Thread Rating:

rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 24th, 2015 at 9:21:05 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

This argument is stupid. Going with this all laws are holding a gun to your head. If you want you are free to move to another country without these laws. Or even easier if you don't want to bake a cake for gay people don't become a baker. No gay people are going to bash down the door to your house and force you to bake a cake. You chose to form a business so you follow business laws.

Here's a thing I don't want to kill people or harm people if it can be prevented. For this reason I did not enlist in the military where I may be forced to do such a thing. This meant I lost out on a lot of the benefits of being in the military like great insurance plan, a pension after 20 years, and all things of that nature. This choice was the only logical choice because I am morally opposed to most of the modern wars. Quakers go even further and many find it morally reprehensible to monetarily support a war so they take jobs at a low enough pay that they pay no federal income taxes so none of their money goes to war. I am not willing to make this sacrifice but thankfully my morality does not require it of me. You notice I didn't demand to get a GI bill and combat pay while refusing to serve in the military just like the Quaker did not demand to not pay taxes after they earned a specific amount of money. This is because people with actual convictions are willing to make sacrifices not complain that they don't get to have their cake and eat it to. Also yes I know me not being in the military is not a real sacrifice but neither is not being able to be a baker. There are plenty of other companies where you will probably never be forced to do anything for a gay wedding if gay weddings are such an affront to your religion open one of those.



This is not a stupid argument. It's extremely important to realize exactly what happens when you advocate for the government to do something. If you don't think it's okay for you to hold a gun to someone's head to force them to do something you want you shouldnt think its okay having a third party (the government) doing it instead. Every law is backed by a gun. There may be some steps in the way to obscure that fact but it's still there. Like let's say there's a law forcing someone to sell a cake to someone he doesn't want to, first he might get fined for refusing to sell the person the cake, next he might get locked in a cage for refusing to pay that fine, and finally he could get shot for refusing to be thrown in a cage.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 24th, 2015 at 9:30:29 PM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

This is not a stupid argument. It's extremely important to realize exactly what happens when you advocate for the government to do something. If you don't think it's okay for you to hold a gun to someone's head to force them to do something you want you shouldnt think its okay having a third party (the government) doing it instead. Every law is backed by a gun. There may be some steps in the way to obscure that fact but it's still there. Like let's say there's a law forcing someone to sell a cake to someone he doesn't want to, first he might get fined for refusing to sell the person the cake, next he might get locked in a cage for refusing to pay that fine, and finally he could get shot for refusing to be thrown in a cage.



Had the troubles in the South been about black owned businesses refusing to serve whites, I would have supported the government's gun in that respect just as I do in blacks being refused service and the government's gun at white owned businesses which is the way it happened to be.

No problem at all.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
April 24th, 2015 at 9:37:37 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

The very definition of UNEQUAL treatment under the law. Someone has a problem with applying the 14th Amendment.



I don't think your cunning attack against me worked like you thought it should. In my post I specifically said polygamy should be made legal if all the complications with contract law were worked out.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 24th, 2015 at 9:39:51 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Had the troubles in the South been about black owned businesses refusing to serve whites, I would have supported the government's gun in that respect just as I do in blacks being refused service and the government's gun at white owned businesses which is the way it happened to be.

No problem at all.



I think it's wrong of you to want to violently force your beliefs onto others however im glad you at least realize it's the government gun forcing these beliefs.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 24th, 2015 at 9:43:51 PM permalink
Anytime any of you find yourself saying "there ought to be a law...", realize what you are really saying is "I think my belief on this issue should be violently forced onto others".
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
April 24th, 2015 at 9:45:04 PM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

This is not a stupid argument. It's extremely important to realize exactly what happens when you advocate for the government to do something. If you don't think it's okay for you to hold a gun to someone's head to force them to do something you want you shouldnt think its okay having a third party (the government) doing it instead. Every law is backed by a gun. There may be some steps in the way to obscure that fact but it's still there. Like let's say there's a law forcing someone to sell a cake to someone he doesn't want to, first he might get fined for refusing to sell the person the cake, next he might get locked in a cage for refusing to pay that fine, and finally he could get shot for refusing to be thrown in a cage.



