Well if dinosaurs were still dominating the planet instead of humans and I was a dinosaur that might be my opinion.

And I'm sure liberals don't advocate micomanaging people's lives, as commonly understood but you believe that's a probable outcome as child slavery yada yada yada can be a probable outcome of the PVN brand of political philosophy, even if you don't explicitly call for it. You should read what I wrote. I never said you advocated against people's will. In fact I explicitly said that's probably what you were implying but it's not what you actually wrote.

To be honest, I totally misunderstood what you meant in that post now that you put it that way. Sorry for the misinterpretation and the derail.

What sort of moral theory? Again you seem to be searching for some moral universalism (or absolutism) solution to property usage, and I don't think one exists. If you just mean some sort of shared notion of right and wrong, you don't need any formalized moral theory. You can ad hoc as you go, and that seems to be pretty much what we do. In fact, as a species we really suck at proactively creating social frameworks of any sort.

There are all sorts of philosophies that dispense with the need for universal morals, from relativism to nihilism to absurdism. They all lack the sense of satisfaction you can get from having an idealized (and hypocritical) belief system, but they much more accurately describe how humanity actually behaves. IMO.

Uh, not every aspect but yeah, they do. They want the tax monies so they can fund their pet projects, they want to make sure you're not letting people smoke at your bar or that you don't have a gun or that you are fix sandwiches for people or whatever.

well yeah it's a probable outcome. nothing is perfect. People will also get murdered, robbed, raped.

You didn't say it, I wasn't trying to say you did. But it was clearly what fly was going for (though he left himself the usual "but I didn't ACTUALLY SAY THAT" weasel room).

I agree. If you've got an ulterior motive, you can just make up a crude rationalisation on the fly and then claim you're just being "pragmatic" if someone tries to check your work.

In any case it really shouldn't be difficult to explain why you think restaurants should be forced to serve black people, but I shouldn't be forced to open a restaurant in the first place to allow anyone (including blacks) to be served in the first place, or given I have it, I shouldn't be forced to expand it to allow more room for customers (which will include blacks), or I shouldn't be forced to let black people into my party.

Because, as things currently stand in this society, not having a law to enforce the first will very likely result in massive civil strife.

I love how Fly just hops into a thread that's about property usage and quotes George Wallace.

Nice.

Be thankful it's not a standard racism derail.

Oh wait, he did...

So you just being hyperbolic when you meant micromanage society to victory. Ok that's fine, if you weren't you can also meet PVN, the apologist. Quote


Sure, but he is right or at least close. For instance, taking the only chemist in town example. Forcing the chemist to teach his trade instead of retiring seems to be an unjustified encroachment on people to choose when to work or not to work. In other words, it sounds like the chemist is being made to be a slave ( ignoring the practicality of the ability to force people to teach for a moment). So this seems to be a powerful argument. But it's question begging. It only works if the assumption of the autonomy of the worker is assumed to be superior to the welfare of others in the town. In that case, of course it's bad.

But let's take an extreme example and say the chemist supplies a live saving drug for the whole town. Now is it better to let the whole town die or to let the chemist retire? ( In this I am aware that there are other processes such as persuasion etc that may convince the chemist to teach his trade peacefully). How about half the town? 10? 2? 1? Now if you change your assumption from property rights absolutist to valuing the lives of the townsfolk, then there are times where the chemist may be forced to teach his trade and it be justified.

We need to ask is the clerk's right to retire is justified before we can say that forcing him to teach his trade instead of retiring is a good thing or bad thing.

Again, you(as in pvn personally) also want to pick and choose what policies to impose on everyone else.

Hahah yeah the Civil Rights Act was A PLOY!!!! NOTHING BUT A PLOY!!!

You caught us. We would've gotten away with if not for you meddling kids.

Again, no I don't.