: SDF: You just said that if I didn't see it that didn't mean that it wasn't there. Defined and absolute, and then you just skip on without providing definitions, philosophical proofs, or nothing? Care to be more specific? Or does gainsaying increase your self-esteem like real thinking never could?I could mimic you and suggest that "ive been to such and such and Ive seen real thinking" which then gives me dominion over the concept. ofcourse it doesnt.
If you want to discuss force as a seperate issue, i'll be happy to consider and discuss the concepts.
:SDF: Precisely what I have thought about many of the words you use. Self-interest, force, it's so much idle talk.
Given your opinion of it, why do you proceed to "not see any force" without being sufficiently 'un-idle' to explain what you mean by it?
: I'll tell you what's individual about it -- it's the individual's participation in democracy. The only way that one could believe that such participation invalidates individualism is through the "idiotic" belief that "if two libertarians agree, that somehow invalidates individualism".
Aha, now I see. You think that that "if two libertarians agree, but the third doesnt, then its ok to impose the decision of the two on the third because at least each individual participated". As I thought, there was no discovery of contradiction.
: SDF: So? The owners of a private school can do the exact same thing.
The difference being that attendanace isnt compulsory and that their educative content is decided by the owners and *selected* as agreeable by the buyers - not decided by the (state) owners in nominal agreement with what purports to represent all the 'buyers' but is infact just a group in and of themselves which cannot represent all the 'buyers' because the act of representing two people with mutually exclusive goals must result in delivering an unwanted good to one or all parties.
: SDF: And this argument doesn't apply to private schools?
Read the above.
: (blather deleted)
I usually enjoy your reams of twaddle.