You live in a society and as such you have to follow laws if you want to say its holding a gun to someones head I don't care. As I said though it is stupid for more then just the analogy. You are free not to bake a cake for a gay couple as long as you are not a baker. You don't get to conscientious object to things and still gain all the benefits. conscientious objectors during the draft were forced to do non-combat related activities some of them very dangerous. You are free to not pay taxes supporting things you are against by not earning enough to pay taxes.

Laws are a necessary part of society. The government has to have the ability to enforce these laws.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
April 24th, 2015 at 9:50:41 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

I don't think your cunning attack against me worked like you thought it should. In my post I specifically said polygamy should be made legal if all the complications with contract law were worked out.

None of which cannot be dealt with through elementary techniques like living wills, health care proxies and pre-nuptial agreements, all quite frequent in heterosexual marriages these days.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
April 24th, 2015 at 9:50:45 PM permalink
[deleted]
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
April 24th, 2015 at 9:53:42 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

None of which cannot be dealt with through elementary techniques like living wills, health care proxies and pre-nuptial agreements, all quite frequent in heterosexual marriages these days.



That would be one way of dealing with it. Though you'd probably want to roll it into marriage since as of right now there is no legal requirement to have a living will, health care proxy, or pre-nup to get married. You could require those for marriage and then allow polygamist marriage. Again though you didn't point me out as a hypocrite since I said these should be made legal just that it is more complex then legalizing gay marriage.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
April 24th, 2015 at 9:58:10 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

That would be one way of dealing with it. Though you'd probably want to roll it into marriage since as of right now there is no legal requirement to have a living will, health care proxy, or pre-nup to get married. You could require those for marriage and then allow polygamist marriage. Again though you didn't point me out as a hypocrite since I said these should be made legal just that it is more complex then legalizing gay marriage.

As far as contractual arrangements for matrimony -- and an ironclad one at that -- consider the ketubah for Jewish couples. The wife cannot divorce without the husband's consent.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 24th, 2015 at 9:58:42 PM permalink
Polygamy is just another potentially bad marriage. What's new? Isn't there about 50 percent chance of bad ones sooner later in all the regular ones.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 24th, 2015 at 10:00:45 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

You live in a society and as such you have to follow laws if you want to say its holding a gun to someones head I don't care. As I said though it is stupid for more then just the analogy. You are free not to bake a cake for a gay couple as long as you are not a baker. You don't get to conscientious object to things and still gain all the benefits. conscientious objectors during the draft were forced to do non-combat related activities some of them very dangerous. You are free to not pay taxes supporting things you are against by not earning enough to pay taxes.

Laws are a necessary part of society. The government has to have the ability to enforce these laws.



Why do I have to follow the laws? Are laws necessary for a society to function? If yes why are they necessary? Why does it matter if you are or not a baker? Why should bakers not be free to do as they please while non-bakers should be free to do as they please? Why should people be forced to give their labor to the military whether in a combative or non-combative role? Why should you be free to not pay taxes for earning less than some arbitrary amount but not be free to pay taxes for earning more than some arbitrary amount? Why are laws a necessary part of society? Can you answer any of these questions or do you just blindly accept that this is the way it is so that is the way it should remain?
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
April 24th, 2015 at 10:08:05 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

As far as contractual arrangements for matrimony -- and an ironclad one at that -- consider the ketubah for Jewish couples. The wife cannot divorce without the husband's consent.



That would be a horrible idea and would leave a significant number of problems. I mean if a husband beat or repeatedly raped a wife well best suck it up no divorce for you. This often leads to some odd and extreme methods to get around it. Second how does it solve any of the issues. It doesn't declare who will make end of life decisions.
Gandler
Gandler
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1795
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
April 25th, 2015 at 12:31:23 AM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

Why do I have to follow the laws? Are laws necessary for a society to function? If yes why are they necessary? Why does it matter if you are or not a baker? Why should bakers not be free to do as they please while non-bakers should be free to do as they please? Why should people be forced to give their labor to the military whether in a combative or non-combative role? Why should you be free to not pay taxes for earning less than some arbitrary amount but not be free to pay taxes for earning more than some arbitrary amount? Why are laws a necessary part of society? Can you answer any of these questions or do you just blindly accept that this is the way it is so that is the way it should remain?



