Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:44 pm**

mods you can close this thread now, it's over

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:01 pm**

john9blue wrote:no matter how terrible they make your other options? so you think number 2 from the OP is voluntary?

I don't see how the terrible-ness of your options enters into it? Number 2 is involuntary because it's directly stated that it's an "offer you can't refuse". Otherwise, I might answer differently.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:02 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:
john9blue wrote:no matter how terrible they make your other options? so you think number 2 from the OP is voluntary?

I don't see how the terrible-ness of your options enters into it? Number 2 is involuntary because it's directly stated that it's an "offer you can't refuse". Otherwise, I might answer differently.

that's a figure of speech. you are free to refuse their offer, but you will presumably get driven out of town or killed as a result.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:27 pm**

john9blue wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
john9blue wrote:no matter how terrible they make your other options? so you think number 2 from the OP is voluntary?

I don't see how the terrible-ness of your options enters into it? Number 2 is involuntary because it's directly stated that it's an "offer you can't refuse". Otherwise, I might answer differently.

that's a figure of speech. you are free to refuse their offer, but you will presumably get driven out of town or killed as a result.

Here's a scenario:
You have a personal hang-up that dictates that you will not walk on the sidewalk unless it is completely void of other people. One day you need to deliver a letter to the post office on the corner of your street but the sidewalk is busy all day and you aren't able to mail your important letter. Does this mean that the people on the sidewalk all day were making your staying in your apartment involuntary or were they just exercising their ability to walk the sidewalk? If every passerby put a nail in your door so that you physically couldn't get out, then it would be involuntary.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:17 pm**

john9blue wrote:still pisses me off that you're treating "voluntary" and "involuntary" like they are binary.

suppose bubba from example 1 tells hotep "if you don't accept my trade then i'm gonna poke you in the belly" voluntary or involuntary?

what if he threatens to punch him in the arm? or in the face? what if he threatens to beat him up? or kill him?

when does it cross the imaginary line from voluntary to involuntary?

Is this directed at me?

If so, do you know what "duress" means?

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:20 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
john9blue wrote:no matter how terrible they make your other options? so you think number 2 from the OP is voluntary?

I don't see how the terrible-ness of your options enters into it? Number 2 is involuntary because it's directly stated that it's an "offer you can't refuse". Otherwise, I might answer differently.

that's a figure of speech. you are free to refuse their offer, but you will presumably get driven out of town or killed as a result.

Here's a scenario:
You have a personal hang-up that dictates that you will not walk on the sidewalk unless it is completely void of other people. One day you need to deliver a letter to the post office on the corner of your street but the sidewalk is busy all day and you aren't able to mail your important letter. Does this mean that the people on the sidewalk all day were making your staying in your apartment involuntary or were they just exercising their ability to walk the sidewalk? If every passerby put a nail in your door so that you physically couldn't get out, then it would be involuntary.

C'mon, FT. The scenario was clarified, so be considerate and answer the question.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:31 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
john9blue wrote:still pisses me off that you're treating "voluntary" and "involuntary" like they are binary.

suppose bubba from example 1 tells hotep "if you don't accept my trade then i'm gonna poke you in the belly" voluntary or involuntary?

what if he threatens to punch him in the arm? or in the face? what if he threatens to beat him up? or kill him?

when does it cross the imaginary line from voluntary to involuntary?

Is this directed at me?

If so, do you know what "duress" means?

It seems to have been directed at T-Bone. Judging by his examples.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:33 pm**

john9blue wrote:mods you can close this thread now, it's over

I don't decide when a topic has been discussed enough. They can argue the same point for 347 pages for all I care. As long as it is civil and not flaming, then I will allow it.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:35 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't think FT understands what "duress" means...

Ha! If you're under duress in those examples it's your own damn fault, that's my point. Self imposed/inflicted duress is not my problem. Btw, nice ninja edit punk but the damage has been done. *sniff*

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
john9blue wrote:no matter how terrible they make your other options? so you think number 2 from the OP is voluntary?

