickets, penalties, etc and so forth)
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's easy. NO, I don't believe in killing someone for building a
>>>> fence 6" too high. See how easy that is to answer based on the facts
>>>> presented?
>>>
>>>Then what's your disagreement with me then? If you're not willing to see
>>>someone who resists "authority" killed, then you should have no
>>>disagreement with me.
>>>
>>
>> Great. But that has nothing to do with the question I asked. I never
>> suggested anyone be killed.
>
>You want the state to be the one creating regulations. The state
>enforces every regulation, every law with an implicit death penalty to
>anyone who sufficently resists its commands.
>
>> The question is: Several people buy houses next to each other and
>> live in them as residences for many years. Everyone is happy. Then
>> one of them decides to turn their home into a manure processing plant
>> and as a result the entire neighborhood smells horribly of bullcrap.
>> If that a form or aggression against the other neighbors or is it not?
>> You say "aggression" is wrong. Is this "aggression"?
>> I don't know how the question could be any simpler. It's either
>> aggression or it isn't, yes or no!!
>
>I answered and you repeated the answer back to me in simple form so
>you understood it. I would have the neighbors compensated or
>prevenitive measures put in. You'd have the government step in.
>Government if sufficently resisted will kill the manure processor.
>

I never said I'd have the gvt step in. You say you'd have the
neighbors compensated. Who would pay for that? Who would pay for
preventative measures? If the guy with the manure plant says "This
isn't aggression, I didn't hit anyone." why is he wrong and you right?

On 2011-03-11, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 00:45:37 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2011-03-07, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:46:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2011-03-05, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:52:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 2011-03-03, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:07:40 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-22, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-18, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-17, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bull**** Campaign > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Under libertarianism everybody would need a big fat SUV just to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> safe. Then oil and other resources would have to be drained just keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up with the demand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's totally irrational.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Because you are using a definition of libertarianism that is designed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>keep people in the fear-based status-quo rather than embracing freedom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>If you wish to improve your understanding, start with this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If 6 people live next to each other on 10,000 sf lots and all is fine,
>>>>>>>>>>> the air smells sweet, would it be aggression if one of those 6 people
>>>>>>>>>>> decided to go into the manure manufacturing business and as a result
>>>>>>>>>>> made the whole neighborhood smell like ****?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>There are numerous people who have dealt with these problems over the
>>>>>>>>>>years. Your question is better answered by their articles than I can do
>>>>>>>>>>here. But such activity would likely damage the use of the neighbors'
>>>>>>>>>>property and there ways to address this. research it if you're
>>>>>>>>>>interested.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not interested in what "numerous people" have to say. I want to
>>>>>>>>> know what you think with a simple yes or no to the question of whether
>>>>>>>>> the above scenario is "aggression". The fact that you are unwilling
>>>>>>>>> to answer such a simple question is all the answer that's needed to
>>>>>>>>> know that you can't defend your beliefs in any sort of non-abstract
>>>>>>>>> real world situation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You want to go way off topic into libertarian theory. I will not rewrite
>>>>>>>>what you can easily find and read on your own should you actually be
>>>>>>>>interested in learning about it. I wager you're not since you want to
