Used Face Condoms

Sorry, Eric, but I disagree. Corporations are not created by government, but control government.

From JP Morgan and Rockefeller in the early 1900s to the health insurance companies and big tech today, government hasn’t been in charge for 200 years.

Hi RG,

I think it’s accurate to say they’re functionally interchangeable. Corporations have economic power – which is used to control government power. Which is used to enhance corporate power (as via regulatory capture).

And the people who “staff” both entities are often the same people. Literally.

The point, I think, is that neither of them are “private” and so don’t have the same or even any of the rights that individuals have – except perhaps in a legal sense.

Still censoring Eric….

I wonder if people realize just how many posts you block. I have a good idea and man, you must be seriously insecure.

Fun to know that you are a puppet on a string, still dancing on command. Just think of all the things you could be doing instead of guarding against a comment getting through.

PTB

Clover –

In the first case, you don’t seem to understand the difference between censorship – which is something done by the government, using its power to wholesale forbid and punish the publication/propagation of ideas it finds objectionable – and my declining to provide a forum for you to to propagate abuse. You aren’t being censored. You are free to post your abuse elsewhere.

Just not here.

For the record: Almost no posts are blocked; just yours and a handful of other disruptive posters. If you ever have anything to say that isn’t just abuse, it will not be blocked. Focus on the issues – not on me and others you just don’t like.

I am “insecure”? Well, I do at least use my real name when I publish things publicly. I don’t hide who I am, nor where I live.

I am a “puppet on a string”? That’s interesting given I run the show here and no one pulls my strings except me.

Hahahah, indeed. Good ol Willy. It’s become so hard to enjoy all of the cartoon cultural appropriation with this heightened awareness of how the mob is determined to take it all out from under us at any given moment at their whim. But I guess that in itself should actually serve as all the incentive to enjoy it even more.

All In The Family on DVD is about the only thing I’ve watched for years now. Ironically, the show was made by a bunch of asshole liberals, but it sorta backfired on them. Not only is it a joy to watch, but I feel like I’m giving the finger to all liberals while I’m basking in it’s glory.

[Reads own post. Quotes Jackie Gleason’s Ralph Kramden character: “I have BIIIIIIIIGGGGGGG MOOOOUUUUUTTHHHH!!!”]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnvgWYm8B84

I mean, when you factor in the govt laws and stuff.. in the current system we’re basically slaves renting our existences. Another example, I live in a doodie-to-retreat state. So not only is my property theirs to tax.. I can’t even really defend it if someone were to show up and exercise that kinda thought experiment.

Exactly, Moose!

No one is free, and there is no true “private property” in the real sense of the word- but hopefully, WE regard the right to property to the true Libertarian standard, even if the government does not, just as we respect the right of free association and the right to do with one’s property as they choose, to the point we would never sue someone for ‘discrimination’, even though Uncle says we could- and nor should we demand accommodation to someone else’s property even though Uncle infringes on the property owner’s right and says that they must accommodate.

We should practice what we preach.

Re doodie to retreat: Heh, yeah, I used to live in such a state. I now live in a state with the best “Castle laws”- where if someone is breaking into your home, it presumed that they intend to do you harm and you have the right to defend your person and property, and need not be so respectful of the scumbag crook as to have to limit yourself to merely countering his force with equal force- and where you can not be sued by crook or his fambly for ‘damages’/death he incurrs as a result of you having to defend yourself.

What a difference! Thus there is no crime to speak of here- except among those who associate with people of bad character. Every house here contains at least 5 guns…break in, and you’re leaving in a body bag…guaranteed.

Sure beats NY where certain people could be found rummaging through backyards every night. Do that here, you not only end up shot, but likely in a sinkhole with a generous helping of lime on top of your corpse, never to be seen again.

Gosh darn, the difference is astounding!

The thing with abortion is, I would bet if we’d actually come up in a world with truly free markets and free ideas on living our lives without the indoctrination and influence of statism and all the propaganda that goes along with focusing on being a good yuppie and keeping up with the Joneses….stuff like the sanctity of life or sancity of marriage probably wouldn’t even really be up for debate.

