Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have nothing against retaliatory force as I have said countless times.
However, our country constantly punishes people for non-crimes and "presumption of guilt" crimes.
Very briefly for simplicity. Take marijuana possession. Who initiated force, or who was the aggressor? Simply possessing marijuana initiates force upon no one at all. When the government then initiates force upon this non-aggressor it is the government who is the aggressor in that situation.
You got it all wrong. Marijuana use is an initiation of force against the society because ultimately the society will bear the cost of rehabilitation and supporting the individual who uses it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
Now for presumption of guilt "crimes". Say someone has for example a "bomb" or "bomb-making materials in their house. Now this person has no intention or reason to perhaps ever use the device and has never done so in his life before. This person is "guilty" because he COULD MAYBE PERHAPS IN AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE LOL use said device to initiate force upon someone else. The government will in this case, if they come to know somehow that he has said device, initiate force upon this individual who has done absolutely nothing to anyone else.
Wrong again. The individual in question is in a possession of articles that society considers dangerous for public safety and banned via laws. Those laws are public and if someone makes a decision to break them that someone should not be surprised that society chose to punish them. The act of punishment is the entirely RETALIATORY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
In fact, any action that is not an initiation of force upon another falls into the realm of maximum moral individual freedom. The only limit upon moral freedom is that the expression thereof cannot be an initiation of force upon another. Simple. Let the haters of freedom commence. LOL
Live and let live.
You see, we really love the freedom, that's why we created FREE SOCIETIES, you libertarians on the other hand, love TALKING about freedom yet you were not able to create anything, anywhere. LOL
You got it all wrong. Marijuana use is an initiation of force against the society because ultimately the society will bear the cost of rehabilitation and supporting the individual who uses it.
Initiation of force against, what, society? You cannot be serious. What if "society" cannot find a single individual within it that was a "victim" of the person possessing the marijuana. I'm sorry the absurdity of the statement is just baffling. What if the possessor of the marijuana does not become ill, or if he does he pays for his own health care, and he supports himself quite nicely? That person is guilty of nothing at all. You are reaching beyond absurd and pointing out exactly why the government in immoral in this case. You are "assuming" that this person will get sick, does not take care of/support himself. That is a whole lot of assuming and "presumption of guilt" when their is no actual guilt. Again, you can't really be serious, can you? You want to "retaliate" against an imaginary possible situation instead of the reality of the situation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
Wrong again. The individual in question is in a possession of articles that society considers dangerous for public safety and banned via laws. Those laws are public and if someone makes a decision to break them that someone should not be surprised that society chose to punish them. The act of punishment is the entirely RETALIATORY.
"Society considers dangerous"...LOL What one considers dangerous does not harm anyone until someone does that dangerous thing. Or should everyone be retaliated against who operates a motor vehicle? Somewhere in the vicinity of 50000 people died last year in auto mobile accidents. (How many people died of bombs in this country last year???) By your "reasoning" anyone who owns or operates a motor vehicle is a criminal because they are very dangerous. Again, until someone actually initiates force upon another, no "crime" can occur. "Potential initiations of force" are not actual initiations of force. And any "potential crime" is not a crime until it actually occurs. You can make breathing illegal, it does not mean that people will stop breathing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
You see, we really love the freedom, that's why we created FREE SOCIETIES, you libertarians on the other hand, love TALKING about freedom yet you were not able to create anything, anywhere. LOL
You sound more like you like the comfort of bondage more than the horrors of human freedom. Maybe because thugs and tyrants that believe in initiations of force will never allow people to be free.
Initiation of force against, what, society? You cannot be serious. What if "society" cannot find a single individual within it that was a "victim" of the person possessing the marijuana. I'm sorry the absurdity of the statement is just baffling. What if the possessor of the marijuana does not become ill, or if he does he pays for his own health care, and he supports himself quite nicely? That person is guilty of nothing at all. You are reaching beyond absurd and pointing out exactly why the government in immoral in this case. You are "assuming" that this person will get sick, does not take care of/support himself. That is a whole lot of assuming and "presumption of guilt" when their is no actual guilt. Again, you can't really be serious, can you? You want to "retaliate" against an imaginary possible situation instead of the reality of the situation?
