>>85
You're like a child. Can't you participate in a discussion without throwing a hissy fit?.
>>84 couldn't possibly have meant that "people should be able to do whatever they want" is the end of it.
Consider 2 people, E and O, E is good at finding solutions, O is good at looking for problems. Every time E presents a premise, O looks for problems with E's premises and problems that still exist.
E = PrEmise, O = PrOblem
E1: People should be able to do whatever they want.
O1: They might harm people.
E2: They should be able to do whatever they want except harm people and their property.
O2: Sometimes harming people is necessary to prevent them from harming others. Some people do not have enough property to prevent harm to themselves which can be prevented, such as poverty. The definition of harm is ambiguous and could be used to abuse the law.
This is the level we're at, retard. Not E1.
Shall we start here or do you want to beat down more strawmen?