People just can’t mind their own damn business and have to barf their feelings all over everything instead of dealing with their own emotions and having tolerace for other people maintaining their own damn bodily autonomy.

It really is as easy as removing themselves from anothers medical decisions that never involved them to begin with. I’ll never understand why libertarians are so obsessed with the unborn, aside from the God thing preoccupying them, not a person of faith myself.

The private business thing is still tricky, I don’t think there’s one right answer to the dilemma of the mentally ill epidemic leading people to demand we deprive ourselves oxygen. That silly piece of paper was supposed to protect rights like breathing, regardless.

I mean..there was a time where people would have called CPS on parents for demanding their kids wear masks, because it’s clearcut anti-human abuse, and the snitches would have been morally right to want to protect the kids–I wouldn’t have involved govt myself. But the govt says it’s ok to do that to them now, so the kids endure abuse and everyone turns the other cheek while the kids suffer through it.

So it wasnt right before and it isnt right now but its supposedly legal, but the rulebook to the game told us we had rights, but we don’t, so how the fuck does the business have any either? There’s just no good answer because it’s all rigged.

Hey Brandon(s)

This is not complicated. You go to a mosh pit or get into a boxing ring or go skiing on someone’s mountain, you accept whatever risks and terms are proffered, or you don’t enter/participate.

You are saying that since a store is an “economic necessity” that we have some sort of right or claim that supercedes the owner’s right to set the terms of use of his property?

So what you are saying, is that economic need or necessity is a legitimate reason to have someone other than the property owner impose conditions of use on that property.

But that is the very reasoning that Uncle and the statists [Hey, that’d be a good name for a band!) use to impose their mandates on business owners and landlords,etc. -So if your argument is valid, then Uncle would have just as much of a right to mandate Kabuki or to forbid it- and it becomes just a matter of which one one isi in favor of, as to whether one supports or opposes the particular mandate, because one has already accepted that someone has a right to decree how anotrher’s property is used. See? :p

It’s no different than when the state decrees that a rental apartment must meet certain standards, or that a landlord can not “discriminate”- because “housing is a necessity or a ‘right’ “. Once we give in to the idear that someone else is lbliged to be even partially responsible for our necessities, we are trampling property rights, and becoming as bad as the statists {They only know three chords\

If we d on’t like the apartment, or the way the owner treats us, or the conditions in a store (They allow smokers! We die from ‘second-hand smoke!!!”)…..our option is not to deal with that entity.

A good way to think of these (any scenarios and to cultivate a Libertarian mindset, is to ask in any given situation: “IF this were a Libertarian world, who would enforce what I desire to be done ?” ot “What would my option/remedy be in this situation in a Libertarian world?”.

Hey, thank you for taking the time to work through this, and to examine my viewpoint. And thanks to Eric for this great site.

(I’m not gonna proof read, ’cause navigating on this laptop is too painful!)

Morning, Nunz!

Accepting risk – of course. There is at least potential risk in literally any action taken. But that is not the same as ceding a “right” to abuse, “because private property.” Even on private property, people have rights. These include the right to not be abused by whomever owns the property.

Using your argument – in extremis – John Wayne Gacy was within his rights to bury the kids he murdered under his house. All of them winningly assumed the risk of entering the evil clown’s abode…

It’s not the “economic necessity” argument that’s probative. It is the fact the “private businesses” we are discussing are not truly “private.” They are de facto agents of government policy. Many also used government force to receive special treatment, or even to steal outright under color of law (i.e., eminent domain).

This does not give us a right to steal from them, of course. But this idea that we are honor bound to submit to whatever degradation they – acting under duress or in collusion with the government – choose to impose upon us as a condition of service is both silly and dangerous.

It is to defend what amounts, in practical terms, to fascist economics. The wedding of government and business, nominally “private” but we all know that’s a fiction.

Hi Ya Eric!
….But we DO cede rights while on domeone else’s property. If that were not the case, then private property would be meaningless, and in-fact not be private.

