I imagine he will have to die as private companies cannot, and do not now, already build flat things from point A to point B.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I imagine he will have to die as private companies cannot, and do not now, already build flat things from point A to point B.
In fact they cannot and do not now, they are contracted to do so by the government on land the government takes from private individuals.
You don’t think individuals could work it out for themselves. That’s my point. Read my response to @lucylin. Tired of your spamming BS. Don’t comment here again. I’ve tried to engage you honestly, and you keep bellyaching and making sarcastic quips. If we disagree, we disagree, but there’s no reason to continue disingenuously engaging me in conversation if you have no real desire to understand. You’ve already made up your mind.
The fact remains, Bobby, that a flat thing from point A to point B can be and has been built without a government.
As I said to the other goofball, don’t spam my comment threads anymore, or I’ll apply a silly flag to your inanity. Tired of wasting my time when you’re essentially just playing games. Yes, I am angry! You are correct! Congrats, buddy!
You spit your BS, ignore what is said, and make junior-high-school-type sarcastic jabs without even fact checking shit (our last conversation about Vietnam, for example) and end up wasting my time. Nearly every time.
I liked you, but you’re kind of being a dick. And a bit obtuse. Intentionally, I think.
The whole point of the quote I posted here, and everything I have said to you thus far, is that NOT DOES NOT MATTER whether roads, etc, could be feasible without a centralized monopoly on violence called “the state.” The point is that it is wrong to force people to pay for things against their will, and to not allow them to exercise their nature-conferred ISO. So, whether or not you think non-violent system is possible, is irrelevant. Have your government. Great. Now let the rest of us do as we please in peace as well. Oh wait, we can’t. The state which you support denies each individual their basic human freedom.
Peace.
No Graham, and I will stop upsetting you by questioning your sophomoric logic after this comment if you choose not to reply, the state which I support ensures each individual their basic human freedom.
All land was stolen.
eminent domain involves compensation does theft?
You don't get it; it was never theirs to begin with. Stop paying your property taxes and find out the hard way what you own and don't own. You own something as long as they will let you, regardless of what you paid for it. If eminent domain doesn't work, they will simply condemn the property and take it. This is the exact tactic used by some Cities to build more riverfront marinas in the face of a complete ban on new marinas by the DNR, read the newspapers and/or court documents! They also condemned a Car Dealership to build headquarters for a large electronics retailer. All land was stolen! You can always pretend it didn't happen, but it won't change the facts: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/realestate/eminent-domain-revisited-a-minnesota-case.html
It wasn't stolen, it was taken. When someone steals something from you do you get a hearing?
You could try paying your taxes and then you could keep your property, usually people who can't afford their property taxes can't really afford their property. Do you often agree with the New York Times?
I am not pretending anything didn't happen. When someone steals something from you do they give you $24,000 above market value for it?
Using eminent domain for economic development reasons is controversial but legal.