I don't see how the terrible-ness of your options enters into it? Number 2 is involuntary because it's directly stated that it's an "offer you can't refuse". Otherwise, I might answer differently.

that's a figure of speech. you are free to refuse their offer, but you will presumably get driven out of town or killed as a result.

Here's a scenario:
You have a personal hang-up that dictates that you will not walk on the sidewalk unless it is completely void of other people. One day you need to deliver a letter to the post office on the corner of your street but the sidewalk is busy all day and you aren't able to mail your important letter. Does this mean that the people on the sidewalk all day were making your staying in your apartment involuntary or were they just exercising their ability to walk the sidewalk? If every passerby put a nail in your door so that you physically couldn't get out, then it would be involuntary.

C'mon, FT. The scenario was clarified, so be considerate and answer the question.

I'm a lot of things but I try not to be inconsiderate.
Ok so the question is whether or not I now consider #2 voluntary? I think I answered that it was involuntary way back when since I assumed that you were literally forced to comply. In all fairness I think I need even more clarification. Do the mobsters run the neighborhood? Did I ask a favor of them in the past? Have the mobsters watched over my family for generations and generations when outside forces threatened to harm them? All of these questions need to be answered please before I can go further. What I can say for certain is this: If there are outstanding debts which are understood and explicitly stated warning that at some point in the future you may have to "pay up" then if you remain part of this establishment you can't cry it's involuntary when the piper shows up.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:39 pm**

kentington wrote:
john9blue wrote:mods you can close this thread now, it's over

I don't decide when a topic has been discussed enough. They can argue the same point for 347 pages for all I care. As long as it is civil and not flaming, then I will allow it.

Nya Nya Nya Nya Nyahhhhh Nya, john9blue.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:05 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
john9blue wrote:still pisses me off that you're treating "voluntary" and "involuntary" like they are binary.

suppose bubba from example 1 tells hotep "if you don't accept my trade then i'm gonna poke you in the belly" voluntary or involuntary?

what if he threatens to punch him in the arm? or in the face? what if he threatens to beat him up? or kill him?

when does it cross the imaginary line from voluntary to involuntary?

Is this directed at me?

If so, do you know what "duress" means?

yes and yes. do you consider actions done under duress to be involuntary? if so, at what point does the threat of physical contact become duress?

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:07 am**

Funkyterrance wrote:I'm a lot of things but I try not to be inconsiderate.
Ok so the question is whether or not I now consider #2 voluntary? I think I answered that it was involuntary way back when since I assumed that you were literally forced to comply. In all fairness I think I need even more clarification. Do the mobsters run the neighborhood? Did I ask a favor of them in the past? Have the mobsters watched over my family for generations and generations when outside forces threatened to harm them? All of these questions need to be answered please before I can go further. What I can say for certain is this: If there are outstanding debts which are understood and explicitly stated warning that at some point in the future you may have to "pay up" then if you remain part of this establishment you can't cry it's involuntary when the piper shows up.

why do past actions make any difference as to whether an action i take NOW is voluntary or not?

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:30 am**

john9blue wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:I'm a lot of things but I try not to be inconsiderate.
Ok so the question is whether or not I now consider #2 voluntary? I think I answered that it was involuntary way back when since I assumed that you were literally forced to comply. In all fairness I think I need even more clarification. Do the mobsters run the neighborhood? Did I ask a favor of them in the past? Have the mobsters watched over my family for generations and generations when outside forces threatened to harm them? All of these questions need to be answered please before I can go further. What I can say for certain is this: If there are outstanding debts which are understood and explicitly stated warning that at some point in the future you may have to "pay up" then if you remain part of this establishment you can't cry it's involuntary when the piper shows up.

why do past actions make any difference as to whether an action i take NOW is voluntary or not?