Because laws are the basis and definiton which holds society together and forms a strong sense of nationalism and bond of citizens.

If you don't like the laws in a particular country then move to another. Unless you live in North Korea or China, you can pretty easily leave your country if you are dissatisfied with the system it uses.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 12:41:57 AM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Because laws are the basis and definiton which holds society together and forms a strong sense of nationalism and bond of citizens.

If you don't like the laws in a particular country then move to another. Unless you live in North Korea or China, you can pretty easily leave your country if you are dissatisfied with the system it uses.



Why are laws the basis and definition of what holds society together? Is nationalism a good thing? If so why?
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 1:19:28 AM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

Why do I have to follow the laws? Are laws necessary for a society to function? If yes why are they necessary? Why does it matter if you are or not a baker? Why should bakers not be free to do as they please while non-bakers should be free to do as they please? Why should people be forced to give their labor to the military whether in a combative or non-combative role? Why should you be free to not pay taxes for earning less than some arbitrary amount but not be free to pay taxes for earning more than some arbitrary amount? Why are laws a necessary part of society? Can you answer any of these questions or do you just blindly accept that this is the way it is so that is the way it should remain?



Not that it would happen, but were you able to visit 3 or 4 different alien planets would you just declare yourself certain rights regardless of what they set up before you got there?

I really don't see it any different on our planet Earth. People were here before you and they already established something and a way of doing things.

If you don't want to abide it, doesn't mean you can ignore it, just because you arrived.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 1:36:18 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Not that it would happen, but were you able to visit 3 or 4 different alien planets would you just declare yourself certain rights regardless of what they set up before you got there?

I really don't see it any different on our planet Earth. People were here before you and they already established something and a way of doing things.

If you don't want to abide it, doesn't mean you can ignore it, just because you arrived.



Of course. Rights are inalienable (pun intended).

Just because something is currently the way it is doesn't make it right. Like slavery for example. People in this country thought the abolitionists were crazy. Society cant function without the slaves. Who else would pick the cotton?

The problem is not enough people ignore it yet. But that number is growing larger everyday. No one has the right to initiate violence on another or their property. Calling yourself government does not exempt yourself from this.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 1:50:47 AM permalink
But how do you know there isn't an inalienable right of establishing domain in an area. If someone has already declared an area theirs and developed it, why do you think your right to live how you want trumps theirs?

I guess that's what I don't get. People in the U.S. for instance developed the area, and established rules.

Had they not established, developed, surveyed it, and partitioned it, maybe there is some room for your establishment. But otherwise, I think it's a possible right you are denying.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 1:59:25 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

But how do you know there isn't an inalienable right of establishing domain in an area. If someone has already declared an area theirs and developed it, why do you think your right to live how you want trumps theirs?

I guess that's what I don't get. People in the U.S. for instance developed the area, and established rules.

Had they not established, developed, surveyed it, and partitioned it, maybe there is some room for your establishment. But otherwise, I think it's a possible right you are denying.



Theft is not a valid ownership claim. In terms of government that can refer to conquest.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 2:05:57 AM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

Theft is not a valid ownership claim. In terms of government that can refer to conquest.



Well, I was about to write a caveat about the establishment of the U.S.

Let's say some people find an uninhabited island and develop it. They lay down roads, and wells, and basically develop the island including nature parks. The people agree to a structure of government.

To me they have rights that you being born or arriving there do not automatically acquire. Perhaps you have the right to breathe and eat, but what beyond that I'm not sure, nor agree that you are free to ignore.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
rainman
rainman
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1860
Joined: Mar 28, 2012
April 25th, 2015 at 2:06:15 AM permalink
rude are you a sovereign?

If no laws exist and no government to create and enforce laws, what stops rainman from being a bad boy?