John Wayne Gacy is not really relevant -Did he invite people to his home after warning them that if they enter they will be murdered? Of course, that would not morally justify murder….but what of a boxing ring , where you are consneting to take a risk that may result in death- or what of two people who engage in consentual erotic asphyxiation? Your presence, after knowing the risks you are exposed to, is tacit acceptance of those risks/terms.

To go one step further and partially address Brandon’s question about morality (I’ll get to that separately in the near future): If one accepts terms which are immoral, are they then not willing participants in immorality, and thus complicit with it?

I am not advocating that we submit to anything- but just that property owners have the right to determine how their property is used, and that if we don’t agree with those terms and can’t convince them otherwise, we have no inherent right to insist, but only to opt out by removing ourselves.

“Private business is not truly private”? Neither is your truck, by the same standard, because it is subject to mny controls and programs of government- so because government has usurped some of your rights over your property, does that make it less yours and give me a say in what you do with it? I’ve raised this argument quite a few times here…but no one has attempted to refute it.

If busines, or your truck is not private, then is it an entity of government in which “all of us” have a stake in or a right to? And if so, than who gets to say how it is used?

You see, here is the REAL issue: Government should not have the right to impose conditions on anyone’s property (Or any right at all…even to exist!)- As Libertarians, we oppose all such government mandates, regardless of whether we may agree or disagree with a given practice being mandated.

We oppose the government usurpation over private property because we believe in the ultimacy of private property. The only other position is to be like Uncle and believe that property rights are conditional and subject to the control of someone other than the property owner. There is no middle ground.

Our beef is with uncle. To say that we can fight Uncle by fighting property owners, is like saying that can fight Roanoke, the DMV,DOT, etc. by interfering with the will of the average car owner.

Ah, Nunz – but there’s a difference. I don’t use my truck to advance tyranny over others. This is a qualitative difference between my private property and the private property enforcing tyranny. Which – unlike my truck – is collusive with other “private” property owners, acting (out of duress) to advance a coordinated assault on liberty.

Our beef is no longer merely with Uncle. It is with those who have become Uncle’s helpers.

It is undeniable that all of the businesses we are talking about – stores, cafes, restaurants, etc. – are not “private” in both the legal sense and other senses. This does not mean I don’t respect private property – quite the contrary. It means I do not respect the corruption of it, by the government – such that it is becoming indistinguishable from it.

I share your uncompromising defense of the concept of private property. But that is not what we’re talking about, in reality.

And – with respect – I submit that defending these not-really-private businesses’ supposed “right” to be the unofficial but actual agents of the government we give aid and comfort to the enemy.

If these “private” businesses were asserting – as a for-instance – the principled right to free association, I’d be backing them all the way. But few if any are asserting that. Rather, they are asserting their “right” to be compliant. Which I feel no obligation to respect and a duty to undermine.

Hey Eric,
Only addressing one point here, ’cause this damn laptop is getting on my nerves, and I have get going anyway…but…

The “imposing tyranny” argument is not relevant, because we have no right to demand our rights while on someone else’s property, and no right to be on that property except as the owner allows.

It is no more tyranny than if you restricted speech in your home or truck. I can’t say: “I can disregard your demands because I have a right to free speech, and you are impsoing tyranny by not allowing me to do so”. No…I have no right to your property, so if I disagree with your demands of how I conduct my self there, my option is to leave.

If the government demands that you implement a speech code in your house, that is tryanny- against you- but if you choose to comply with it, or agree with it, it is not my right to coerce you to do otherwise. It is my right to not enter your property and or to JOIN you to fight Uncle if you so care to.

As I’ve said in the past, regardless of our differences on this issue, our actions/options are still exactly the same- but we should uphold the supremacy of property rights, because once we believe that we have a right to be accommodated on someone else’s property, we are on a very slippery slope.

Now Eric, you do drive that truck on roads that have been built on land that has definitely been acquired through eminent domain and paved with extorted money; and you operate it in accordance with Uncle’s rules (or some of ’em, anyway)…so you…it’s not really private……

Hi Nunz,

I’d argue that not only is it relevant, it defines the problem. Your premise rests on a false assumption – that of truly private property. Of individual businesses choosing to freely post whatever policies they wish. This is obviously not the case and it obviates the whole basis of the “private” business argument.

