[Cultural Jihad]

I have no problem with the non-initiation principle, just with your narrow definitions of fraud and force, and the exclusion of self from the protection against same.

[MadameAxe]

your narrow definitions of fraud and force

Our narrow definitions? According to Webster's:

Main Entry: fraud
Pronunciation: 'frod
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Middle French, from Latin fraud-, fraus
Date: 14th century
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE

---

And from force's main entry...
3 : violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing

These work for me. What is it that you disagree with?

...the exclusion of self from the protection against same.

Government is not our parent, as much as its promoters would like us to believe and act as if it is. It is an abstract entity composed of individuals. It is just as wrong for the government to initiate force against a citizen as it is for a citizen to initiate force against another citizen.

[FreeTally]

CJ to MadameAxe - I have no problem with the non-initiation principle, just with your narrow definitions of fraud and force,

Roscoe to CJ - Criticism of their nonsense would constitute an "initiation of force." Goodbye freedom of speech.

I find this quite humorous!! CJ tends to think the definition of force and fraud is "too narrow", yet roscoe thinks the definition is so broad that dissenting speech is an initiation of force! So basically, this makes it quite clear(not that it wasn't before) that neither of them have a clue about what they are talking about.