E.g. I don't like my neighbor he is a meek man and annoys me. One day I mosey on over beat him to a
pulp and take all his cash.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 2:21:35 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Well, I was about to write a caveat about the establishment of the U.S.

Let's say some people find an uninhabited island and develop it. They lay down roads, and wells, and basically develop the island including nature parks. The people agree to a structure of government.

To me they have rights that you being born or arriving there do not automatically acquire. Perhaps you have the right to breathe and eat, but what beyond that I'm not sure, nor agree that you are free to ignore.



This is pretty interesting to think about. I havent had this argument before. Kind of gives support to anarcho-communism over anarcho-capitalism.

Ill start with these questions. Who does this land now belong to? The people that built it or the government?

Edit: Okay I've been thinking about this some and how it impacts property rights. If the land was voluntarily given to this government then it belongs to all to do with as they please. If the land was forcefully taken by this government then it belongs to the original owner. Now where the support for anarcho-communism comes in is if anarcho-capitalism leads to the extreme of if everyone who owns land doesn't want anyone else to come onto their land. But this assumption is faulty because it assumes that everyone is going to be unwilling to sell or rent their land to any others. Now you could argue that the owners of the land could charge an amount of rent that's so large those living on the land are serfs merely trading their labor to be able to live on the land without the ability to save. This is also a faulty argument since it's assuming competition between different landowners won't keep prices of rent low. It also assumes those renting won't be able to pool their resources together in order to afford rent or pool their resources together to purchase land from someone else.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 2:22:45 AM permalink
Quote: rainman

rude are you a sovereign?

If no laws exist and no government to create and enforce laws, what stops rainman from being a bad boy?

E.g. I don't like my neighbor he is a meek man and annoys me. One day I mosey on over beat him to a
pulp and take all his cash.



What's stopping you from moseying over there now?
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
April 25th, 2015 at 4:42:26 AM permalink
Quote: terapined

If a business accepts the use of the infracture provided by everybody's tax dollars including gays.
They must serve everybody. Gays pay taxes that contribute to roads, bridges, police , fire station ect.
If a business uses this infrastructure partly paid by gays and me, they must serve gays.
open a business not using any part of the infrastructure paid partly by gays, well then , that business can run it any way they want.




So because the business owner didn't build the business, someone else did, that means he or she can have their right of free association taken away under the threat of violence?

Quote: Gandler



If you don't like the laws in a particular country then move to another. Unless you live in North Korea or China, you can pretty easily leave your country if you are dissatisfied with the system it uses.



Funny, nobody told gays to leave the USA when they did not like the marriage laws. Nor do they even say move to another state when a state defines marriage as man/woman.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Dalex64
Dalex64
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
April 25th, 2015 at 4:50:19 AM permalink
Replace "leave the country" with "change the laws"
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 6092
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
April 25th, 2015 at 8:52:01 AM permalink
Quote: terapined


If a business accepts the use of the infrastructure provided by everybody's tax dollars including gays.
They must serve everybody. Gays pay taxes that contribute to roads, bridges, police , fire station ect.
If a business uses this infrastructure partly paid by gays and me, they must serve gays.
open a business not using any part of the infrastructure paid partly by gays, well then , that business can run it any way they want.




Quote: AZDuffman

So because the business owner didn't build the business, someone else did, that means he or she can have their right of free association taken away under the threat of violence?



Huh?
All I am saying is a business that uses the infrastructure(roads, police, fire ect) supported by taxes paid in part by gays, you have to serve gays.

I kind of get your whole argument of total freedom to deny services. Its a world most people (including me ) don't want to live in so it will never happen. Its kind of a fantasy world for intellectual conservatives.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
April 25th, 2015 at 9:06:32 AM permalink
Quote: terapined

Huh?
All I am saying is a business that uses the infrastructure(roads, police, fire ect) supported by taxes paid in part by gays, you have to serve gays.



It is a silly argument because the business pays its fair share of taxes. "Infrastructure" does not "support" businesses. A business is supported by an owner who risks his capital and puts in his sweat to make it run.

Quote:

I kind of get your whole argument of total freedom to deny services. Its a world most people (including me ) don't want to live in so it will never happen. Its kind of a fantasy world for intellectual conservatives.



