It is due to it being the application of political science. It does not permit failed policies to be continued fruitlessly year after year with idealistic fervour, it is next to impossible for anyone surrounded by fierce libertarian critics to continue clinging on to lies. It is a purely functional machine, lubricated with justice and fueled by free speech.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 1:43 ID:Jog0TeEs
PS. for those who don't get it: you hear a scream, you rush out with your gun. You see another person with a gun. Whadda ya do?
Now ask yourself if everyone will behave responsibly in the heat of the situation.
It's amazing how many Americans think that it's illegal to stop somebody who is committing a felony. In fact, citizens are legally affirmed to have arrest powers when a felony is occurring. Of course, you should be sure about what's going on, in case you're quite mistaken about who did what and how.
>>203
Doesn't understand that justice is fucked up.
Police protecting you? unlikely that one will be ready.
Police just catch people that have already commited a crime and stop them from doing it for 'a bit'. It doesn't seem like a decent solution to me. Also, police will never stop murders or any such crimes.
Oh, so I don't sound like 'to much' of a retard, I don't think we should fuck the police, because I HAVE seen police doing good on the streets (well, i've seen them stop a couple of drunken fights while on patrol).
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 8:17 ID:o9fPL6r2
>>199
So then countries with low crime rates must have high levels of gun ownerships and urban militias? Like Sweden, Japan and the UK?
Nice hypothesis, but it seems it exploded when it came into contact with reality. Now you can either take this to heart and change your pubescent libertarian ways now before your idiocy hampers your chances of procreation even further or you could ignore reality and continue living in middle earth with the rest of the blindfolded retards. Enjoy your celibacy. And i see im up against a spelling master here.
Name:
Thelema2007-07-21 9:09 ID:cBPQLjgL
>>206
I agree with the fact that gun ownership doesn't help stopping crimje at all, and that's a myth. however, we should have the right to protect the individual not just the state. Also, there's already so many guns in America that illegalising them will not stop the criminals, just citizens that want guns for legitimate purposes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 9:58 ID:o9fPL6r2
>>207
A comparison. In svalbard one is forced by law to own a rifle so if one is attacked by a polar bear one can defend oneself (a real danger in svalbard as the polar bear is an oppurtunistic predator who has no fear of humans). Your argument sais that there is no longer any choice for americans about gunownership, they are forced to bear arms since guns are now so prevalent that every criminal will wield one, ie there´s no longer a right to bear arms, there is a command to bear arms or else its ones own funeral. Nice freedom of choice, i guess the gun companies feel really bad about this development.
there is no command to bear arms, it's just a logical procedure, think there is some level of freedom of choice but not at all on illegalizing it. However saying that we must NOT own arms allows absolutly no freedom of choice.
We should be allowed to bear arms but not for the reasons the state tells us too.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 11:33 ID:o9fPL6r2
>>209
But by allowing it we are arming the criminals the arms are about to save us from, cant you see the idiocy here? Why is there an intrinsic value of owning arms, completly apart from their functionality? Should everyone be allowed to own ICBMs too? And is this intrinsic value worth more than having unarmed criminals? You are prepared to pay with other peoples lives for your right to wear a gun as a fashion statement?
Name:
Thelema2007-07-21 11:45 ID:cBPQLjgL
I agree with the fact that bringing arms to citizens is not a good thing to do LOGICALLY. However is it not the same with countries? If countries may protect themselves (dangerously) then I may protect myself. If you want to strip my of my arms, strip yourself of your arms and strip the state of it's arms. Yes that would be great if we were all to do so, but we don't live in paradise.
Also, I don't give two shits about the fashion part of weapons, I want to own one because I do not trust my government (English).
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 11:57 ID:o9fPL6r2
>>211
Well, since by living and voting in a country you implicitly agree to the monopoly of violence that the state wields. If you dont like move to a place where the state does not have this monopoly, like Rwanda or Afghanistan. And no, countries are not comparable to individuals in an ethical sense, since countries are not individuals but collectives, like corporations. There are no capital punishment on corporations who commit murder yet AFAIK. And if you demand the one you should be okay with the other, no?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 12:31 ID:tdz296rT
>>205
The threat of punishment is there to deter crimes from happening, not to exact revenge for past crimes.
I have a serious question this time: "When are you anti-gun queers going to get at least 38 state legislatures in the US to agree to remove the Second Amendment from the US Constitution, as well as the mimicked versions in their own state constitutions?" Take your time answering; no anti-gun fag has EVER answered it, so it must be a GREAT answer ... an EPIC answer ... an answer as filled with WIN as much as PoshCunt is filled with BeckamSeed.