I'm glad you finally asked. Because they are, in the examples in question, part of the same transaction which started when you first accepted the terms(to remain in establishment) and more importantly, accepted your past, present and future benefits of said transaction.
I don't see the argument that any of these things come out of the blue and slam into you. It's been implied from the get-go that you understand the conditions of all these exchanges so how could any but those where you are absolutely forced to do something be considered involuntary? I mean, when you get into a fistfight it's voluntary whether or not the other person started it or not right?

john9blue wrote:do you consider actions done under duress to be involuntary?

I know this wasn't directed at me but I was wondering about this as well. I can see your judgement being somewhat altered under duress but not necessarily involuntary. Not choosing the desired thing from a menu because you were in a hurry is a decision made under duress but it's still voluntary.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:28 am**

Funkyterrance wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:I'm a lot of things but I try not to be inconsiderate.
Ok so the question is whether or not I now consider #2 voluntary? I think I answered that it was involuntary way back when since I assumed that you were literally forced to comply. In all fairness I think I need even more clarification. Do the mobsters run the neighborhood? Did I ask a favor of them in the past? Have the mobsters watched over my family for generations and generations when outside forces threatened to harm them? All of these questions need to be answered please before I can go further. What I can say for certain is this: If there are outstanding debts which are understood and explicitly stated warning that at some point in the future you may have to "pay up" then if you remain part of this establishment you can't cry it's involuntary when the piper shows up.

why do past actions make any difference as to whether an action i take NOW is voluntary or not?

I'm glad you finally asked. Because they are, in the examples in question, part of the same transaction which started when you first accepted the terms(to remain in establishment) and more importantly, accepted your past, present and future benefits of said transaction.

So either the action is voluntary, or you're a hypocritical bastard and the world will hate you anyway?
Is there no right to change one's mind or reconsider an opinion?
Let's take the drafting example again. Apparently you've lived in a democracy that says at some point you can get drafted. What alternatives did you have? Assume all other countries in the world have a system where everyone is drafted without precursor or indication, they are simply drafted. Does this make your decision to live in said democracy voluntary? Yes, obviously, because of all options you picked this one.
The problem in this case, though, is that the making of that choice on itself is involuntary. It is likely that you would rather not choose any of the options, and live in a country that does not have a draft system. Does that make the choice of habitation involuntary? And does that make the drafting involuntary?
When replacing "drafting" with "paying tax", everyone would probably say "that's just how the world works", but it is still your choice to abide by the 'rules' of that world.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:51 am**

Everything, it is a choice

Even If your choice is one thing, or death. You can choose death
If you fear death and so choose the other option, you cannot say 'not a choice because death'

We always choose

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:56 pm**

john9blue wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
john9blue wrote:still pisses me off that you're treating "voluntary" and "involuntary" like they are binary.

suppose bubba from example 1 tells hotep "if you don't accept my trade then i'm gonna poke you in the belly" voluntary or involuntary?

what if he threatens to punch him in the arm? or in the face? what if he threatens to beat him up? or kill him?

when does it cross the imaginary line from voluntary to involuntary?

Is this directed at me?

If so, do you know what "duress" means?

yes and yes. do you consider actions done under duress to be involuntary? if so, at what point does the threat of physical contact become duress?

If I answered, then I would fall into the later trap of repeating myself, so here you go:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184805&start=45#p4039190

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184805&start=45#p4039205
(The Kid-Parent Exchange involves the most mild duress ITT, but I'll be consistent and call that coercion, thus an involuntary exchange. But we're talking about the government, not screaming kids, so that ambiguity--for which a case can be made--is irrelevant).

When you think of exchange involving coercion/made under duress, do you think of someone threatening to poke you in the belly button like the Pillsbury Dough Boy? Or do you think of someone waving a gun at you, demanding your money?
(physical contact != physical violence).

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:57 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't think FT understands what "duress" means...

Ha! If you're under duress in those examples it's your own damn fault, that's my point. Self imposed/inflicted duress is not my problem. Btw, nice ninja edit punk but the damage has been done. *sniff*

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
john9blue wrote:no matter how terrible they make your other options? so you think number 2 from the OP is voluntary?