So you would be happy in a world where you would not have a choice as to who you work for? Because that is what you are saying whether you realize it or not. I don't want to live in a world where I have to provide my service to whomever asks. I prefer the ability to fire both vendors AND clients.

I will give an example again. I deal casino games at parties. I decline one gig in particular because I hate working it as it is too loud and rowdy. In your world I "must" provide my services. No thanks. If someone does not want my business I find someone who does. It is called FREEDOM.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 9:09:16 AM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

That would be a horrible idea and would leave a significant number of problems. I mean if a husband beat or repeatedly raped a wife well best suck it up no divorce for you. This often leads to some odd and extreme methods to get around it. Second how does it solve any of the issues. It doesn't declare who will make end of life decisions.

In most of Judaism, no such "decisions" are made. In case of other disputes, local extralegal courts, usually called Vaads, sit in judgment.
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6483
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
April 25th, 2015 at 9:32:35 AM permalink
So.... How about that 2016 election, eh?
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 10:25:40 AM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

What's stopping you from moseying over there now?



I think the problem with the stateless and police-less society is not the simple action like you suggest here is not the one taken. Crime will exist, and in this instance it would be more likely be some outsider is hired to go over in the middle of the night and kill and rob the neighbor in an agreement with the instigator who can provide the details of the vulnerabilities of his neighbor. If people do crimes and actions directly against each other you have fewer problems enforcing order. But things won't be that simple.

The state or police always loom for the crimes unknown, but not sure what your civilization offers. If nobody knows what happened to someone it's likely in your society no worries for people who do that stuff, there's no process for ever catching up with them. No one is really safe, unless they sleep with one eye open. It's like a camp of bums. You can get killed while you sleep by persons unknown. But I suppose that is the definition of freedom from the state.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 10:44:44 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I think the problem with the stateless and police-less society is not the simple action like you suggest here is not the one taken. Crime will exist, and in this instance it would be more likely be some outsider is hired to go over in the middle of the night and kill and rob the neighbor in an agreement with the instigator who can provide the details of the vulnerabilities of his neighbor. If people do crimes and actions directly against each other you have fewer problems enforcing order. But things won't be that simple.

The state or police always loom for the crimes unknown, but not sure what your civilization offers. If nobody knows what happened to someone it's likely in your society no worries for people who do that stuff, there's no process for ever catching up with them. No one is really safe, unless they sleep with one eye open. It's like a camp of bums. You can get killed while you sleep by persons unknown. But I suppose that is the definition of freedom from the state.



Police have no obligation to protect you. There have been numerous supreme court decisions supporting this. Warren vs district of Columbia is one notable example. Even if police decide to help you their average response time is 10minutes. The crime has already occured. Only you and those in close proximity to you can protect yourself. Criminals are well aware of this response time. It's a false sense of security that police can protect you. This facade needs to be shattered. It leads to such beliefs like gun control. Well the police are here to protect us so we don't need guns. With or without the state there will always be criminals. Without the state though we wouldn't have this guaranteed gang of thugs going around extorting people for money and throwing people in cages for non-criminal acts such as speeding and smoking weed. With the state gone this false sense of security will also be gone so people will realize the truth of the matter that only they can protect themselves.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 11:01:30 AM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

Police have no obligation to protect you. There have been numerous supreme court decisions supporting this. Warren vs district of Columbia is one notable example. Even if police decide to help you their average response time is 10minutes. The crime has already occured. Only you and those in close proximity to you can protect yourself. Criminals are well aware of this response time. It's a false sense of security that police can protect you. This facade needs to be shattered. It leads to such beliefs like gun control. Well the police are here to protect us so we don't need guns. With or without the state there will always be criminals. Without the state though we wouldn't have this guaranteed gang of thugs going around extorting people for money and throwing people in cages for non-criminal acts such as speeding and smoking weed. With the state gone this false sense of security will also be gone so people will realize the truth of the matter that only they can protect themselves.



No immediate protection is not the problem. The problem is there is nothing to pursue people who do the crime and get away.

