• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

One variation on a common theme

Started by Vitruvian, April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

Vitruvian

We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"

I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"

Let that sink in.

BillKauffman

Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"

I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"

Let that sink in.

Interesting subject line with the use of the word "common".

And I ask - who will protect the common right of ways that are the basis of individual equal rights and freedom of movement?

Coconut

Quote from: BillKauffman on April 07, 2009, 11:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"

I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"

Let that sink in.

Interesting subject line with the use of the word "common".

And I ask - who will protect the common right of ways that are the basis of individual equal rights and freedom of movement?

An armed society is a polite society.

And no, I'm not saying we will have to defend our freedom with guns. Recent facts have come out that show that the "wild west" was a much safer community than the US cities we have now.

John Edward Mercier

I don't think bill is asking about the actual physical assault upon a traveller, rather the actual protection of the right.

Coconut

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 07, 2009, 12:57 PM NHFT
I don't think bill is asking about the actual physical assault upon a traveller, rather the actual protection of the right.

um. I guess I don't understand then. If the traveler is not assaulted, then the right has been protected.

timf343

Quote from: Coconut on April 07, 2009, 11:49 AM NHFT

An armed society is a polite society.

And no, I'm not saying we will have to defend our freedom with guns. Recent facts have come out that show that the "wild west" was a much safer community than the US cities we have now.

Being from Las Vegas, most people there miss the "mob".  Whatever you want to call it, the organized crime element kept the city very safe.  In those days, "the wild wild west", you could walk down the street with thousands of dollars at 3am and nothing would happen to you.  Because the criminals feared how the mob would respond.  In those days, the only thing the mob cared about was their gambling dollar.

Then Wall Street moved in, kicked out the mob, and turned Las Vegas into a "reputable" town.  The days of free hotel rooms and free food quickly disappeared, and so did the fear of the criminals and gangs.  Now, crime is out of control and Las Vegas tops the nationwide list for car thefts.

Some may say, well the mob was a bunch of crooks.  But look at their crime: they skimmed the books (tax evasion).  And yes, occasionally murder...if you can call it that...they killed other bad guys.  Regular citizens were completely safe.  Murder?  Nah, it was crime prevention.  And tax evasion?  Call it what you will...but what's worse, not paying a couple bucks on your taxes, or blowing trillions of taxpayer dollars?

And you're right, you don't necessarily need guns to defend freedom (they help), you just need people to follow the rules.  The mob did that by example.  Our government does not.  Why should we expect anything more from any member of society when the very people we elect to represent our interests and protect us ignore our voices and break the rules themselves.

End rant.

KBCraig

Quote from: timf343 on April 07, 2009, 07:45 PM NHFT
Some may say, well the mob was a bunch of crooks.  But look at their crime: they skimmed the books (tax evasion).  And yes, occasionally murder...if you can call it that...they killed other bad guys.  Regular citizens were completely safe.  Murder?  Nah, it was crime prevention. 

One of the unavoidable death penalties in the mob's internal justice system, was killing an innocent person.

Russell Kanning

excellent point

also

but who will bring us food?

TackleTheWorld

Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"

I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"

Let that sink in.

Excellent analogy to pro-slavery argument!  I will give you credit when I quote you.

dalebert

Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"

I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"

Excellent. But of course I must take the opportunity to toot my own horn (though I'm not actually that flexible) and combine them into "Who will build the slave roads?"

But then that doesn't work as a snappy retort like yours does.  ;D

John Edward Mercier

Quote from: Coconut on April 07, 2009, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 07, 2009, 12:57 PM NHFT
I don't think bill is asking about the actual physical assault upon a traveller, rather the actual protection of the right.

um. I guess I don't understand then. If the traveler is not assaulted, then the right has been protected.
I could block your way... I didn't act directly against your person, but did infringe your right of movement.

AnarchoJesse

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 08, 2009, 03:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on April 07, 2009, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 07, 2009, 12:57 PM NHFT
I don't think bill is asking about the actual physical assault upon a traveller, rather the actual protection of the right.

um. I guess I don't understand then. If the traveler is not assaulted, then the right has been protected.
I could block your way... I didn't act directly against your person, but did infringe your right of movement.


You infringed on my right, but didn't directly act against me...

You can only have one or the other, chief.

AnarchoJesse

Quote from: BillKauffman on April 07, 2009, 11:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"

I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"

Let that sink in.

Interesting subject line with the use of the word "common".

And I ask - who will protect the common right of ways that are the basis of individual equal rights and freedom of movement?

As often as this question comes up, the only instances I can think of people actually barring the "right" to movement has that been that wonderful "community organization", the government.

John Edward Mercier

Quote from: AnarchoJesse on May 20, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 08, 2009, 03:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on April 07, 2009, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 07, 2009, 12:57 PM NHFT
I don't think bill is asking about the actual physical assault upon a traveller, rather the actual protection of the right.

um. I guess I don't understand then. If the traveler is not assaulted, then the right has been protected.
I could block your way... I didn't act directly against your person, but did infringe your right of movement.


You infringed on my right, but didn't directly act against me...

You can only have one or the other, chief.
I'm pretty sure that is what I posted. Infringement of right, without direct physical force.

John Edward Mercier

Quote from: AnarchoJesse on May 20, 2009, 06:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 07, 2009, 11:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"

I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"

Let that sink in.

Interesting subject line with the use of the word "common".

And I ask - who will protect the common right of ways that are the basis of individual equal rights and freedom of movement?

As often as this question comes up, the only instances I can think of people actually barring the "right" to movement has that been that wonderful "community organization", the government.
Its usually a collective of individuals working through government to pontificate a specific perspecitive they hold.