I don't see how the terrible-ness of your options enters into it? Number 2 is involuntary because it's directly stated that it's an "offer you can't refuse". Otherwise, I might answer differently.

that's a figure of speech. you are free to refuse their offer, but you will presumably get driven out of town or killed as a result.

Here's a scenario:
You have a personal hang-up that dictates that you will not walk on the sidewalk unless it is completely void of other people. One day you need to deliver a letter to the post office on the corner of your street but the sidewalk is busy all day and you aren't able to mail your important letter. Does this mean that the people on the sidewalk all day were making your staying in your apartment involuntary or were they just exercising their ability to walk the sidewalk? If every passerby put a nail in your door so that you physically couldn't get out, then it would be involuntary.

C'mon, FT. The scenario was clarified, so be considerate and answer the question.

I'm a lot of things but I try not to be inconsiderate.
Ok so the question is whether or not I now consider #2 voluntary? I think I answered that it was involuntary way back when since I assumed that you were literally forced to comply. In all fairness I think I need even more clarification. Do the mobsters run the neighborhood? Did I ask a favor of them in the past? Have the mobsters watched over my family for generations and generations when outside forces threatened to harm them? All of these questions need to be answered please before I can go further. What I can say for certain is this: If there are outstanding debts which are understood and explicitly stated warning that at some point in the future you may have to "pay up" then if you remain part of this establishment you can't cry it's involuntary when the piper shows up.

Wow, we've already been through these arguments. I give up.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:33 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:Wow, we've already been through these arguments. I give up.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:15 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:Wow, we've already been through these arguments. I give up.

Yeah we've been through them but you've failed to convince me just as much as I you so what are you complaining about? If some new information is made relevant I'm willing to continue but it just sounds to me like we fundamentally disagree. That doesn't have to mean that one or the other of us is being dense or whatever you're implying. Evidently you have the notion that continuing to remain in an establishment is not a voluntary agreement to abide by said establishments rules, even if you are able to leave. I feel that it is a voluntary exchange if you choose to stay because you deem the value of staying greater than the value of leaving and nothing you have written has been convincing enough to cause me to change my mind.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:33 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:I'm a lot of things but I try not to be inconsiderate.
Ok so the question is whether or not I now consider #2 voluntary? I think I answered that it was involuntary way back when since I assumed that you were literally forced to comply. In all fairness I think I need even more clarification. Do the mobsters run the neighborhood? Did I ask a favor of them in the past? Have the mobsters watched over my family for generations and generations when outside forces threatened to harm them? All of these questions need to be answered please before I can go further. What I can say for certain is this: If there are outstanding debts which are understood and explicitly stated warning that at some point in the future you may have to "pay up" then if you remain part of this establishment you can't cry it's involuntary when the piper shows up.

why do past actions make any difference as to whether an action i take NOW is voluntary or not?

I'm glad you finally asked. Because they are, in the examples in question, part of the same transaction which started when you first accepted the terms(to remain in establishment) and more importantly, accepted your past, present and future benefits of said transaction.
I don't see the argument that any of these things come out of the blue and slam into you. It's been implied from the get-go that you understand the conditions of all these exchanges so how could any but those where you are absolutely forced to do something be considered involuntary? I mean, when you get into a fistfight it's voluntary whether or not the other person started it or not right?

transaction? wtf? you've been reading too many BBS posts.

suppose i tell you today that i promise that i'll buy you a pony if i ever win the lottery. i win the lottery in 50 years, and old man FT comes up to me with a gun and demands his pony. i have no recollection of my pony promise. when i give you your pony because i fear being murdered... was it voluntary?

you're imposing your morality onto me by claiming that anything you deem a "fair outcome" is voluntary by definition, and anything you deem "unfair" is involuntary. totally ridiculous.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
john9blue wrote:yes and yes. do you consider actions done under duress to be involuntary? if so, at what point does the threat of physical contact become duress?

If I answered, then I would fall into the later trap of repeating myself, so here you go:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184805&start=45#p4039190

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184805&start=45#p4039205
(The Kid-Parent Exchange involves the most mild duress ITT, but I'll be consistent and call that coercion, thus an involuntary exchange. But we're talking about the government, not screaming kids, so that ambiguity--for which a case can be made--is irrelevant).

