Jardine,
"There's no such thing as a right to attack and rape people, remember? Idiot?"
There's no need to state the obvious, or to add a description of yourself.
The rights I was thinking of are those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
You seem to want to take the concept of property rights much further than the UDHR does, even though doing so would make it impossible to protect a lot of those other rights.

I made my position on violence clear on the posting dated Monday, 3 November 2014 2:56:26 PM. That posting does not contradict itself, despite your claims to the contrary.

"The question is when [police]'re NOT using it for self-defence or the defence of others.
Are they justified in electrocuting or shooting people to force them to submit and obey?"
If you're asking whether they ARE justified, that depends on what the law is.
If you're asking whether I think the law SHOULD allow it, the answer is NO.

Is that clear enough for you?
Cops sometimes do need to defend themselves while they're enforcing the law, and you know it.

As for "childish intellectual dishonesty and moral idiocy", I think that could be applied to your likening of legislation to threats of rape.

Do you really regard the Howard government's gun control legislation as increasing the total amount of violence in Australia? (Even though it actually had the opposite effect!)

Do you really think anarchy is the situation with the least violence?

Dear Aidan,

<<Do you really think anarchy is the situation with the least violence?>>

Perhaps so, perhaps not, but in anarchy, no violence is conducted by the government IN MY NAME.

It is not within my ability to prevent all violence from occurring that is perpetrated by others, but it is within my duty to resist any violence that occurs in my name, presumably on my behalf, which is what governments do.

Aidan
Your entire argument comes down to the proposition that, as concerns our differences, both funding and compliance with government is VOLUNTARY when you know perfectly well it isn't, and you know that the state's definition of what is reasonable or excessive force assumes that the subject has no right other than to submit and obey, while you disclaim that assumption.

No-one can be as dumb as you are pretending to be. You're lying.

You are only demonstrating the mental childishness that lies at the root of all socialism: the idea that somehow, there must be a big teat out there somewhere that you can suck on.

Sexual partners and friends and socks are arranged by what you're calling "anarchy", you clown. I suppose they should be provided by a big Government Department of Sexual and Social Relations, or a Government Department of Footwear? Idiot.

Jardine –

No, our differences are down to the fact that you're taking theoretical principles to absurd extremes, but failing to acknowledge the absurdity of your argument. You seem to be of the opinion that all duty is slavery, all taxation is theft, etc. You've made some incredibly dumb claims that would, if true, mean that anarchy is the situation with the least violence. And then YOU accuse ME of being, or pretending to be, dumb!

You accuse me of lying on the basis that you think my argument is dumb. But as
• you've made claims that are many orders of magnitude dumber and
• you've failed to point out any objective flaw in my arguments
...I think the most reasonable conclusion is that your opinion that my argument is dumb is actually an artefact of your own stupidity.

Your claim that "Sexual partners and friends and socks are arranged by what you're calling 'anarchy'" shows you've shifted the goalposts several kilometres outside the stadium! What I'm calling anarchy isn't just "governments not interfering" but rather I ACTUALLY mean anarchy, which is defined by Apple's dictionary as:
1 a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems: he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy.
2 absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
...So as long as laws against rape exist and are enforced, there is NOT anarchy regarding sexual partners.

As for your big teat, that's a complete non sequiter that you've based on your stereotype of socialists rather than anything I've actually said.

Outrider,
There's not really any need to read the book. Watching the film should be sufficient.

Jardine,
The term "left wing" is even more confused than "right wing". There's lots of different kinds of socialists, and lots of different kinds of communists. And most liberals are on the left (which I admit can be a bit confusing, as the Liberal Party in Australia is opposed to Liberalism).

BTW I'm not sure which Acton you were referring to, but Mises was a neoliberal not a classical liberal.

Aidan

You argue that paying tax and complying with law is voluntary. You are lying.

You argue that the state will not enforce obedience and submission. You are lying.

You argue that the state stops using aggressive force at some imaginary limit called what's "reasonable" or "excessive". You are lying.

You argue the use of violence to force people to submit and obey; the state in defining what's reasonable or excessive, doesn't.

You accuse me of being "extreme" but you won't renounce it at any stage!

So you're factually, legally, logically, and morally wrong. It's as simple as that.

Your ENTIRE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY comes down to threatening to attack, cage, shoot and rape people.

Its not me who's being "extreme" for pointing it out.

It's you for
a) supporting and advocating it in the first place, and the
b) squirming and evading and lying and projecting and question-begging when confronted with what you are doing.

Thus we have established that you have NO ETHICAL BASIS WHATSOEVER for your fake theory that rights are based in threatening to shoot, cage and rape people. Don't try to squirm out of it. You're lying. You do support it.

And you have no rational basis for your ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED RELIGIOUS FAITH THAT GOVERNMENT IS MORE ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT AT ANYTHING.

All you're doing is endlessly repeating your irrational belief system,and trying to personalise the argument to me when you're proved flatly incorrect.

"There's lots of different kinds of socialists"
All political socialists have in common with you the advocacy of aggressive violence, as the basis of their entire philosophy, otherwise they'd renounce violence and support voluntary transactions and they'd be libertarians. You're just confused.