Name:
Thelema2007-07-21 12:54 ID:cBPQLjgL
>>213
I'm sorry but the world doesn't work that way.
Fucking Seriously >>212
I don't vote and I don't accept it as thier land, I built this house on unused land, so that arguement does not work. And fuck of with me agreeing to that, I was born in this country I never signed anything that said I agreed to this shit, that mentality is dispicable.
Nations are defined by borders, everything within those borders is part of the nation. So unless you find a piece of land that is not within any borders, the land may be unused but it's not yours to take.
There are three purposes with punishing people for doing crimes. Deterring them from comitting crimes, rehabilitating them, and to provide vengeance to the people the crime was comitted against. Which parts there should be focused more or less on is up to the judicial system and the politicians.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 14:16 ID:yYI73f+2
Um, it <b>is</b> actually!
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 14:32 ID:Jog0TeEs
>>202
If you're referring to >>200,201, you missed the gist of what I was trying to say.
To wit: either people with guns won't do anything (they're chickenshit, not my problem, by-stander effect, etc), in which case you need the police, or you'll have a group of trigger-happy do-gooders wandering around, in which case accidents will happen often.
I work in software development. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that most people are unreasonable, and the impossible happens all the time. If you think people won't be shooting the wrong people by mistake with regularity, even with training, you're hopelessly naive. :(
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 6:40 ID:eIwog0ks
Libertarianism isn't about getting rid of everything run by the government, it is about getting rid of everything that the government doesn't need to run.
The government should run law enforcement and the military, it should not run how I buy and sell alcohol except where law enforcement is concerned. Why should I go to jail for mixing some plants and fungi in a barrel, waiting 6 months, permitting the police to test a sample to ensure it is not poison and exchanging the liquid for cash?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 6:43 ID:eIwog0ks
Seriously. If I pay the police to test the sample and that's all, then I make a lot more money and poor people get cheaper beer.
Tyranny eliminates economic and political freedom. Goods are expensive, wages are low.
Socialism eliminates economic freedom and permits political freedom. Goods are expensive, wages are high.
Capitalism permits economic freedom and eliminates political freedom. Goods are inexpensive, wages are low.
Libertarianism permits economic freedom and political freedom. Goods are inexpensive, wages are high.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 9:38 ID:uvcB50d/
>>229
Nice proof. So wages are determined by political freedom and prices by economic freedom? Competition does not exist, nor production costs? gb2 school plox
>>233
I never said my proof was the only factor at play. The fact that there are many factors in empirical situations is something you assume when you come into a conversation like the "+" symbol means plus.
libertarian: 2+2=4
retard: WHAT DO YOU MEAN TWO DIVIDED BY TWO EQUALS FOUR AHAAAAAHHAA YOU FUCKING RETARD
>>234
You.are.a.fucking.retard. Please explain how wages can be high while prices are low. And how libertarianism plans to combat deflation without limiting economic freedom (the last part is biting the bait i know but i cant help myself, sorry!).
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 14:37 ID:yMT7gVJ8
>>235
economic freedom increases efficiency
political freedom allows workers to form unions
Libertarians would privatise currency.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 15:20 ID:+YP83tZJ
>>236
... unions try to press up the wages as much as possible, leading to a decease in amount of people companies can afford to hire, leading to less output etc. ?
"economic freedom increases efficiency" that's a pretty big statement to pull out of the hat. How much economic freedom? complete economic freedom? and what exactly do you mean with economic freedom, just "no taxes" ?
>>238
yes, i'm sorry, but i assumed that since we're being all libertarian here, the unions would be profit maximizing for their members? Getting the members the best wages, the best insurance, etc. They do of course need to get this to as many people as possible, so they need to be carefull not to fuck up the economy, since all their members would be out of work and the union would have to pay them unemployment fees which would eventually ruin the union if there were too many unemployed. But in general the unins will try to push up the wages for the workers, leading to a lower output.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 16:44 ID:yMT7gVJ8
>>237
Why don't you just use logic instead of barraging me with easy questions?
If the union's minimum wage is too high businesses make redundancies, unemployment rises and members leave the union to work for less than the minimum wage. Unions which negotiate realistically keep their members.
There are limits to economic freedom, tax ought to be paid to support law enforcement and the military. What we should not do is pay tax to support institutionalised loopholes like the federal reserve so that "socialists" like George Soros can hatch schemes and take billions more.