When you think of exchange involving coercion/made under duress, do you think of someone threatening to poke you in the belly button like the Pillsbury Dough Boy? Or do you think of someone waving a gun at you, demanding your money?
(physical contact != physical violence).

your posts have the same problem. you talk about initial exchanges and implicit rules and invisible contracts as if the definition of free will depends on some words that came out of our mouths long ago and whether those words are stored somewhere in our memory banks.

there is no clear division between implicit and explicit consent, or whether someone is in their "right mind" or not, or whether a rule is "formal" or "informal". it ALL depends on individual interpretation. you seem to be using legal terms without realizing that those terms have no absolute meaning and can only be loosely defined by a judge in a courtroom. you place more faith in the absolute, unwavering meaning of language than you really should, probably because it makes concepts like that easier for people to grasp.

...and after reading your second post, it appears that you do the same thing... arbitrarily defining a temper tantrum as physical violence... i wonder, what decibel level does the kid's whining have to reach for the exchange to be involuntary? :lol:

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:59 pm**

john9blue wrote:transaction? wtf? you've been reading too many BBS posts.

Probably.

john9blue wrote:suppose i tell you today that i promise that i'll buy you a pony if i ever win the lottery. i win the lottery in 50 years, and old man FT comes up to me with a gun and demands his pony. i have no recollection of my pony promise. when i give you your pony because i fear being murdered... was it voluntary?

This is sort of a mixture of two of the issues we have been talking about. I feel that if you remember the promise it's voluntary and the gun doesn't even enter into it but if you got amnesia or something I suppose the transaction becomes void and the exchange involuntary but does this refresh your memory?*Holds gun to johnblue's head*

john9blue wrote:You're imposing your morality onto me by claiming that anything you deem a "fair outcome" is voluntary by definition, and anything you deem "unfair" is involuntary. totally ridiculous.

Not really. An agreement that is mutual is the key to being voluntary/involuntary, not whether or not it's considered "fair" by all those involved.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:02 pm**

"mutual" is a weasel word. how much coercion must there be for an agreement to no longer be "mutual"?

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:13 pm**

john9blue wrote:"mutual" is a weasel word. how much coercion must there be for an agreement to no longer be "mutual"?

And in addition to this, how much of that coercion is readily apparant to the coercee?

Either way very nice work on the self-back-patting thread BBS.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:40 pm**

john9blue wrote:"mutual" is a weasel word. how much coercion must there be for an agreement to no longer be "mutual"?

You've got something against weasels? I love my ferret! :evil:

To me the word mutual only means that both agreed to it, nothing more. Both members of the exchange find going through with the exchange better than not going through with it. The problem is that you guys keep using the example of someone threatening to kill you which isn't even part of the exchange but a means to enforce the exchange. The gangsters are using force to get you to go through with the exchange but the exchange is still voluntary. They want money, not you killed, else they would just open your door and kill you. I suppose this exchange is really about respecting the power of the gangsters. You are voluntarily guessing that the gangsters are probably more powerful than you so it is in your best interest to "just pay the men". If you get overcharged by a plumber but end up paying him anyway, is this involuntary? No, because you know that in the long run he could probably sue you for theft of services and win. The exchange with the bandits is similar in that it's an exchange of power and you voluntarily submit.
As far as making a pact in the past, passive or active, this pact can be involved in a current exchange. If you promised me something ten years ago and I use force to get you to follow through with your promise, the force is not part of the exchange itself, it's just a way to get someone to follow through with their exchange and does not affect the voluntary nature of the exchange. In other words, the force is irrelevant to the nature of this exchange because you've already agreed to it previously.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:45 pm**

john9blue wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:I'm a lot of things but I try not to be inconsiderate.
Ok so the question is whether or not I now consider #2 voluntary? I think I answered that it was involuntary way back when since I assumed that you were literally forced to comply. In all fairness I think I need even more clarification. Do the mobsters run the neighborhood? Did I ask a favor of them in the past? Have the mobsters watched over my family for generations and generations when outside forces threatened to harm them? All of these questions need to be answered please before I can go further. What I can say for certain is this: If there are outstanding debts which are understood and explicitly stated warning that at some point in the future you may have to "pay up" then if you remain part of this establishment you can't cry it's involuntary when the piper shows up.

why do past actions make any difference as to whether an action i take NOW is voluntary or not?

