Message from @realDonaldTrump
Discord ID: 410431576019697684
People consent to the legal structure at the start
no you don't
try to live outside of society
and see if it doesn't constitute an offence
try to - say - take possession of property. what if the collective don't consent? you have no property
otherwise what you do in taking property is an offence against an individual, or society
you have no rights unless the collective *allow* you to have those rights
the social contract is imposed upon you
Uh yeah obviously the collective oppressed people. That's why I'm against all forms of collectivism, including socialism and socialized healthcare
what I'm saying is that not living in a collective is not an option
you can be as opposed as you like, your rights are contingent upon the consent of the collective
in whatever type of society
Not in a libertarian society where everyone consents to the law (for children implied consent until they can make their own choices) if you don't consent you can leave
ok, so let's say you have a libertarian society where it's determined everyone gets their own slice of land except you, and everyone agrees to the way it's divided up (except you, obviously)
where do you go?
you have nowhere to go *to*
you can try and take some land for yourself
but then that's an offence agains the collective, or an idividual
how do you justify an offence against an individual?
The libertarian society would support private property
Through hard hard you could purchase land
so you're suggesting the collective would organise society in such a way that the individual comes first...
...then there is no collective
or there is no individual
it's a paradox
the collective is still determining the right sof the individual in this situation
it's not a contract you can bow out of
A collective is a philosophical concept. What matters is not giving such a concept legal power to oppress individuals in such a matter that can't be justified by consent from the start
that feels like you'tre changing the goalposts somewhat. my point was that you have no choice but to live in a collective
you can have degrees of individualism/collectivism
giving birth is immmoral and ultimately colllectivist. A baby can't consent to being born, yet he is forced into the world. Reproduction is many times worse than the holocaust but no one bats an eye when hundreds of millions of babies a violently birthed into the world every year.
An unborn child can neither consent nor refuse to consent so his consent is withheld. If he eventually revokes consent, he should kill himself
is really straying from the topic and is complete crap
saying such a thing is just stupid and you are not taking there discussion seriously
The point is that the individual has certain rights on their property that ensures their saftey from people who wish harm (burgulars and such). However, the collective have a right to be safe as well so they impose some laws that may infringe on peoples indivdualality. THIS is why rape is bad and why growing weed is okay.; weed does little harm and so can be grown on ones property because the collective say so.
I personally believe that john was meaningfully contributing to the discussion by invoking the collectivist implications of reproduction.
NO rape is bad because it violates CONSENT of the INDIVIDUAL.