The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Where?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Words in mouths (see in situ)


If you did then it should be easy for you to list them. I don't see them and I'm not going to put words in your mouth.

In any case I would love any definitions you posed. Then we could discuss principles and concepts rather than the vague fog of words for which the connotation changes to suit the argument.

Your guest specifically used seceding to set up a theocracy as his example. Which is by the way an example meant to color the conversation. Rather than say you don't have a right to secede, he says you don't have a right to secede to set up a theocracy, which of course is intended to get people to have an emotional reaction not a rational reaction.

At worst th secede would have to sell his property, or simply leave it unattended if he wished to do so. What he cannot do is tear out sewer lines or block access to mutually shared utilities.

Agreed but this isn't controversial. Assuming of course the sewer lines are shared and he his doing so would affect other people, and assuming in general a lot of possible contractual arrangements aren't in effect.

Is it your understanding that people haven't thought these things through?

Breaking your stuff on my property that I consented to be there isn't what we are talking about when we say secession.

So lets try to narrow it down to some case we may disagree or find we do not disagree.

If I wish to cease commercial association with you, cease transferring any property between us, do not attempt to damage your property in my possession (without agreed to recompense), do not even attempt to repatriate your property if doing so would harm you (again without agreed to recompense) like you ripping out mutual sewers example, what would make that problematic in your understanding?

Simply I come to the strange conclusion that all your 'public goods' monopolies are inefficient and over priced and poor quality. Though I was economically ignorant and agreed to use them at first, I later read some Rothbard and Mises and Hazlitt and concluded the evidence on my 'tax' bill wasn't just my imagination. You guys actually do suck. So I don't want to pay you anymore, and for sake of argument I was never stupid enough to buy property a neighborhood that has a socialized monopoly on roads. So I have access and can hire a service to collect my sewerage, garbage, or whatever, and I can install water tanks, solar panels, etc. You guys are so inefficient that it's actually cheaper for me to do so. So I'm going prepper in place.

Tell me would this secession justify coercion? Or can you tell me a case where secession would justly be met with coercion?