The includes everything from simple theft to property crimes and murder.

Who do I report a crime to if I was unable to prevent it? Who is following up? Who arrests a murderer years later, or even looks at a report since there won't be one?
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Gabes22
Gabes22
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 1427
Joined: Jul 19, 2011
April 25th, 2015 at 11:17:28 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

No immediate protection is not the problem. The problem is there is nothing to pursue people who do the crime and get away.

The includes everything from simple theft to property crimes and murder.

Who do I report a crime to if I was unable to prevent it? Who is following up? Who arrests a murderer years later, or even looks at a report since there won't be one?



This is a great question. Last summer the catalytic converter was sawed off of the bottom of my vehicle. I went to report this to the Chicago PD and basically got laughed out of the room
A flute with no holes is not a flute, a donut with no holes is a danish
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 11:21:10 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

No immediate protection is not the problem. The problem is there is nothing to pursue people who do the crime and get away.

The includes everything from simple theft to property crimes and murder.

Who do I report a crime to if I was unable to prevent it? Who is following up? Who arrests a murderer years later, or even looks at a report since there won't be one?



Immediate protection is absolutely the problem. A criminal will be less likely to commit a crime if he realizes the person he wants to commit a crime against is likely to be able to defend themselves or those in close proximity to them (such as neighbors) will defend them. Many actual crimes go unsolved and are not pursued such as rape as an example. There's a backlog of hundreds of thousands of rape kits in this country. It doesn't pay for police to catch rapists. They rather issue tickets for traffic violations or arrest people for using drugs because it's easy and profitable.
Dalex64
Dalex64
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
April 25th, 2015 at 11:46:44 AM permalink
So obviously the solution is to go to the "everybody fends for themselves" system.

Sounds like horse medicine. Horse has a problem? Shoot horse.

The system you are advocating sounds like how street gangs in Los Angeles are handling things.
Gandler
Gandler
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1795
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
April 25th, 2015 at 11:50:21 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman





Funny, nobody told gays to leave the USA when they did not like the marriage laws. Nor do they even say move to another state when a state defines marriage as man/woman.



Well I have said in other posts leave the country or work to improve it (to be fair, yes I forgot that part in my last post).

Destroying the Secular Constitutional Republic system of this country is completely eliminating our form of government.

Me proposing modern improvements for social policy in America and our allied countries is not equivalent to you wanting to create an anarchist globe. I want to minor tweak select aspects of certain social policies. You (or at least your movement/ ideology that you proclaim to be a part of) wants to eliminate all governments across the globe. Its not even comparable, its a completely false equivalency.
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
April 25th, 2015 at 11:58:35 AM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Well I have said in other posts leave the country or work to improve it (to be fair, yes I forgot that part in my last post).

Destroying the Secular Constitutional Republic system of this country is completely eliminating our form of government.

Me proposing modern improvements for social policy in America and our allied countries is not equivalent to you wanting to create an anarchist globe. I want to minor tweak select aspects of certain social policies. You (or at least your movement/ ideology that you proclaim to be a part of) wants to eliminate all governments across the globe. Its not even comparable, its a completely false equivalency.



Exactly there is a big difference between I don't agree with this law I think it should be changed and working to change it compared to I don't believe laws should exist at all.

The first one we have a frank and honest discussion about how this law fits into the constitution how previous laws fit in. We have debates on the right thing to do and we can have votes. The second is a non starter. It would be utterly inconceivable to imagine a way to go through the standard channels we have completely eliminate all laws and I don't think you could get but a very very fringe group saying we should. In their case the best and only option really is to find an area that does not have laws and establish themselves there.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 12:03:05 PM permalink
Quote: Dalex64

So obviously the solution is to go to the "everybody fends for themselves" system.

Sounds like horse medicine. Horse has a problem? Shoot horse.

The system you are advocating sounds like how street gangs in Los Angeles are handling things.



Your beloved government created those very gangs. Drugs are cheap. Only thing that makes them expensive is prohibition.
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
April 25th, 2015 at 12:06:34 PM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

Your beloved government created those very gangs. Drugs are cheap. Only thing that makes them expensive is prohibition.



