Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 6. (Read 36619 times)

No.

Duh, then the accuser is violating the NAP, and the accused can defend himself with a counter-lawsuit, such as suing for legal harassment. Same way it works now with those abusing the legal system being sued for it. It's not that complicated.
Both parties agree not to aggress against each other, both parties believed the other uninitiated the aggression, so both have an incentive to settle it in court. You keep thinking that NAP simply means "if you step on my lawn, I can shoot you," and trying to come up with some weird gotchas, but NAP is pretty much what we already have today, minus the government's monopoly on force and telling people what they are and are not allowed to do.

The question was an honest one.  I merely did not understand why you think the more ornate governmental dispute resolution is better just because it is more expensive and bigger.  There may be some good reasons why it may be better, but these do not appear to be such.  

If you don't know why you wrote it, you can just say so.  The wise ought not leave it up to others to imagine their reasons.  (If you leave it to the imagination of others, they may inaccurately imagine invidious motives your reasons.  Speculation could lead one to imagine it is because you are one of the ones being paid more to have the bigger authority, or are yourself on the government's payroll.)

For example, Henry David Thoreau cited at least this reason for the opposite opinion to yours:
"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
You have more opportunity to fill in your missing reason with your advantage of still being alive, he can't argue back.

... and what happens when the accused do not agree that its him who have broken the NAP?

(hint hint: The accuser forces the accused)

Yeah, I imagine from some sociological perspective we could figgur out that that was all about keeping the younger crowd under state control. Is it 18 or 27 when they're adults these days?  Be sure they are properly socialized, sir.  As society gets more complicated, it takes more time to socialize the younger generation.  That's to help them learn how to make it in society.  Why, if it is 27 today, it may be 37 in a few years.  In fact, as society gets more complicating in the course of a year, it would take another year to learn it.  Thus complexity paces age for the subject, and the subjects, then cannot be expected to learn or understand the very basics of society.  Clearly you can see that we, the elite, must shoulder a heavy burden in making all the decisions for them for our benefit.  I could continue this diatribe, but you get the message loud and clear.  Namely if you reverse everything above said, you will have it figured out nicely.

I'll agree with that. I in fact often lament that. The modern concept seems to be, at least in the USA, to keep people in a toddler like state, minus the curiousity, until they reach age 18. Then they are expected to know all the shit that neither their parents nor their "teachers" bothered to teach them. Working in food service, I have seen the result of this again and again. You get a supposed adult that needs supervision to tie their shoes.

In most of our preceding history as a species, regardless of what (if any) system of rulership applied, parents or a master (in the sense of master craftsmen) taught their children the value of and details of work. A farmer's son likely became a farmer, or at least new HOW long before he was an adult. I actually think this a far better model. Given modern communication, we can even take this many steps further. Kids coming online at 18 should be hyper competent rather than the tabula rasa piles of goo that they often are.

In my own background, I had parents who gave a shit. I have a wide ranging skill set and a burning curiousity still, at age 44! I do regret not specializing at anything at an earlier age, as the paper makes it easier to make money, but I do think that ALL children should have salable skills before they leave home. And not just "would you like fries with that?" (FWIW, foodservice is an extremely difficult job, but not very intellectual and not profitable anymore unless you are the owner.)

My son is six years old, nearly seven. It is my intention to have him educated in at least two salable trades by the time he's sixteen. One will be welding, because I think everyone should know how. The other we're working on, but probably something to do with farming because he loves it. I think this will give him a huge boost in life. If he chooses to go on to college and learn even more? More power to him. I see it as my duty to prepare him for a better opportunity at life than I had. I did alright, he should be able to do better because I can show him which mistakes I made, thus removing those mistakes from the ones he has to make. (doesn't mean he won't, I didn't always heed my dad's advice. Sometimes I was right, too, but still...)

In the non money making skills, he WILL know how to safely use firearms, knives, swords, and his body as a weapon. This will give him a better defense than anything on offer from even the two or three sincere politicians, and the confidence to hold his head up in any situation. *I* hate physical conflict, but I am not afraid of it, because I have the free man's mind set. Don't start shit, I won't either. But if it's you or me? It's YOU. That's the NAP in a nutshell. Or the Gadsden Flag, for that matter.

Just as segregation of the bus systems in US cities did not exist when they were private enterprises, only after the cities took them over.

Sort of true and sort of false.  The concept of "children" as we know it today simply did not exist in the 1900s and prior.

The only way the accuser can force the accused to agree is if the accused has broken the NAP first. Why would you take someone to court if you knew they were innocent?

But both parties needs to agree on arbitration, or the accuser must force it upon accused, in violation of NAP and common sense.

Uh, yes, in fact. If a company does something or causes an accident that results in the death of its employees, they often go through arbitration and private settlement to settle with the families of those employees.
If you are referring to crime and murder, it's the police that carry out those "dispute resolutions," as the criminals would obviously not go to court for their crimes voluntarily. And in a world without government, private security, bounty hunters, and mercenaries can do the job of forcing criminals into court just as well.


WTF? Private arbitration is NAP.

Disupute resolution. LOL! You mean those disputes like where you have a dispute because someone killed your children? Yep. It sure is the dominant form of dispute resolution.

You're so mind numbingly out to lunch. Where private arbitration is being used, it's already being used, and thus you don't need to go to NAP. The discussion, (Hello! Anyone home?), revolves around the premise that NAP should replace current existing systems, and so we would focus on the areas where private arbitration is not used.

Oh, and by the way, McDonald's really does suck, even though you think they make the most delicious food around.

If we have been through all that, and you have already concluded that private arbitration is a failure (despite being the dominant form of dispute resolution, both in private and international business matters), then why are you asking the question again?

Lacking imagination, are you? I understand. When you're starry eyed about something, you you don't want to think too hard about the negatives.

Why would either bigger or more expensive be better?
From either a cost perspective, or intimacy with the facts perspective, those attributes would both seem worse rather than better.

It would also be a nice feature to not pay it when it isn't needed rather than have it continuously drum up business for itself.

We've been all through that, and how it's a failure. You just stated that you buy those who will judge you and the opposite party. My authority is bigger, better and more expensive that yours.

Way to go.

You mean like, "I don't have guns, and this constraint won't affect me directly, but I'll vote to put gun constraints on everyone?"

Depends on the infraction. The authority wouldn't be elected, it would be purchased by the participants.

Couldn't agree more. This nails it on the head why I did NOT break my vows and vote for Ron Paul. He might actually have been effective, and the way they're going will end the Empire in time anyway.

@Biomech. Yeah, congress would have children design the highway system and put the space program in the hands of the flat Earth society. I'm thankful every day for the wasteful, shameful gridlock they are permanently stuck in. Thankful because if they ever became effective it would be the end of us all.

And? That a clusterfuck is general doesn't make it not a clusterfuck.

It is also true in your beloved democracies that law is often whimsical, always arbitrary and capricious, and usually formed by people with zero experience in the field they are fucking over legislating regulations upon.

On the very subject that started this thread, I watched the senate debate the last "assault weapon" ban and saw first hand that while they clearly fear guns, there were THREE senators out of 102 that knew which end of the gun to shoot (they rely on paid thugs for that in their brief forays into the great unwashed). Yet they are "qualified" to determine who can and cannot have a gun.

Bullshit. They are not qualified to wipe my ass. They'd bungle it. They are really only qualified for two things. Stealing and Lying. That, they are quite good at. All of them, or they wouldn't have gotten elected.