Lol, the comment about majority precludes mention about the exception case you cited. So, yeah, I get that that 1 guy is an exception.
Secondly, it is absolutely forced association strictly BECAUSE of the forced sharing of public property. That's kinda my whole point. I don't believe in public property but because it is forced upon me I have to care about my associations due to it.
It's easy to see the forced disassociation but not the forced association to you? Read my bio, I am an anarchist not some statist but I can also recognize inconsistencies in morals.
Replies (2)
OK sure, but the problem is more the existence of public property producing the "tragedy of the commons" issue.... Everyone's experience with this is different, but from my point of view living in a major US urban area, the problems of homelessness are much more pronounced than that of immigration....
And I think there is data to bear out the conclusion that homeless people are far greater consumers of public services and "disrupters" of public life (in whatever context you're referring to be "forced association") than immigrants.
That's not my argument. I'm not a utilitarian. Both things are bad. I agree that public property is a problem. The point I am making is one of force. If I am to be forced to either interact or not interact with anyone by a government. I would rather not interact because I can live my life free of interlopers.