Gangs existed long before government existed. Yes the current gangs in Los Angeles have a lot to do with the drug laws but don't pretend there wouldn't be gangs if the drug laws or even all the laws were abolished.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 12:07:42 PM permalink
Quote: Dalex64

The system you are advocating sounds like how street gangs in Los Angeles are handling things.

There is not much evidence that law enforcement or other pompous officials in that forsaken city have made much, if any, progress in dealing with the ever-growing and ever-out-of-control gang problem.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
April 25th, 2015 at 12:11:40 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

Exactly there is a big difference between I don't agree with this law I think it should be changed and working to change it compared to I don't believe laws should exist at all.



Nobody is saying that there should be "no laws." However, laws should be minimized. You probably committed two felonies today. You will again tomorrow.

We need to repeal as many laws as possible. First to go need to be laws that do not have a victim.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Gandler
Gandler
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1795
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
April 25th, 2015 at 12:15:28 PM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

Your beloved government created those very gangs. Drugs are cheap. Only thing that makes them expensive is prohibition.



Well Somalia is run by gangs and war lords. And, that is cited as the only current country (well not country but land mass I suppose), that is anarchist, and I don't think that it is a place that anyone would want to live....

So with the only modern example of Somalia, as a complete failure full of violence and abuse. And, with most Constitutional Republics and Democracies have a far higher standard of living, I would say, based on the examples of both that we have, Republics and Democracies win as far as stability, human rights, and standard of living over Somalia. Heck, most tyrannical Dictatorships win over Somalia....

There is little evidence to substantiate any of your claims as far as all of the hypothetical systems for "self- governance" that will "naturally" fall into place if all governments and organizations abolished overnight. And, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 12:16:57 PM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

Immediate protection is absolutely the problem. A criminal will be less likely to commit a crime if he realizes the person he wants to commit a crime against is likely to be able to defend themselves or those in close proximity to them (such as neighbors) will defend them. Many actual crimes go unsolved and are not pursued such as rape as an example. There's a backlog of hundreds of thousands of rape kits in this country. It doesn't pay for police to catch rapists. They rather issue tickets for traffic violations or arrest people for using drugs because it's easy and profitable.



Well, I would never say there are not problems with the system we have.

But under yours, I could go to my grandmother's place find her murdered. I do my best, and ask around. Neighbors heard noises. That's about it.

No one to take photographs, collect evidence, dna, since no government no records anywhere I guess, 'cause no police, no FBI.

Man, even when I get something stolen, I want to kick someone's ass for days even when I don't know who did it.

To me, you leash one beast, but present me with another.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
April 25th, 2015 at 12:33:13 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Nobody is saying that there should be "no laws." However, laws should be minimized. You probably committed two felonies today. You will again tomorrow.

We need to repeal as many laws as possible. First to go need to be laws that do not have a victim.



Well actually Rude was and continues to advocate no laws but that's not the point.

You say we need to repeal as many laws as possible especially those that have no victims. Well why not repeal laws concerning bans on gay marriage. Gay marriage has no victims. We've also eliminated other laws that had no victims like the Federal DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. I bet you were happy about those. I mean it would be a wee bit hypocritical to talk about how we need to repeal laws that impinged on freedoms and then not be happy about having two laws that massively restricted freedom repealed.

Oddly enough the only laws I've seen you advocating repealing in this thread are laws that do have victims. Specifically laws dealing with whether a public accommodation has to provide service.
Gandler
Gandler
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1795
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
April 25th, 2015 at 12:36:16 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Nobody is saying that there should be "no laws." However, laws should be minimized. You probably committed two felonies today. You will again tomorrow.

We need to repeal as many laws as possible. First to go need to be laws that do not have a victim.



Yes several people in this thread are saying precisely that.....

I though you were part of that group with my post towards you earlier, but forgive me if I mixed you up with others.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 12:41:35 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Well Somalia is run by gangs and war lords. And, that is cited as the only current country (well not country but land mass I suppose), that is anarchist, and I don't think that it is a place that anyone would want to live....