Reality? What reality is that? Reality where there is no cost of rehabilitation of drug addicts?
Where drug addicts don't cause accidents? is that your "reality" ? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
"Society considers dangerous"...LOL What one considers dangerous does not harm anyone until someone does that dangerous thing. Or should everyone be retaliated against who operates a motor vehicle? Somewhere in the vicinity of 50000 people died last year in auto mobile accidents. (How many people died of bombs in this country last year???) By your "reasoning" anyone who owns or operates a motor vehicle is a criminal because they are very dangerous.
No, this is your reasoning. LOL. Intelligent people would notice that there is big difference between a car accident and deliberate use of explosives against other people. People do not drive cars to harm other people while there is no other use for bombs other than harming people. Ban on bombs is absolutely reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
Again, until someone actually initiates force upon another, no "crime" can occur. "Potential initiations of force" are not actual initiations of force. And any "potential crime" is not a crime until it actually occurs. You can make breathing illegal, it does not mean that people will stop breathing.
What kind of argument is that? LOL The laws that society chose to have are public, if you make a choice to break those laws don't be surprised that a retaliatory force will be used against you. That's all. For instance, you can't drink and drive and even if you don't hit anybody, just the fact that you drive drunk is already an act of aggression against society for which you will be punished as you deliberately broke a law.
It doesn't matter that your aggression against society was only potential as you never killed anybody, just because you chose to put other people at risk due to your behavior, you became an aggressor. Breaking society's laws is an automatic act of aggression against said society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
You sound more like you like the comfort of bondage more than the horrors of human freedom. Maybe because thugs and tyrants that believe in initiations of force will never allow people to be free.
You sound more like a representative of an ideology that failed to produce anything except for some empty talk about freedom.
Reality? What reality is that? Reality where there is no cost of rehabilitation of drug addicts?
Where drug addicts don't cause accidents? is that your "reality" ? LOL
I said possession of marijuana. You "assumed" and addict needing rehabilitation that that person was unable to pay for. You are assuming that they are causing accidents. You can "assume" that the person possessing marijuana MAY MAYBE do anything at all. But your "assumption" does not mean that that person has ACTUALLY done any of the things that you "assumed". "Presumption of guilt" when there is no actual guilt is beyond insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
No, this is your reasoning. LOL. Intelligent people would notice that there is big difference between a car accident and deliberate use of explosives against other people. People do not drive cars to harm other people while there is no other use for bombs other than harming people. Ban on bombs is absolutely reasonable.
I said the person possessed a bomb. You are talking about some other person who used explosives. The person I was talking about did nothing. The person that uses an explosive to harm others is a completely different scenario. Again, all of the "criminals" you are talking about only exist in your imagination. When someone actually, in the real world, does what you are saying then that is a different story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
What kind of argument is that? LOL The laws that society chose to have are public, if you make a choice to break those laws don't be surprised that a retaliatory force will be used against you. That's all. For instance, you can't drink and drive and even if you don't hit anybody, just the fact that you drive drunk is already an act of aggression against society for which you will be punished as you deliberately broke a law.
It doesn't matter that your aggression against society was only potential as you never killed anybody, just because you chose to put other people at risk due to your behavior, you became an aggressor. Breaking society's laws is an automatic act of aggression against said society.
"Risk" is not an actual initiation of force. Potential aggression is not aggression, it is only your imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
You sound more like a representative of an ideology that failed to produce anything except for some empty talk about freedom.
I would think that my ideology is pretty darn close to how humans lived for millions of years before God or GODvernment. And furthermore, my ideology matches how actual rational peaceful and moral people interact with each other in daily life. Sane people do not go through life being aggressive towards everyone around them. They interact peacefully, voluntarily, and for mutual beneficial outcomes for the parties involved. They don't go around "forcing" everyone around them to do whatever they themselves want everyone else to do.
