I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property. They have no right to trespass on the schoolyard after dark. I don't want to deal with them myself, if they turn out to be violent teenagers I don't want the liability of defending myself from them, it is not even my property, so I put that liability on my public servants, what's the alternative?
If you don't pay your taxes you will get a letter from the IRS, you have to be a real asshole about not paying your fair share before anyone with guns shows up to make you. Probably they will just garnish your wages. No guns needed, they can just take it out of your check.
what makes you think you have a right to give the people from the IRS the right to steal the money from my bank account, and if I somehow can prevent that from happening or if I defend myself against your stealing of my wages.
What do you personally advocate should be done to me personally if I don't pay the extortionist (to pay for your extortion service) of the political ruling class. Please be literal and specific.
Because if you are not paying your fair share then you are stealing from those people who are, you are breathing the air right? Do you think clean air is free or happens without government intervention? Have you been to a country without air pollution regulations?
If you don't pay you should have your wages garnished. If you don't like it here you are free to go whenever you want and also free to try to change it.
Because if you are not paying your fair share then you are stealing from those people who are,
People paying extortionist, or slaves obeying a slave master, does not justify an extortion racket, or slavery. It does not follow.
The quality of the air, does not justify extortion or slavery. It does not follow.
If you don't like it here you are free to go whenever you want and also free to try to change it.
Me not going does not justify extorting me.
Having the "freedom" to change an extortion racket or slave system does not justify the system.
If you don't pay you should have your wages garnished.
That is your opinion. And maybe the opinion of millions of others that does not make it right.
I don't have wages so they can't be garnished. What if I worked black and keep my money at home.
What do you personally advocate should be done to me personally if I don't pay the extortionist (to pay for your extortion service) of the political ruling class. Please be literal and specific.
If you go to the bank and slide her a note she'd have to be a real arsehole to not just hand the money over. You probably won't even need to shoot anyone.
You seem to be operating under a very narrow definition of aggression; where threats don't count.
If I tell a woman that she needs to sleep with me or I'll lock her in a cage; and she reluctantly sleeps with me, do you consider that rape?
I didn't actually attack her; I didn't have to punch her or throw her to the ground.
From my perspective the whole thing was quite civilised.
If they obey your threats without needing to be attacked, does that still register as coercion?
You pick the schoolyard for the reason that you think you own it also and you have a say, which you don't because no one owns it unless it's private property.
But let's change it in your neighbours yard.
Do you have a right to let some teenagers to be violently removed from the yard of your neighbour because they make noise, and you make assumptions that you have that right because the MIGHT turn out violent?
I pick the school yard because that is a real life scenario. Not a hypothetical.
"no one owns" it is not true, it is the property of the city.
Do you have a right to let some teenagers to be violently removed from the yard of your neighbour because they make noise, and you make assumptions that you have that right because the MIGHT turn out violent?
Looks like you made the same assumption, if they are not violent why would they need to be violently removed? If they leave when the police ask them then there will be no violence. If they don't then the police are responsible for the liability of the violence, not me personally. I don't really want to deal with a lawsuit fro some dead kids family because that kid was a violent asshole.
So you harras them for making noise?
Nope, they are violating my rights and harassing me, in addition to trespassing, I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property, they have no right to trespass or be loud.
"the city" can't own anything "the city" is not a person.
They are violently removed. If I would personaly would go to the kids and ask them to move and if they didn't do than I would be Liability for the violence I use. I'm the one using violence. You can't shift liability or responsibility for the harressment and violence by letting someone else do it.
What is that; I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property. This is very vague, noise can come from everywhere and everything. They have no right to trespass (on your property), that's right then you can remove them or have them removed Because you own the place you get to say what happens there.
But can you give someone else a right that you don't have, to do something that you yourself have no right to do?
In the same way that a corporation can own property a municipality can own property.
They are violently removed. If I would personaly would go to the kids and ask them to move and if they didn't do than I would be Liability for the violence I use. I'm the one using violence. You can't shift liability or responsibility for the harressment and violence by letting someone else do it.
I didn't see any violence, of course that is an implied threat any time you are violating the rights of another and you refuse to stop right?
yes I can, that's what is great about having civil servants, I don't have to be liable for any harm that results. If the cops shoot them then that is their problem, they will be sued not me. Why would you want to bear that liability personally? Not to mention if the kids shoot you in the face, then you are really screwed right? Better for me for the cops to deal with it in both cases.
What is that; I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property. This is very vague, noise can come from everywhere and everything.
Nope, it is a very basic tenet of all property law that people have a right to quiet enjoyment of their property, the rules about this are very clearly defined. This only applies to people or their activities making noise, not to birds and thunder, people have to respect the rights of others right?
"They have no right to trespass (on your property), that's right then you can remove them or have them removed Because you own the place you get to say what happens there."
Once again this is not my property but a playground across the street that is posted as "no trespassing at night police take notice"
"But can you give someone else a right that you don't have, to do something that you yourself have no right to do?"