I realize you disagree – and I’ve presented this argument numerous times – so I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree at this point.

Hey Nunz, I knew no broken computer would keep you away. This site is like an addictive drug, I know.

Your first reply to me, I understand the principle of your argument that I have no right to demand use of others’ property. I do however think context matters in this world. I think which party has the power in any given situation/interaction can have a bearing on what is moral or not. They suffer zero repercussions or consequences from not doing business with me, any losses will just be printed and given to them, at my expense anyway, but I suffer dire consequences from being excluded from doing business with them. I suppose you do not see them as having any moral blame here, but it is entirely my blame for wanting otherwise. I find there is a moral difference between a small business, or Eric doing something in his truck, vs a utility company, or all the grocery stores doing something. I see a difference between any one store and all entities that make up an economic system. I am not asking that government step in, I am asking if the property owners are morally justified, in a libertarian or Christian sense, in imposing death through conditions or death through exclusion. They apparently are. Which apparently morally justifies the beast system and abortion.

“John Wayne Gacy is not really relevant -Did he invite people to his home after warning them that if they enter they will be murdered? Of course, that would not morally justify murder….”

Wait, what if he said vaccinated (which leads to murder for the sake of argument)? He is NOT morally justified then? Even if that is a condition of entering his property? So we have two morally unjust options conflicting here? They cannot impose a condition of murder upon me, and I cannot force them to host me due to my economic need.

At what point does a condition become too onerous for a property owner to morally impose upon another?

Their imposition upon me would result in my death, my imposition upon them would result in them having me there against their will, and their exclusion of me would result in my death. Tell me how I am less morally justified than they are. How can my personal property rights be inferior to someone else’s land property rights (especially if they own all the property, like an economic system)? It seems to justify serfdom or slavery. Abide the land owner’s miserable and potentially lethal conditions, or leave (and starve or undergo severe punishment, or death in some way).

I understand me and Eric are coming at this from different angles, so I can’t address the points you made to him, but I agree with him that your position is suicidal to us in this non-free world.

I really do hope you elaborate further on my morality concern. Looks like if I’m wrong and you’re right they are morally justified in doing whatever they want with me (us), including killing me through conditions or exclusion, whereas if I just want to pay for food or utilities, I’m not morally justified in demanding such a transaction take place without conditions that’ll kill me. That certainly doesn’t seem moral or right to me, and it certainly won’t increase my, or your liberty.

“If one accepts terms which are immoral, are they then not willing participants in immorality, and thus complicit with it?” I don’t understand how this applies to my questions or scenarios, sorry. I guess I would say yes, but is one that accepts immoral conditions any worse than one who imposes immoral conditions?

Ah-so, Mr. Jin!
I appreciate that you naturally consider morality. Imagine if more people did! Imagine if politicians did!(Well they do…but only to ensure that they are not complying with it….)

It’s simple: In the present world, or in a desired Libertarian world, can one choose not to be moral with their own property -be it their own body, or home or business or land as far as it affects them or those who consent to participate?

Who even gets to decide what is moral, and enforce it?

Theocracies ruled by men don’t work- and neither does anything else wherein men try and dictate a certain morality, based on whatever moral code.

I do think that requiring masks or ‘vaccines’ is immoral; I also think a store being open on Shabbat is immoral.

But unless I missed it, your premise is still “My need conveys a right to use someone’s property, and consequently obligates someone else to accommodate me, because I’ll starve/die of exposure/not be able to play tiddly-winks with the cools kids/etc. and that would be immoral, so since I’m more moral, I should have preeminence.”

On the flip side, this situation also illuminates the immorality of the average person. I’ve been hearing many stories just in the last few days (IRL) of people (including relatives) who are taking the jab “because it is required” to attend college/nursing school/work/etc. It isw evil indeed to ‘require’ the ‘jab’…but is it not just as evil to take it when you oppose it and or know it may[will!] harm you and seriously affect your future, but they take it anyway because they prioritize whatever carrot is being proffered on the stick more than anything else, even their own lives?

