TexasCHLforum.com

Frost wrote:It is not necessary to watch the linked videos before responding to a point; if you express curiosity on a point I will be happy to discuss it. However, if you wish to start with refutation or an argumentative tone please watch the linked video first so that you can be sure to be arguing against the idea that i am actually presenting rather then a straw man born of misunderstanding.

1. The non-aggression principle. The initiation of the use of force is wrong.
2. The universality of moral rules. Morality is the same for people referred to as citizens and the people referred to with various government titles.
3. The violent nature of governments. If a government stopped initiating the use of force it could no longer be properly called a government.
4. Life liberty and property can be protected without a monopoly of violent power. Indeed such monopolies always violate that which they were ostensibly created to protect.

I have to confess that I am also a little tweaked about what you are inviting the rest of us to partake in...

You tell us to go watch a combined total of 62:05 minutes of indoctrination video as a requirement to some kind of social contract you're tying to establish here before you'll even consider a refutation? You have the order in the inverse pal. Here's how it is supposed to work.... FIRST, you make an argument, right here on this page, with your bullet points in support included if necessary, and then we get a chance to respond. You don't send us off to do research before you'll entertain responses. It's not kosher.

Here is an analogy of what you've done here: Let's say hypothetically that I am an atheist (I'm not) and you are a Christian (I have no idea of whether you are). So you come here and post some principles on which Christianity is founded and invite us to discuss it; but you tell us that, before we can post any refutations, we must first go read the Bible cover to cover. It would be profoundly disrespectful of my time, and tremendously selfish on your part.

This begs the question, "why should I even bother?" My time is valuable. Those videos are not condensed information. They take a little over an hour to watch. I would be inclined to participate if you had written a synopsis of their contents and then had linked them so that we could watch them if motivated to know more. But you are inviting me to watch videos before synopsizing them. Why should I waste my time?

Never the less, I did you the courtesy of watching half of the first and fourth videos. Here is another word for "DRO." It's called "government."

I'm done with this discussion. It's pointless.

jester wrote:Without "the state" (or something that is "the state" in all but name) how do you enforce those rules or principles?

Here's how I see it:
People have rights.
People created "the state" to secure these rights.
"The state" derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
If and when "the state" becomes destructive of these ends, it's our right and duty to alter or to abolish it.

Yep. It's the only way you can deal with the reality of human nature. I have a CHL precisely because there will always be people who either do not understand the non-aggression principle, or who understand it perfectly well and cynically exploit it to gain a violent advantage over others.

Here's my refutation: absolutely none of this takes into account actual human nature. Utopian ideals never do.