I have a right to go over and deal with it myself but that creates a lot of liability for me so I send my civil servants to go deal with it and take all of that liability on themselves. That's what I pay them for. Sort of like the garbage man, I pay to have my trash taken away so I don't have to deal with it anymore. Without any police lets say I go over there and the kids get violent and then I have to dispatch them, don't I then have to kill anyone who comes to avenge their deaths? where does it end?
What's wrong with noisy teenagers? 😉
I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property. They have no right to trespass on the schoolyard after dark. I don't want to deal with them myself, if they turn out to be violent teenagers I don't want the liability of defending myself from them, it is not even my property, so I put that liability on my public servants, what's the alternative?
How do you get the idea that you have a right to send "your public servants" to my house with guns to force me to pay for "your public " ""servants"".
If you don't pay your taxes you will get a letter from the IRS, you have to be a real asshole about not paying your fair share before anyone with guns shows up to make you. Probably they will just garnish your wages. No guns needed, they can just take it out of your check.
what makes you think you have a right to give the people from the IRS the right to steal the money from my bank account, and if I somehow can prevent that from happening or if I defend myself against your stealing of my wages.
What do you personally advocate should be done to me personally if I don't pay the extortionist (to pay for your extortion service) of the political ruling class. Please be literal and specific.
Because if you are not paying your fair share then you are stealing from those people who are, you are breathing the air right? Do you think clean air is free or happens without government intervention? Have you been to a country without air pollution regulations?
If you don't pay you should have your wages garnished. If you don't like it here you are free to go whenever you want and also free to try to change it.
People paying extortionist, or slaves obeying a slave master, does not justify an extortion racket, or slavery. It does not follow.
The quality of the air, does not justify extortion or slavery. It does not follow.
Me not going does not justify extorting me.
Having the "freedom" to change an extortion racket or slave system does not justify the system.
That is your opinion. And maybe the opinion of millions of others that does not make it right.
I don't have wages so they can't be garnished. What if I worked black and keep my money at home.
What do you personally advocate should be done to me personally if I don't pay the extortionist (to pay for your extortion service) of the political ruling class. Please be literal and specific.
If you go to the bank and slide her a note she'd have to be a real arsehole to not just hand the money over. You probably won't even need to shoot anyone.
I suppose IRS agents do have guns, how many people have they shot? Don't IRS agents have the same right to defend themselves that anyone has?
You seem to be operating under a very narrow definition of aggression; where threats don't count.
If I tell a woman that she needs to sleep with me or I'll lock her in a cage; and she reluctantly sleeps with me, do you consider that rape?
I didn't actually attack her; I didn't have to punch her or throw her to the ground.
From my perspective the whole thing was quite civilised.
If they obey your threats without needing to be attacked, does that still register as coercion?
this would be more along the lines of if a woman wants to be locked in your cage shouldn't she have to pay rent?
You pick the schoolyard for the reason that you think you own it also and you have a say, which you don't because no one owns it unless it's private property.
But let's change it in your neighbours yard.
Do you have a right to let some teenagers to be violently removed from the yard of your neighbour because they make noise, and you make assumptions that you have that right because the MIGHT turn out violent?
So you harras them for making noise?
I pick the school yard because that is a real life scenario. Not a hypothetical.
"no one owns" it is not true, it is the property of the city.
Looks like you made the same assumption, if they are not violent why would they need to be violently removed? If they leave when the police ask them then there will be no violence. If they don't then the police are responsible for the liability of the violence, not me personally. I don't really want to deal with a lawsuit fro some dead kids family because that kid was a violent asshole.
So you harras them for making noise?
Nope, they are violating my rights and harassing me, in addition to trespassing, I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property, they have no right to trespass or be loud.
"the city" can't own anything "the city" is not a person.
They are violently removed. If I would personaly would go to the kids and ask them to move and if they didn't do than I would be Liability for the violence I use. I'm the one using violence. You can't shift liability or responsibility for the harressment and violence by letting someone else do it.
What is that; I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property. This is very vague, noise can come from everywhere and everything. They have no right to trespass (on your property), that's right then you can remove them or have them removed Because you own the place you get to say what happens there.
But can you give someone else a right that you don't have, to do something that you yourself have no right to do?
In the same way that a corporation can own property a municipality can own property.
I didn't see any violence, of course that is an implied threat any time you are violating the rights of another and you refuse to stop right?
yes I can, that's what is great about having civil servants, I don't have to be liable for any harm that results. If the cops shoot them then that is their problem, they will be sued not me. Why would you want to bear that liability personally? Not to mention if the kids shoot you in the face, then you are really screwed right? Better for me for the cops to deal with it in both cases.
Nope, it is a very basic tenet of all property law that people have a right to quiet enjoyment of their property, the rules about this are very clearly defined. This only applies to people or their activities making noise, not to birds and thunder, people have to respect the rights of others right?
Once again this is not my property but a playground across the street that is posted as "no trespassing at night police take notice"
I have a right to go over and deal with it myself but that creates a lot of liability for me so I send my civil servants to go deal with it and take all of that liability on themselves. That's what I pay them for. Sort of like the garbage man, I pay to have my trash taken away so I don't have to deal with it anymore. Without any police lets say I go over there and the kids get violent and then I have to dispatch them, don't I then have to kill anyone who comes to avenge their deaths? where does it end?