I'm glad you finally asked. Because they are, in the examples in question, part of the same transaction which started when you first accepted the terms(to remain in establishment) and more importantly, accepted your past, present and future benefits of said transaction.
I don't see the argument that any of these things come out of the blue and slam into you. It's been implied from the get-go that you understand the conditions of all these exchanges so how could any but those where you are absolutely forced to do something be considered involuntary? I mean, when you get into a fistfight it's voluntary whether or not the other person started it or not right?

transaction? wtf? you've been reading too many BBS posts.

suppose i tell you today that i promise that i'll buy you a pony if i ever win the lottery. i win the lottery in 50 years, and old man FT comes up to me with a gun and demands his pony. i have no recollection of my pony promise. when i give you your pony because i fear being murdered... was it voluntary?

you're imposing your morality onto me by claiming that anything you deem a "fair outcome" is voluntary by definition, and anything you deem "unfair" is involuntary. totally ridiculous.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
john9blue wrote:yes and yes. do you consider actions done under duress to be involuntary? if so, at what point does the threat of physical contact become duress?

If I answered, then I would fall into the later trap of repeating myself, so here you go:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184805&start=45#p4039190

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184805&start=45#p4039205
(The Kid-Parent Exchange involves the most mild duress ITT, but I'll be consistent and call that coercion, thus an involuntary exchange. But we're talking about the government, not screaming kids, so that ambiguity--for which a case can be made--is irrelevant).

When you think of exchange involving coercion/made under duress, do you think of someone threatening to poke you in the belly button like the Pillsbury Dough Boy? Or do you think of someone waving a gun at you, demanding your money?
(physical contact != physical violence).

your posts have the same problem. you talk about initial exchanges and implicit rules and invisible contracts as if the definition of free will depends on some words that came out of our mouths long ago and whether those words are stored somewhere in our memory banks.

there is no clear division between implicit and explicit consent, or whether someone is in their "right mind" or not, or whether a rule is "formal" or "informal". it ALL depends on individual interpretation. you seem to be using legal terms without realizing that those terms have no absolute meaning and can only be loosely defined by a judge in a courtroom. you place more faith in the absolute, unwavering meaning of language than you really should, probably because it makes concepts like that easier for people to grasp.

...and after reading your second post, it appears that you do the same thing... arbitrarily defining a temper tantrum as physical violence... i wonder, what decibel level does the kid's whining have to reach for the exchange to be involuntary? :lol:

[1]
For issues that matter, e.g. exchanges with the government, then around this level:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a73_1254508478

Directly stand in front of one of those, and tell me if you think it hurt you.
(Did you agree to that? Did you sign a contract with the government do that to you?
(What about having a kid? Were you/gf raped or did you agree to have the child? Did you agree to dealing with kids? Again, having kids involves many ambiguities, but such concerns become significantly less relevant when we discuss the citizen and the government.)

[2]
I've already addressed the ambiguities, so you're not mentioning anything new here. The philosophical debate about free will is irrelevant. If you still believe this after reading the links I mentioned to you, then what do?

Regarding your other points, it doesn't seem that you've read and understood my definitions and examples of voluntary v. involuntary exchange, so here's your one chance: lay down you strongest contention against my position, and then I'll wholeheartedly address it--even if I have to repeat myself.

[3]
"it ALL depends on individual interpretation"
It really isn't as subjective as you think, but of course any crazy person can say, "The MOON is CHEESE cuz it ALL depends on individual interpretation."

Conquer Club

Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange

Re: Voluntary Exchange