>>>>>>>>make this about me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I fail to see how this thread should be a thread on "my beliefs". Should
>>>>>>>>I make it a thread on your beliefs? And as far as defending beliefs, I
>>>>>>>>don't see you defending your violence based system. You, like others
>>>>>>>>simply consider it a given and with no need for defense. Thus, I am
>>>>>>>>considering my beliefs the same, as a natural given. Perhaps maybe you
>>>>>>>>should convince me of the superiority of your beliefs before demanding
>>>>>>>>me to defend mine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As to what I feel, there are two basic ways to address it in a property
>>>>>>>>rights sense. Pay the effected neighbors for their loss or pay for the
>>>>>>>>equipment/facilities to control the smell. This then leads into dispute
>>>>>>>>resolution concepts and much more. To properly introduce you to the
>>>>>>>>concepts, options, and so on would take writing many pages. I see no
>>>>>>>>need to redo this for you. You can read it on your own if you are
>>>>>>>>interested.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Here's a good place to start:
>>>>>>>>http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
>>>>>>>>"Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution"
>>>>>>>>By Murray N. Rothbard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a simple question yet you can't answer it. Do you or don't you
>>>>>>> believe in non-physical aggression? And as a concrete example, is an
>>>>>>> extremely foul smelling manure factory in your neighbors back yard an
>>>>>>> aggressive act?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's been answered. See above
>>>>
>>>>> No it hasn't. You explained what would happen IF it was answered and
>>>>> IF the answer was yes. But you haven't answered whether it's yes or
>>>>> no.
>>>>
>>>>In other words you don't want a real answer like I gave, you want a one
>>>>word answer you can then run away with.
>>>>
>>>>> . I will not give you the simplistic
>>>>>>sound bite one word answer you want to run away with. It is not a one
>>>>>>word topic.
>>>>
>>>>> It is a simple question, you've been presented with ALL the facts that
>>>>> exist for this example.
>>>>
>>>>You want to run off and build strawmen from a one word answer. Your
>>>>dislike of me not falling into your trap is irrelevant, your question
>>>>was answered.
>>>>
>>>>> Unless of course if you want to be that way with the
>>>>>>violence based system you prefer. For instance, do you or don't you
>>>>>>believe in killing a person who builds a fence 6 inches taller than
>>>>>>allowed by the government's rules if he sufficently resists said
>>>>>>government? (resists by not removing or changing the fence and not
>>>>>>paying any fines, judgments, tickets, penalties, etc and so forth)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That's easy. NO, I don't believe in killing someone for building a
>>>>> fence 6" too high. See how easy that is to answer based on the facts
>>>>> presented?
>>>>
>>>>Then what's your disagreement with me then? If you're not willing to see
>>>>someone who resists "authority" killed, then you should have no
>>>>disagreement with me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great. But that has nothing to do with the question I asked. I never
>>> suggested anyone be killed.
>>
>>You want the state to be the one creating regulations. The state
>>enforces every regulation, every law with an implicit death penalty to
>>anyone who sufficently resists its commands.
>>
>>> The question is: Several people buy houses next to each other and
>>> live in them as residences for many years. Everyone is happy. Then
>>> one of them decides to turn their home into a manure processing plant
>>> and as a result the entire neighborhood smells horribly of bullcrap.
>>> If that a form or aggression against the other neighbors or is it not?
>>> You say "aggression" is wrong. Is this "aggression"?
>>> I don't know how the question could be any simpler. It's either
>>> aggression or it isn't, yes or no!!
>>
>>I answered and you repeated the answer back to me in simple form so
>>you understood it. I would have the neighbors compensated or
>>prevenitive measures put in. You'd have the government step in.
>>Government if sufficently resisted will kill the manure processor.
>>
>
> I never said I'd have the gvt step in. You say you'd have the
> neighbors compensated. Who would pay for that? Who would pay for
> preventative measures? If the guy with the manure plant says "This
> isn't aggression, I didn't hit anyone." why is he wrong and you right?