Basically, it’s like this, until the day God rules this earth, if we want the ability to be free to live our own consciences before God and just live freely, we should allow the freedoms which God allows all of us.

Now, when politicians impose these mandates, of course, it is evil and tyrannical- just as it is when they mandate the collection of sales tax, or that a business must have three varieties of bathrooms…or accommodate the handicapped or not “discriminate” etc.

But again, since we have no inherent right to use someone else’s property, our right is to boycott….or to fight the source of the tyranny, not to determine how others, -be they property/business owners, or students or employees, respond to the tyranny being imposed on them. We can choose how we respond to it….but when we try to dictate how others must respond, or that they are not allowed to comply when it comes to their property, then we essentially become the very thing we say we are trying to fight- at that point, we are like the Democrats and Republicans- not advocating freedom, but just wanting things to be our way.

Morning, Nunz!

And “private property” (it isn’t as regards our discussion, as explained previously) has no right to abuse us – using “private” property – which it does when it acts in concert to force people to choose to submit to disgusting and evil things as the price of being able to buy food. Your argument holds water in a free market system, in which “Private businesses” are not agents of the state by dint of duress and cannot collude to impose universal “policies”on all, backed by the state.

But it leaks badly when applied to a fascist-collectivist system, in which “private” businesses such as stores and restaurants are no such thing.

Your position – in support of a principle – is admirable. Just not applicable in this case.

Mornin’ Eric!

Aw, my friend, you keep making the assertion that “private property is not really private property”, to which I have offered several analogies to refute which no one here has addressed.

If you go to Monkey Wards and the roof caves in and causes you major injury [shudder!] who do you sue: Monkey Wards or Uncle?

As I have illustrated with my “car” analogies, just because a property owner is being coerced or forced to cede some of their rights of ownership, in no way gives us a right to further decree what they should do or how they should respond, or whether or not they are doing what they do because they agree with what is being imposed upon them, or simply don’t care to fight it, etc.

As I’ve also said, on a practical level, it doesn’t really make any difference that we disagree on this, because in either case, our response and actions end up being exactly the same….but the principle IS very important because once we start chipping away at property rights for any reason, we become just like Uncle, who uses various premises to deprive people of property rights- and we even go beyond that and become complicit in Uncle’s crimes if we maintain that Uncle’s usurpation of property rights renders private property “not private”.

If we believe that private property is rendered not-private because Uncle exercises tyranny over it, then let us seek to restore those rights which are being trampled- and if we can’t, as far as stopping Uncle from trampling them, we can, at least, in our upholding and respecting of those rights as far as we can practice as pertains to us- even if it means excluding ourselves because we disagree with the property owner or the fact that they care not to fight the tyranny imposed on them.
If WE don’t uphold these most basic and fundamental values of Libertarianism, who will?

Hi Nunz,

I’ve refuted it – the assertion that public accommodations are “private property” – numerous times. We just disagree about the obligation to pretend that “privately owned” agents of the state are, in fact, private (and thus, independent) businesses. These “private” business are neither fish nor fowl – and they cannot have it both ways as regards “rights.”

On the one hand, they have accepted that they have no right to freedom of association; no right to set their own terms and conditions if the government says they may not, On the other, they have acted to enforce what the government says upon us – and collusively. What has been going on is not independent private stores and restaurants acting on their own, of their own free will, to set forth their individual, specific polices. Rather, these de facto agents of the government have imposed the same policies at the behest of government, in an organized and nearly universal way such as to participate actively in the denial of freedom of association – to further a vicious, evil agenda – while unctuously asserting “private property.”

It’s as offensive as it is risible.

The car analogies you’ve presented don’t work – for several reasons. The chief reason being a car owner is not acting as the agent of the state to undermine the liberties of others, using his car to do so.

Hey Eric!

**”The car analogies you’ve presented don’t work – for several reasons. The chief reason being a car owner is not acting as the agent of the state to undermine the liberties of others,using his car to do so.”**

When the car owner requires you to wear a seatbelt because of the coercion imposed upon him and his property, then he is doing the same thing as Monkey Wards demanding you wear a mask- i.e. imposing tyranny on you if you wish to use their property.

