Topic: Free markets and social problems: - page 4. (Read 8711 times)

When dealing with their own people. 

"Government of the people, by the people and for the people." - some dead guy said that was the idea of the American system and I think its a good approximation of the ideal democracy.  Its not just the USA; pretty well the whole English speaking world is democratic and all of central and western Europe.  Contrary to your "2 wolves and a sheep" analogy, democracies are noted for human rights and for fairness. 

We are not supposed to have a democracy. No where in our founding documents does that word even exist, and just so you know, "democracy is indispensable to socialism". I think Lenin said it.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

Democracy is mob rules.. meaning you have no rights other than what other people give you by a vote, and can take any of them away by a vote, so if tomorrow its voted upon to kill you, you're dead.

Thats why we're supposed to have a constitutional republic (in America). Not that I think its anything special. It isnt. It was designed to let the rich get richer off the backs of the working class, and keep the poor working class slaves, poor working class slaves, while letting us think we have rights they cant take away..

Please share with us the tax rates and governmental programs of said communities.

You don't get anything from the state in return from taxes.  An old lady with an aversion to water who lives in the mountains still have to fund the coastal defences through her tax bill.

Its a fundamental mistake to think that tax payments are a transaction.  They are an imposition.  In a democracy it can be argued that they are a legitimate imposition but it can never be argued that they are a voluntary transaction.

You're saying people choose to vote in politicians instead of undergoing weapons training themselves.  He's saying that that may be an ineffective method to accomplish the goal of self-protection.  How is that off topic?

The points you guys are not getting are:

• The police do not prevent crime, so the population can not rely on them. They only react to crime.
• The police have no legal responsibility to protect you.
• A population sufficiently able to defend themselves reduces crime.
• A population sufficiently able to defend themselves makes communities safer.
• There should be much stiffer penalties for crimes that cause loss,  injury, or death. Preferrably an eye for an eye.
• Penalizing criminals on their own level (an eye for an eye) would decrease crime.

I have no interest in being humane when the people trying to steal from, harm, or kill me and my family are considerably less than humane. Its pure barbarism what they do and they deserve no less in return, but again, the state needs that crime. Thats why criminals are treated so well.

I do not consider protection and preparedness a hobby, but rather a way of life. Much like preparing for disaster, catastrophy, emergencies, hard economic times, outdoor survival, food storage and prep, weaponry, ammunition, medical, and  skillsets for long term off the grid survival like farming, multiple ways to obtain potable and gray water, livestock raising, turning said into usable products, and general ways to lessen the expenses of everyday life (heating, electricity, communications, etc) . Self-sufficiency, self-reliance, and true sustainability has been educated out of todays kids for the most part, but this country was founded on those skills and principles. We need to return to them.

Thankfully my state passed the Castle Doctrine, which allows much broader home defense without the criminal and civil liabilities involved. Even without that, I would much rather be judged by 12 than have me or one of my family carried by 6 to the grave.

Criminals needs to realize there are more and more like me out here everyday that will take care of business when infringed upon.

Oh and when your entitlements party comes to an end and you no longer get those benefits stolen from responsible taxpayers like me,  and you have no ability or skills to fend for yourselves, people like you guys will be the first ones to revolt, blame people like me for preparing because we have and you have not, and some may even  come after us who has paid your dues for so long... and we are ready, willing, able, and waiting for you.

Things are going to get much worse financially. People refusing to prepare now will be homeless, cold, and hungry. Homeless, cold, and hungry people trying to survive wont care about police, prisons, or laws.

And if a collapse occurs that goes beyond the financial and the grocery store shelves become bare, where do you think the criminals will go. Right to our farms and homes. That will be their grocery store. I really dont think this will happen, a total collapse of society, but I am preparing for it.

Its not connected to forcing people to take up martial arts and firearms training - which is what he was replying to.

The topic is "Free markets and social problems".  The discussion has already deviated a little from that as discussions tend to do, so why do you unilaterally get to decide what is "on topic" and what isn't?  You don't.  It's a valid point given the parameters of the previous posts.

You pay rent to the apartment owner because he owns the apartment; it's a transaction.  Quid pro quo.  You pay him a monthly sum of money in exchange for the privilege of living on his property.

To extrapolate where I think you are going: we pay rent to the State because the State owns the entire geographic area under its jurisdiction.  Is that correct?

That's changing the subject.  I know its a lovely rhetorical snap back but why not stay on topic?

EDIT: Holliday was replying to an earlier post by me so my own rhetorical snap back, well, snapped back.  My mistake...

Fred - the mistake you continue to make is that you define your own idea of freedom that excludes all the free people in the world. 

Absolutely. Just like you're not obligated to purchase stuff for your apartment neighbor. But you both have to pay rent, in part to make sure the roof over your head doesn't leak.

So, can we also agree that I'm not obligated to purchase guns, knives, weapons or other related security for you? It would appear that that type of coercion and covetousness is equally as inappropriate. I'm pretty sure no one was physically created equal to anybody else, but that's no excuse to plunder another's property so that they can be equal in any of their things (including security and weapons). Charities still work. Free association still works.

It seems that you are making an equally tiresome and fallacious argument (society has the right to force people to coalesce, thus majority rules). The simple fact is freedom is the ability to act upon oneself and one's things sans coercion and violence, and allow the equal supremacy of others to do the same. That's the simple truth. Keep spinning your wheels, you'll get there eventually.

FirstAscent is right.  This is just a case of some guy wanting his hobby made compulsory.

Not just waste their time, but also require them to spend money. It's an extraordinary case of favoring those who have an intense interest in that subject matter, favoring those who are wealthy, and favoring those who are healthy and strong. That is not freedom for the members of society as a whole. It's such a tiresome and fallacious argument that utterly fails to acknowledge that it is the antithesis of freedom in general.

Being forced to covet guns, train with guns and knives, to pay for weapons, to pay for excessive security is simply another form of coercion. It favors the rich, the gun nut, and the strong and healthy.

Worst of all, there is no guarantee that those who covet guns, train with guns, and have the money to buy weapons are not individuals who wish to prey upon others.

Not everyone wants to waste their time on weapons training.  People want the state to protect them and vote in politicians who try to provide that protection. 

Explain.


Ah. So those who can afford more action on their part get greater freedom? That's not freedom. Looks like you've got a lot of thinking to do before you figure this out.

1. Then you wouldnt be any worse off than you are right now.

2. Of course they are deserving of freedom, but freedom requires participation and some action on your part.

You are completely sidestepping the following points:

1. What if you don't have the force capable of stopping said infringement?

2. I guess the weaker targets aren't deserving of freedom then.