Police Tracking Your Every Move With License Plate Readers

[Becker]

How is exercising my natural right to move about freely, unreasonable?

because you've admitted you have no idea how the world works, and do not consider context, circumstances, you can't even bring up examples of where your ideals "work" all you are capable of doing is quoting outdated lines (older than the first license plate premise), when counterarguments are given to you, you ask "what does that have to do with it". Your ignorance is beyond laughable, you are why people don't take libertarians and Constitutionalists seriously.

 

[Becker]

Perhaps you should study logic; then you might understand the difference between a strawman argument, and an ad hominem argument.

Ok. So if saying "anybody who disagrees with you is a fascist" is a strawman argument, then you agree "not everybody who disagrees with you is a fascist" and therefore he should not have used that word to begin with. Are we on the same page?

 

[Becker]

So we're still under the Crown?

Just because we're not under the Crown doesn't mean DoI is law. But I guess both you and the Crown agree on something

 

[Becker]

False premise/ bare assertion fallacy

Nope, it's supported by FACTS, the FACT you cannot answer my questions whenever I ask you for an example, or when I ask how you'd manage to implement you system, is obvious that you do not know even how your own ideals can be carried in the real world (nevermind your ignorance to other foreign countries, which you admit you don't care about).

 

[Sola_Fide]

YAY, now we can play the Michael Moore tape. Sir, do you believe that according to the Constitution, you have a right to bear nucular missiles? Try to answer this without an if, and, or but.

Just a question for debate: if we do not have a right to nuclear bombs, why do corrupt politicians in agencies of government have rights to them? What is magical about passing from private life to the halls of government that gives you more "rights"?

 

[Paul Revered]

WOW, I am not surprised again. You don't know the details , just trust his word that he exercises his rights, get real will you?

I know the relevant details. He drives without an official plate. He does drive across state lines. He sometimes gets cited. He wins in court. If you can demonstrate how his failure to track and publish his mileage, demonstrates that he is not in fact exercising his inalienable rights; I look forward to reviewing your logical argument.

Good luck!

 

[Becker]

Just a question for debate: if we do not have a right to nuclear bombs, why do corrupt politicians in agencies of government have rights to them?

because governments are not held to the same standards as citizens.

What is magical about passing from private life to the halls of government that gives you more "rights"?

I actually love this argument most of the time, which is why I am not against bribing and corporatism. Thanks for helping.

 

[Paul Revered]

because you've admitted you have no idea how the world works,

No I didn't.

Strawman/ False Premise

You're just a treasure trove of logical fallacies. Are you intentionally trolling?

 

[Becker]

I know the relevant details. He drives without an official plate. He does drive across state lines.

Ok, good start, thanks.

He drives with an unofficial plate? Is his vehicle registered? Can he prove he owns it other than possession? (I'd love to know if he cannot)
What states and what streets I wonder?

He sometimes gets cited. He wins in court.

can you show me an example of a winning case? is there a good article of video?

If you can demonstrate how his failure to track and publish his mileage, demonstrates that he is not in fact exercising his inalienable rights;

I said nothing about mileage, so please don't change the subject.

I look forward to reviewing your logical argument.

Good luck!

only after I get all the full story, please stay with me, thanks.

 

[Becker]

I could care less about what goes on in other tyrannical countries.
What exactly does industrialism have to do with natural rights?

you admit your ignorance and refusal to consider context of the modern world.

 

[Sola_Fide]

because governments are not held to the same standards as citizens.


I actually love this argument most of the time, which is why I am not against bribing and corporatism. Thanks for helping.

Oh, you're a statist. Didn't know that.

 

[Paul Revered]

Ok. So if saying "anybody who disagrees with you is a fascist" is a strawman argument, then you agree "not everybody who disagrees with you is a fascist" and therefore he should not have used that word to begin with. Are we on the same page?

He/She said your post was Fascist. I agree with Him/Her; but I did not respond to Him/Her. I responded to your response to Him/Her.

I responded to your fallacious comment. There seems to be a pattern here.

 

[Paul Revered]

because governments are not held to the same standards as citizens.

In a Republic, the Government and the People are held accountable to the law.

A de facto government operates outside of the law.

 

[Becker]

In a Republic, the Government and the People are held accountable to the law.

A de facto government operates outside of the law.

fair enough. And the law states government has a right to use superior force for defense of the nation, while citizens are not explicitly given the same firepower.

 

[Becker]

He/She said your post was Fascist. I agree with Him/Her; but I did not respond to Him/Her. I responded to your response to Him/Her.

I responded to your fallacious comment. There seems to be a pattern here.

Ok. So let me rephrase, you have no problem calling my post fascist, and is it simply because I disagree with you?
Is my post allowed to disagree with you without being called fascist?

 

[Becker]

Oh, you're a statist. Didn't know that.

if the alternative to anarchist, then yes.

 

[talkingpointes]

if the alternative to anarchist, then yes.

After reading 5 pages of your responses and "logical arguements", I would have to say. Do you realize your championing a man that ultimately wants to do away with regulation and these things you hold oh so dear?

 

[Becker]

After reading 5 pages of your responses and "logical arguements", I would have to say. Do you realize your championing a man that ultimately wants to do away with regulation and these things you hold oh so dear?

yes. I know he wants that.

 

[ZanZibar]

NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION, is there one?

Give me ONE great country that respect natural rights but is also industrial enough for you to want to live there.

Just because no one does it doesn't mean it's not possible or that it's morally or legally correct. The idea that every government on the globe happens to be wrong is likely. Slavery was indeed legal for centuries, but that didn't make it moral now did it?

Just because every government mandates permission to travel doesn't make it right or in accordance with freedom or the natural law.

I prefer industrial life with safety regulations because those stupid "natural rights" mean nothing if I have to give up this lifestyle.

I am smelling a troll heh. But to answer your point, then if you do, feel free to move to a nation that suits your needs and stop taking my liberties.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

LMAO, that's the problem, you don't think it has to do with it.

You ignore the fact that industrialism demands regulations to maintain safety and civility. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION, is there one?

Give me ONE great country that respect natural rights but is also industrial enough for you to want to live there. I prefer industrial life with safety regulations because those stupid "natural rights" mean nothing if I have to give up this lifestyle.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Ben Franklin