So HOW can you justify entering armed into a room where I am (where being so armed is not explicitly permitted)? You are implicitly threatening me with mortal violence, and I have the right not to be threatened.
You already know the answer to this one, but I'll oblige the inaneness of it anyway. If you own the property and don't permit guests to be armed, the guest either agrees, disarms and enters, or doesn't and is denied entry. That isn't giving up ones rights, it's making a decision about the merits of relinquishing a weapon in exchange for entry. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a free choice, not a forced and involuntary one. Weapons regulation is different. It discriminates based on the characteristics and composition of the weapon alone and ignores the title and property rights of the owner. Completely different animals.
That's a load of crap. Boycotts don't work except where the market is close to the production line. Globalism and outsourcing ensures that any company now can abuse people in one jurisdiction while it's consumers on the other side of the world blissfully buy buy buy unawares - and a libertarian free market would facilitate that even more. People have been boycotting Nestle for at least 20 years now and it's still doing just fine. Look at all the bad publicity about sweatshops, child exploitation, people working with toxic chemicals to recycle computer components, genocide in the Congo to feed the cell-phone market... the list goes on and on and on. If people don't actually *live* the abuse, they don't give a shit. Boycotting a company is an irrational economic decision except where the cost-benefit analysis (and that's what we *all* do every time we buy something) indicates that not boycotting will incur greater future cost. This is not so where an abusive factory is far away from the buyer.
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only one that has an imagination around here. Sorry for the rant, but why is it so difficult to find another way but the forceful one? I know that justice is not a primary concern of yours, but I'd like to think there are merits to incorporating justice that are just worth it despite some of the kinks. Here's the thing about Nestle. You just made a point that they aren't changing there ways now; this is with
your government in place.
There will always be the underbelly of crime in whatever society you live, but that doesn't mean that the laws or the ideology are necessarily to blame. I could write laws all the day long, and if nobody cares to follow them, nothing I believe in will matter. No ideology at that point would make a difference. Humans have to act humanely first. Try teaching spiders to not cannibalize their own kind. It's impossible. Most governments are just another form of rights cannibalism.