I said possession of marijuana. You "assumed" and addict needing rehabilitation that that person was unable to pay for. You are assuming that they are causing accidents. You can "assume" that the person possessing marijuana MAY MAYBE do anything at all. But your "assumption" does not mean that that person has ACTUALLY done any of the things that you "assumed". "Presumption of guilt" when there is no actual guilt is beyond insane.
So you're saying that in libertarian society it should be ok for someone to take his gun and should blindly into a crowd of people and until someone is hit there is no crime as there is no victim so no force is justified? LOL
Of course society has to take preemptive action against certain types of behavior as they are known to lead to act of aggression against said society. Drug possession is indicative of drug use and drug use has been proven to be detrimental to society. It is in fact an act of agression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
I said the person possessed a bomb. You are talking about some other person who used explosives. The person I was talking about did nothing. The person that uses an explosive to harm others is a completely different scenario. Again, all of the "criminals" you are talking about only exist in your imagination. When someone actually, in the real world, does what you are saying then that is a different story.
it doesn't matter, society has the right to defend itself and one of these defenses is banning certain devices that can be used to harm others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
"Risk" is not an actual initiation of force. Potential aggression is not aggression, it is only your imagination.
No, putting someone at risk is an act of aggression per se. Let's say I start shooting in your direction. Are you going to tell me that I didn't do anything wrong because I didn't hit you yet? LOL According to you there is no victim, right? No victim - no aggression. Carry on! LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
I would think that my ideology is pretty darn close to how humans lived for millions of years before God or GODvernment.
Yes, people used to live like animals, but with the rise of their intellectual capacity they decided that this is not the way to go and instead created this beautiful civilization.
Again, we love freedom, that's why we created democratic societies, you libertarians on the other hand, love talking about freedom, yet you created NOTHING. Great job!
I think someone pointed out the obvious earlier. A sheep, me the observer of the non-aggression principle, and a wolf, you who believe in initiations of force, will never agree on what to have for dinner.
In the end, the only difference between me and you that really matters is that I will never initiate force against you, but you will have no problem initiating force against me to get what you want.
I think I pointed out before that "wolves" like me created this beautiful society that offers unparalleled freedoms, while you "sheeps" keep talking about "freedoms" while you haven't created anything yet and chances are never will. But, let that doesn't stop you from talking LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
I think someone pointed out the obvious earlier. A sheep, me the observer of the non-aggression principle, and a wolf, you who believe in initiations of force, will never agree on what to have for dinner.
In the end, the only difference between me and you that really matters is that I will never initiate force against you, but you will have no problem initiating force against me to get what you want.
I think I pointed out before that "wolves" like me created this beautiful society that offers unparalleled freedoms, while you "sheeps" keep talking about "freedoms" while you haven't created anything yet and chances are never will. But, let that doesn't stop you from talking LOL
Ich kauern und Bogen , um Sie allwissenden Unterdrücker
Is that the best you can do? C'mon. Keep talking. LOL
I cede, there is no point in continuing. If you'd like, I will say I have been defeated. You are the champion!
You are the ultimate omniscient and omnipotent aggressor who viciously destroys any mere mortal being who wishes to be free of your enlightened plan for mankind.
I am but the "clay to be molded" to your will.
Just point your gun to my head and I will do as you command.
You are a wolf, and I am but a sheep. You know what? I don't want to victimize my fellow man with acts of aggression. I know that my beliefs are mine, and I have no desire to inflict them upon others with acts of aggression. I have no desire to rule over my fellow man with violence and threats.
That sir, is your kingdom of aggression towards your fellow man.
I will interact with my fellow man peacefully, voluntarily, and for mutual benefit and never have to use aggression to get my way.
Live and let live.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let the haters of freedom commence. LOL