So with the only modern example of Somalia, as a complete failure full of violence and abuse. And, with most Constitutional Republics and Democracies have a far higher standard of living, I would say, based on the examples of both that we have, Republics and Democracies win as far as stability, human rights, and standard of living over Somalia. Heck, most tyrannical Dictatorships win over Somalia....

There is little evidence to substantiate any of your claims as far as all of the hypothetical systems for "self- governance" that will "naturally" fall into place if all governments and organizations abolished overnight. And, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.



Somalia is not anarchist. Since the US government got rid of their government you have had different warring factions fighting amongst eachother in an attempt to establish a new government. That's why it's important to destroy the belief that government is necessary for a society to function. Replacing one government with another government does not solve the root of the problem. Look at this country as an example. The British government was overthrown and replaced with what the founding fathers would believe to be a limited government. Look at the behemoth it has grown into since then.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 12:49:49 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Well, I would never say there are not problems with the system we have.

But under yours, I could go to my grandmother's place find her murdered. I do my best, and ask around. Neighbors heard noises. That's about it.

No one to take photographs, collect evidence, dna, since no government no records anywhere I guess, 'cause no police, no FBI.

Man, even when I get something stolen, I want to kick someone's ass for days even when I don't know who did it.

To me, you leash one beast, but present me with another.



We already have solutions to those problems with technology. There's an app called peacekeeper where you can send out a distress call to those you put on your list. We have surveillance cameras and as technology progresses the smaller and more affordable those cameras will become. The point is to get to know your neighbors. Not distance yourself from them since they are the only ones who are able to come help you with or without a state.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
April 25th, 2015 at 12:54:41 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman


You say we need to repeal as many laws as possible especially those that have no victims. Well why not repeal laws concerning bans on gay marriage. Gay marriage has no victims. We've also eliminated other laws that had no victims like the Federal DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. I bet you were happy about those. I mean it would be a wee bit hypocritical to talk about how we need to repeal laws that impinged on freedoms and then not be happy about having two laws that massively restricted freedom repealed.



You have a logic flaw here. There were no laws "banning gay marriage." Marriage was always one man and one woman. Gays wanted to change these laws. The will of the people was not to do so. So gays sued in court. DOMA simply states that if a state passed a law extending marriage to gays then other states did not have to recognize that license. This is in line with other laws states do not recognize from other states, like the conceal-carry laws I have mentioned. Also said the Feds codified what was already assumed, marriage being one man and one woman. As to DADT there is no issue. Military service is NOT a right. The military declines service on many grounds.

Quote:

Oddly enough the only laws I've seen you advocating repealing in this thread are laws that do have victims. Specifically laws dealing with whether a public accommodation has to provide service.



I have done no such thing. Any gay is welcome to walk into a bakery and buy anything on the shelf. When you special order an item then it is different. In a free country the baker should be allowed to say "I do not want to carry that product." But we no longer live in a free country. For other wedding services like a DJ or photographer there really is no question. But in today's USA the provider gets sued because he declines business.

There is a victim here, it is the baker and photographer being forced to do business they do not want to accept.

AND AT LEAST ONE GAY AGREES WITH ME!
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rainman
rainman
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1860
Joined: Mar 28, 2012
April 25th, 2015 at 1:06:19 PM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

What's stopping you from moseying over there now?



Fear of arrest, prosecution, & incarceration.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 25th, 2015 at 1:09:47 PM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

We already have solutions to those problems with technology. There's an app called peacekeeper where you can send out a distress call to those you put on your list. We have surveillance cameras and as technology progresses the smaller and more affordable those cameras will become. The point is to get to know your neighbors. Not distance yourself from them since they are the only ones who are able to come help you with or without a state.



Technology means we may have pictures of unknown people leaving the neighborhood after murder rape or robbery. That doesn't create a task force or any semi-responsible system of catching people who get away.

Vigilante response come to mind also. It may be great if you get the right person.

I still remember a story of a father and brother who caught the guy who raped the sister. They cut his balls off. Wrong guy though.

Even when justice is slow it manages to get things wrong. Got to be worse when it's quick and even more disorganized.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
  • Jump to: