@wajoma saidYour nonstandard definition of “initiation” is where your argument breaks down.
Force and threats of force are legitimate, and some would say obligatory, in response to the initiation of force and threats of force.
It is the initiation of force and threats of force which is the prime evil.
@athousandyoung saidinitiation
Your nonstandard definition of “initiation” is where your argument breaks down.
/ɪˌnɪʃɪˈeɪʃn/
noun
1.
the action of admitting someone into a secret or obscure society or group, typically with a ritual.
"rituals of initiation"
Similar:
beginning
starting
commencement
institution
inauguration
launch
opening
instigation
actuation
origination
devising
inception
establishment
setting up
kick-off
induction
introduction
admission
admittance
installation
incorporation
ordination
investiture
investment
enlistment
enrolment
recruitment
baptism
2.
the action of beginning something.
"the initiation of criminal proceedings"
Similar:
introduce
admit
let
induct
install
instate
incorporate
ordain
invest
enlist
enrol
recruit
sign up
swear in
convert
Want a definition of 'definition' too?
@athousandyoung saidForget definitions let's try some grammar first, because your post doesn't make sense.
You use examples in which force is not begun as initiation of force so you do not follow the definition you just supplied.
Give an example of my supposed 'example'.
@wajoma saidI’ve seen you claim nonviolent breach of contract e.g. refusing to pay rent is “initiation of force” when it is blatantly obvious that force is not initiated until the government agents lay hands on the tenant.
Forget definitions let's try some grammar first, because your post doesn't make sense.
Give an example of my supposed 'example'.
@kevcvs57 saidkev bamboozle, you're not to good at this are you.
Well you’re just outright lying vajoma, hint if your argument relies on misrepresenting reality you do not have an argument.
If you want to lower or abolish local business rates get yourself into local politics and campaign for it. I forgot you don’t do democracy do you!
If corporations paid a realistic proportion of their profits we could probably do away with small busin ...[text shortened]... eir communities alive.
Poverty is the biggest and most egregious use of force by the powers that be
The accusation: 'Wajoma, you're a liar.'
The quote: Here a copy paste is better than mis-representation.
The proof: The truth, thus proving the lie.
I concede a, let's call it, exaggeration. Claiming the intention is to drive the businesses into the ground. It does happen, it may not be the intention in all cases.
Contracts implicitly include threats of force but Libertarians don’t have a problem with them. If a person does not obey the terms of the contract the other party will force compliance with the contract using the threat of the government initiating physical force on the other party if they do not comply. This is one example of how Libertarian logic fails catastrophically.
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidThe trespassers are the initiators of force the hands on is the response. Without the first, i.e. the initiation, the response would not occur.
I’ve seen you claim nonviolent breach of contract e.g. refusing to pay rent is “initiation of force” when it is blatantly obvious that force is not initiated until the government agents lay hands on the tenant.
This amounts to the ludicrous argument, a tenant moves in, pays a weeks rent and now has a lifetime claim on the property and never pays rent again.
@athousandyoung saidI'm a Libertarian and I think your points are quite valid.
Contracts implicitly include threats of force but Libertarians don’t have a problem with them. If a person does not obey the terms of the contract the other party will force compliance with the contract using the threat of the government initiating physical force on the other party if they do not comply. This is one example of how Libertarian logic fails catastrophically.
nothing's perfect
2 edits
@earl-of-trumps saidATY is trolling, it's been explained many times, the trespassers are the initiators of force. The contract doesn't say: If you don't feel like paying rent, just stay as long as you like. It says something like: If you don't pay rent you have no right to remain on the property. At that point if the ex-tenants don't leave they are, trespassing, they are the initiators of force.
I'm a Libertarian and I think your points are quite valid.
nothing's perfect
Where ATYs' argument catastrophically explodes in a nuclear blast of nonsense and radiation fallout is, he tries to turn those responding to the initiation of force into the initiators.
@wajoma saidNo, trespassers are not initiating force. If the landlord ignores them he is not forced to do anything.
The trespassers are the initiators of force the hands on is the response. Without the first, the initiation, the response would not occur.
This amounts to the ludicrous argument, a tenant moves in, pays a weeks rent and now has a lifetime claim on the property and never pays rent again.
The seemingly absurd conclusion arises only because you are trying to explain it with the flawed “non initiation of force” principle.
In reality it is understood that private property ownership backed by government initiation of force is a useful aspect of an economic and housing system if and only if the population can reasonably earn the rent. When the masses are impoverished and housing prices increase beyond their means the private property system must be altered or abolished.
Sometimes it’s ok to initiate force. You don’t need mental gymnastics defining non-violence as force to make sense of things. It’s ok for a starving person to initiate force to steal food for example.
@wajoma saidIt’s been asserted many times that trespassers are initiating force but it has never been explained because it’s nonsense.
ATY is trolling, it's been explained many times, the trespassers are the initiators of force. The contract doesn't say: If you don't feel like paying rent, just stay as long as you like. It says something like: If you don't pay rent you have no right to remain on the property. At that point if the ex-tenants don't leave they are, trespassing, they are the initiators of for ...[text shortened]... iation fallout is, he tries to turn those responding to the initiation of force into the initiators.
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidI used your words against you to prove the point in the very post you're replying to, you acknowledge 'hands on' is an initiation of force, well it's the same when people put hands on your property without your consent, it is an initiation of force.
It’s been asserted many times that trespassers are initiating force but it has never been explained because it’s nonsense.
Ooopsy goes ATY
ATY says:
"You all remember when Wajoma justified stealing land from aboriginal/indigenous land owners because they were savages who didn’t have a right to their property?"
No one remembers that ATY because I have never said it, misrepresentation, or more precisely, catastrophic, desperate, gross, misrepresentation hahaha
Another ATY oopsy.
1 edit
@AThousandYoung said -
No, trespassers are not initiating force. If the landlord ignores them he is not forced to do anything.
---------------------------------
So what happens if your neighbor smashes the windshield of your car in?
Your neighbor did not exert any force onto you, right?
It's obvious humans have to have property rights. And yes, trespassing is a form of initiating violence