Pelican
Spare me your dishonest misrepresentations (I supposedly can't accept one can marry for love). Talk about desperate.

Let me ask you this. You're in favour of policy to enforce child support, right? Even against someone who never explicitly agreed to pay it, right?

If the police go to arrest someone for not paying child support he never consented to pay, and that person refuses to go, do you think there is any limit to the violence they should be able to visit on him?

They ask him. He refuses because he disagrees with your assumption that he is a kind of chattel to be exploited as a money object to pay for women's sexual and reproductive choices; or for whatever reason.

They physically seize him but he doesn't accept your slave philosophy remember, so he pulls away. Is it okay for them to use more force? Or do you accept that violence is immoral, even for you? It's okay for him to go free at this stage, right?

No? They go to handcuff him. He defends himself against their initiation of aggression which if done by anyone else would be a serious crime. Should they be able to tazer him? Or let him go free? "No way!", right? You think they should tazer him, don't you? Or just shoot him? Or let him go free?

If he defends against their aggression with a like amount of force? Suppose he answers their gunpoint with his gunpoint? Should they shoot him dead? Or let him go free?

How much violence is too much for you before you renounce it as a means to making people obey you?

BTW, what policy are you in favour of that is NOT enforced?

Perhaps you honestly haven’t thought about the ethics of using aggressive violence which is the basis of all the policies you advocate. Please think about it now.

If he continues to insist on his freedom, isn't it true that you think he should be shot dead, rather than be free?

Pelican
You're in favour of policy to enforce child support, right? Even against someone who never explicitly agreed to pay it, right?