I'm NOT forcing you to submit to my demands; I'm merely preventing YOU from forcing myself and others to submit by refusing to acquiesce to the existing structure.

That "Nobody" or "None of the Above" is absent from ballots should be telling.

You're not preventing us but if you had society your way then the only way you could prevent us joining together under some form of democratic government is by force. It's a problem you have to address if you're claiming some moral superiority.

It might be telling of something if we believed for a moment that 'nobody' would do well. I'd still like to see it but it's a very small issue.

The only time force would become necessary is if you began incorporating people against their will, in which case YOU become the aggressor.

Lysander Spooner said it best:

If taxation without consent is robbery, the United States government has never had, has not now, and is never likely to have, a single honest dollar in its treasury. If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.

~40% of eligible voters abstained during the 2012 presidential elections. The option of explicitly voting for no one would probably gain more traction than you believe.

If someone breaks a contract then its okay to do something about it

The overwhelming majority want the government to manage national resources, defense, the environment, welfare etc.

How do you propose we do that and leave a few out of it? I've no wish to force it on anyone if you can explain how to separate the two.

Abstaining in not remotely the same as casting a vote for 'nobody'. Many are just apathetic, others may be disenfranchised in some way.

Mob rule is better than overt rule by the elite that control the majority of the resources.

What if there is no such contract?

And let's be clear here... you believe that a "contract" that specifies violent governmental interference is a good thing. As in a typical landlord contract that specifies big government will violently evict any tenant who doesn't kick down the rent.

So, bottom line is you are 100% in favor of violent governments, and the so-called "services" they uniquely provide. How does it feel to be a "statist" ??

Of course unlike many systems, such as UK law, there is no philosophy in lolbertarian thinking that places limits on this "something".

Stealing an apple from my orchard? You better believe the assault rifles are coming out.

I would only start to get uncomfortable when those people become class conscious enough to start massing at the gates of my gated community, as opposed to burning down their own neighborhoods. I don't think I'll ever have to be uncomfortable.

If government actually lived up to its own contract that would be one thing, and if citizens actually agreed to the contract that would be one thing. But government is not consent by its own definition. Its admitted by state intellectuals that voting in practice makes no difference on policy. Its an organization that does a lot of things people never consent to. Mob rule is a closer admission to what it is.
And please stop using "service" so loosely. Something like social security is not a service because the department's own website admits its a ponzi scheme that will be busto in 16 years. Its worse than a ponzi scheme because at least with a private scheme you can choose not to participate.

Uhh, I'm not sure where you are going here. When a landlord foists a contract on their tenants that mandates the tenants live under constant threat of violent governmental interference... I've never heard of a government that doesn't routinely follow through with that violence, when the extortion-like monthly payments are short.

Are you saying this isn't in fact the case, that today's governments aren't violent enough for your liking ??

LMFAO... what would you like me to call evictions, if not a highly subsidized "service" available only to landlords?

Getting hard to tell who who is more immature between conservatives and AC'ists. When did a large percentage of the adult population start thinking like 8 year olds?

Police and military is a more accurate example of racket than a free market landlord (in fact real estate investing is no different than any other private business venture). Idk why you dont target those as a better example for a gotcha argument. Under statism everyone becomes corrupted by the idea that the government services they like are not monopolistic and unfair at times to other people. They also are lead to believe they are free, like roads and education.

Well, as long as we agree that landlording is a racket.

But let's talk about this 'free market' landlord thingee. Is there really such a thing IRL? Because every landlord I've heard of require their tenants to voluntarily contract and consent to this kinda violent governmental interference. And as we all know, governmental interference != 'free market'... flat out.

Why do landlords hate the 'free market', and love governments, so damn much ??

Okay, sure landlords and tenant agree that force is valid to enforce contracts that are breached to a point.

...Increasing the odds that they will return to voice their disenfranchisement. Never mind voters who select the "lesser of two evils," who may finally have a viable alternative. (Third parties are the current "protest vote," but even if they win implicit consent is still assumed.)

You can start by admitting that every law put into place ultimately relies on force, and other people carry out those "laws" -- presumably on YOUR behalf! -- using violence. If you want to minimize coercion, withdraw your consent. (If there is no victim, then there is no crime.)

Reform starts via education. As long as taxation and implicit consent to unknown legislation exist, this separation becomes ridiculously -- and, dreadfully -- difficult. Changing public opinion starts small, with individuals like yourself and I having conversations, gradually swaying. Just remember, what one generation tolerates will become the norm for the next.

Governments subsidize the removal of uncooperative tenants, whereas the landlords must pick up the costs themselves in a free market.

Loooooool at Proph thinking he's swaying someone with his work on here.

Yes, landlords ubiquitously require that tenants agree to be subject to the threat of governmental violence. In other words, landlords reject the 'free market', and are virulently 'statists'.

Why do you think landlords are so anti-'free market'?

Crowding out

So, landlords were pretty much all 'crowded out' of the 'free market', and had no other options but to force their tenants to contractually submit to the constant threat of violent governmental interference?

Who 'crowded' them all out of the 'free market' ??

Nobody wants another AC Proph derp fest.

Nobody wants to talk about the actual problem.

Now, now. Sure, I enjoy a good LOL@proph like anyone else... but this one time, like a blind acorn finding a squirrel, he's actually come up with a true nugget-o-truth...

Without governments massively subsidizing landlords, landlordism wouldn't be any more profitable than being a handyman. That's the reason why landlords IRL are so universally against the 'free market', and such rabid 'statists'. Landlordism, the racket, is just simply the largest example of what Libertarian-types call 'Crony Capitalism'.

I'm talking about the real problem proph, and you're right... and it's way bigger than taxes. Landlords, with the help of their government's violent interference, and through their despicable use of 'Crony Capitalism', typically take 40-60% of a worker's wages !!!1!

The biggest thing we can do to support the 'free market', stop violent governmental interference, and fight 'Crony-Capitalism'... would be to outlaw evictions. Are you with me proph ??

What does that look like?