Read Rothbard. It's all there for you if you're really interested.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:19:47 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2011-03-11, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 00:45:37 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2011-03-07, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:46:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2011-03-05, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:52:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 2011-03-03, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:07:40 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-22, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-18, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2011-02-17, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bull**** Campaign > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Under libertarianism everybody would need a big fat SUV just to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safe. Then oil and other resources would have to be drained just keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up with the demand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's totally irrational.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because you are using a definition of libertarianism that is designed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>keep people in the fear-based status-quo rather than embracing freedom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you wish to improve your understanding, start with this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If 6 people live next to each other on 10,000 sf lots and all is fine,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the air smells sweet, would it be aggression if one of those 6 people
>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to go into the manure manufacturing business and as a result
>>>>>>>>>>>> made the whole neighborhood smell like ****?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>There are numerous people who have dealt with these problems over the
>>>>>>>>>>>years. Your question is better answered by their articles than I can do
>>>>>>>>>>>here. But such activity would likely damage the use of the neighbors'
>>>>>>>>>>>property and there ways to address this. research it if you're
>>>>>>>>>>>interested.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not interested in what "numerous people" have to say. I want to
>>>>>>>>>> know what you think with a simple yes or no to the question of whether
>>>>>>>>>> the above scenario is "aggression". The fact that you are unwilling
>>>>>>>>>> to answer such a simple question is all the answer that's needed to
>>>>>>>>>> know that you can't defend your beliefs in any sort of non-abstract
>>>>>>>>>> real world situation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You want to go way off topic into libertarian theory. I will not rewrite
>>>>>>>>>what you can easily find and read on your own should you actually be
>>>>>>>>>interested in learning about it. I wager you're not since you want to
>>>>>>>>>make this about me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I fail to see how this thread should be a thread on "my beliefs". Should
>>>>>>>>>I make it a thread on your beliefs? And as far as defending beliefs, I
>>>>>>>>>don't see you defending your violence based system. You, like others
>>>>>>>>>simply consider it a given and with no need for defense. Thus, I am
>>>>>>>>>considering my beliefs the same, as a natural given. Perhaps maybe you
>>>>>>>>>should convince me of the superiority of your beliefs before demanding
>>>>>>>>>me to defend mine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As to what I feel, there are two basic ways to address it in a property
>>>>>>>>>rights sense. Pay the effected neighbors for their loss or pay for the
>>>>>>>>>equipment/facilities to control the smell. This then leads into dispute
>>>>>>>>>resolution concepts and much more. To properly introduce you to the
>>>>>>>>>concepts, options, and so on would take writing many pages. I see no
>>>>>>>>>need to redo this for you. You can read it on your own if you are
>>>>>>>>>interested.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Here's a good place to start:
>>>>>>>>>http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
>>>>>>>>>"Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution"
>>>>>>>>>By Murray N. Rothbard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a simple question yet you can't answer it. Do you or don't you
>>>>>>>> believe in non-physical aggression? And as a concrete example, is an
>>>>>>>> extremely foul smelling manure factory in your neighbors back yard an
>>>>>>>> aggressive act?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's been answered. See above
>>>>>
>>>>>> No it hasn't. You explained what would happen IF it was answered and
>>>>>> IF the answer was yes. But you haven't answered whether it's yes or
>>>>>> no.
>>>>>
>>>>>In other words you don't want a real answer like I gave, you want a one
>>>>>word answer you can then run away with.
>>>>>
>>>>>> . I will not give you the simplistic
>>>>>>>sound bite one word answer you want to run away with. It is not a one
>>>>>>>word topic.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a simple question, you've been presented with ALL the facts that
>>>>>> exist for this example.
>>>>>
>>>>>You want to run off and build strawmen from a one word answer. Your
>>>>>dislike of me not falling into your trap is irrelevant, your question
>>>>>was answered.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless of course if you want to be that way with the
>>>>>>>violence based system you prefer. For instance, do you or don't you
>>>>>>>believe in killing a person who builds a fence 6 inches taller than
>>>>>>>allowed by the government's rules if he sufficently resists said
>>>>>>>government? (resists by not removing or changing the fence and not
>>>>>>>paying any fines, judgments, tickets, penalties, etc and so forth)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's easy. NO, I don't believe in killing someone for building a
>>>>>> fence 6" too high. See how easy that is to answer based on the facts
>>>>>> presented?
>>>>>
>>>>>Then what's your disagreement with me then? If you're not willing to see
>>>>>someone who resists "authority" killed, then you should have no
>>>>>disagreement with me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Great. But that has nothing to do with the question I asked. I never
>>>> suggested anyone be killed.
>>>
>>>You want the state to be the one creating regulations. The state
>>>enforces every regulation, every law with an implicit death penalty to
>>>anyone who sufficently resists its commands.
>>>
>>>> The question is: Several people buy houses next to each other and
>>>> live in them as residences for many years. Everyone is happy. Then
>>>> one of them decides to turn their home into a manure processing plant
>>>> and as a result the entire neighborhood smells horribly of bullcrap.
>>>> If that a form or aggression against the other neighbors or is it not?
>>>> You say "aggression" is wrong. Is this "aggression"?
>>>> I don't know how the question could be any simpler. It's either
>>>> aggression or it isn't, yes or no!!
>>>
>>>I answered and you repeated the answer back to me in simple form so
>>>you understood it. I would have the neighbors compensated or
>>>prevenitive measures put in. You'd have the government step in.
>>>Government if sufficently resisted will kill the manure processor.
>>>
>>
>> I never said I'd have the gvt step in. You say you'd have the
>> neighbors compensated. Who would pay for that? Who would pay for
>> preventative measures? If the guy with the manure plant says "This
>> isn't aggression, I didn't hit anyone." why is he wrong and you right?
>
>Read Rothbard. It's all there for you if you're really interested.
>

And what would make Rothbard the person with the "right" answer as
opposed to the manure owner who says "it's my property and I can do
what I want. I didn't hit anyone so there's no aggression." Who gets
to be the arbitrator if you don't want "government" involved and one
(or both of the sides) can't or won't agree to talk about it and
settle it to a mutually satisfying conclusion?

In article >,
Gary L. Burnore > wrote:
>
>It's obviously not worth it. As he drives on a public road from his
>employer who's likely getting a tax break, he'll make use of the
>bridges and lights provided by the government.

So if a person who uses any government services (even when the
government is a monopoly provider) is ineligible to be a
libertarian by reason of hypocrisy, is a person who uses any private
services (even when the government does not provide the service)
ineligible to be a socialist for the same reason?
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.