So by the same standard, is the guy’s car no longer his property because he chooses, for whatever reason, to impose tyranny on a passenger, whether he does so willingly or due to duress/coercion, etc. and how is it our business, unless we we somehow believe that we have a right to ride in his car?

Oy vey, Nunz!

The car owner is not acting in concert with other car owners such that anyone who wants to get somewhere by car cannot do so without acceding to the seatbelt must be worn requirement. His vehicle is private in a way that public accommodations are not. My truck does not actively assault your right to travel.

There is also the matter of seatbelt wearing being quite different from a degradation ritual such as the wearing of a Face Diaper, which also entails the enabling under duress of a disgusting lie.

A lie that could lead to something of almost unimaginable evil. And may already have.

Mind: I’m not saying I won’t leave a store if the dick who runs it tells me to. But he’s going to have to tell me to. I’m not meekly obeying a stupid sign that is the equivalent of – all patrons must Heil! the Fuhrer upon entry. Fuck the Fuhrer. Fuck Face Diaperers. I owe them not a scintilla of respect. I will do all I can to ignore/evade/mock this evil.

PS: I also lie to cops and feel fine about it.

Hey Nunz, (Why can’t you just let me have this old man?)

Appreciate all your comments on this matter, especially this one. It most fully addresses my concerns and gives your perspective. And I understand it pretty well now. I am not completely satisfied, as I believe context matters. It will be difficult to convince me that I’m the bad guy for having less than full respect for the absolute property rights of the oligarchs, who completely own this system, and have siphoned the options/wealth from me, those like me, and our ancestors for centuries or more. All that said, I’m punching way above my weight here. You’re obviously funded by the oligarchs to argue a property rights justification for our slavery/death. So I think I’ll just call you a fascist and leave! (I’m still going to tell everyone I won this one though) 😀

Sheesh, Eric, you keep adding conditions!

Do property rights not apply:
*If the property owner is under duress/coercion?
*Is acting in conjunction with other property owners?
*Is believing in/perpetrating a lie?
*If the property is owned by a large group of investors or some rich people?
*If there is any uncertainty as to whether any injustice was ever committed against a previous owner in the property’s chain of ownership, or if was used as a burial ground for Chinese Moslem witches…. 😀

C’mon man, it’s not that complicated! All of these oibjections to such a simple basic right sounds like when politicians try to construct convoluted justifications to justify the taking of such rights- which ultimately is exactly what they do to justify imposing these mandates.

Although we oppose the mandates, if we deny absolute property rights, we are doing essentially the same thing that the government is doing.

Hi Nunz!

I’m not adding conditions, just stating the fact: These stores cannot claim “private property” when they are in fact agents of the state, serving to advance tyranny.

This is not “no shirt, no shoes – no service.” It is: Heil the Fuhrer! – applied not by an individual private business but by the no-longer-private public accommodations that have become a manifestation of government because they all obey the same government and advance the same evil decrees.

If you feel yourself bound to respect their “right” to enforce evil government decrees, that is your prerogative. Wear a Diaper. Show them your “vaccine” card. Allow yourself to be ghetto-ized and marginalized.

I feel no such obligation.

Just as I feel no obligation to fight fair against a mugger.

Hey Ya Eric!
Well, I wouldn’t say that “I respect their right to enforce a government decree”- but rather their right to do as they choose with their own property.

I mean, do you not agree that whether they choose to play Kabuki because they actually believe in it, or because they are compelled to, or because they don’t care to fight it for whatever reason, it is their prerogative?

If a business’s property is not private property, then who’s property is it? And shouldn’t we advocate that it be their property, so that they can’t be forced to abide by government decrees or act as tax collectors for the state, etc.? Isn’t that the very point of Libertarianism?

The “It’s not really your private property” sentiment is the very sentiment which the government uses to insert itself in your car, your home, your business, etc. I thought we were supposed to reject and fight that idea; not adopt it as our own when we don’t like the choices others make over what is theirs…..