Pages:
Author

Topic: It's because of crazy people like this... (Read 3736 times)

legendary
Activity: 3794
Merit: 1375
Armory Developer
I'm not in support of caging children, or murdering the parents.

Putting a child in a cage long enough to result in the child eating it's own skin in an attempt to survive is enough criminal negligence to require complete removal from society, imo. At this point the parents have clearly expressed their ability to initiate force against others and should have no expectation of gentle treatment at the hands of others.

I agree, I wouldn't handle them gently if they came anywhere near me or my family.

But I wouldn't go out of my way to have them whacked either.


And you wouldn't go out of your way if I went out of mine to whack them. That's the beauty of anarchy. On a more fundamental level, these people have given up on their right to live by forcefully putting the life of another in danger. As such, I have no responsibility to respect their life and a legitimate motive in opposing these people with force. You, on your end, have no motive to stop me from harming them in my attempt to save the child.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 251
I'm not in support of caging children, or murdering the parents.

That's fine. The world is big so I don't think your school of thought would end up clashing with mine over our key differences if we lived in anarchy. I guess I would just go to a place where people think like me and like to take care of problems quickly and efficiently rather than fairly and rightly (which in my opinion would be slow and inefficient).
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
I'm not in support of caging children, or murdering the parents.

Putting a child in a cage long enough to result in the child eating it's own skin in an attempt to survive is enough criminal negligence to require complete removal from society, imo. At this point the parents have clearly expressed their ability to initiate force against others and should have no expectation of gentle treatment at the hands of others.

I agree, I wouldn't handle them gently if they came anywhere near me or my family.

But I wouldn't go out of my way to have them whacked either.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
I'm not in support of caging children, or murdering the parents.

Putting a child in a cage long enough to result in the child eating it's own skin in an attempt to survive is enough criminal negligence to require complete removal from society, imo. At this point the parents have clearly expressed their ability to initiate force against others and should have no expectation of gentle treatment at the hands of others.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
what if another neighbor considers you a threat because they don't see it the same way as yourself.

Then I have a big problem obviously. In reality though I would never have acted in the first place if I wasn't sure I'd have the support of the rest. If the rest instead supported the caging of children then it means I'm in hostile territory and should get the hell outta there.

I'm not in support of caging children, or murdering the parents.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 251
what if another neighbor considers you a threat because they don't see it the same way as yourself.

Then I have a big problem obviously. In reality though I would never have acted in the first place if I wasn't sure I'd have the support of the rest. If the rest instead supported the caging of children then it means I'm in hostile territory and should get the hell outta there.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
The couple in question doesn't seem to be a threat to society, just to their own offspring. Should we kill them anyway, just to be on the safe side? Who else should we go after while we're at it?

You are right, not a threat to society but maybe only to their neighborhood. If I was their neighbor I would kill them anyway to be on the safe side since they are clearly very mentally unstable and because I'd feel good about rescuing the kid.

 what if another neighbor considers you a threat because they don't see it the same way as yourself.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
Ah, maybe. There are lots of people who may be a threat. You have a lot of people to kill.

This isn't a case of may be a threat, if the story in the OP is factual, these people are a threat and there is evidence to prove it.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
You are right, not a threat to society but maybe only to their neighborhood. If I was their neighbor I would kill them anyway to be on the safe side since they are clearly very mentally unstable and because I'd feel good about rescuing the kid.

Ah, maybe. There are lots of people who may be a threat. You have a lot of people to kill.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 251
The couple in question doesn't seem to be a threat to society, just to their own offspring. Should we kill them anyway, just to be on the safe side? Who else should we go after while we're at it?

You are right, not a threat to society but maybe only to their neighborhood. If I was their neighbor I would kill them anyway to be on the safe side since they are clearly very mentally unstable and because I'd feel good about rescuing the kid.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
The point is getting rid of a threat to society right? Both methods achieve the same effect, the first one being the most efficient.
The couple in question doesn't seem to be a threat to society, just to their own offspring. Should we kill them anyway, just to be on the safe side? Who else should we go after while we're at it?
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 251
I'm sure you can see the difference between murder and inprisonment. At least I hope so. Otherwise you should seek help.

The point is getting rid of a threat to society right? Both methods achieve the same effect, the first one being the most efficient.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
You just whack them and be done with it. Not sure what's the difference between that and using police to arrest them and put them in jail.
I'm sure you can see the difference between murder and inprisonment. At least I hope so. Otherwise you should seek help.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 101
Quote
"He was really a nice guy," Brian Gore's ex-girlfriend, Sandy, told WTKR 3 News in Norfolk. "He went to church and everything."

Does going to church really make people seem more trustworthy, or only among other church-goers?


People with a common imaginary friend tend to trust each other
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
Quote
"He was really a nice guy," Brian Gore's ex-girlfriend, Sandy, told WTKR 3 News in Norfolk. "He went to church and everything."

Does going to church really make people seem more trustworthy, or only among other church-goers?
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 101
And I don't eat apples because penguins huddle together for warmth. What're you getting at?

My point here is that people like this exist.  And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists.  To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies.

I cannot accept the arguement, however rational, that a society of entirely self-governed people can exist peacefully or sustainablely until there is a solution for this kind of person.

No monopoly of force does not mean no legitimate uses of force ever.  Using force to help protect someone from someone else (or doing it yourself) is perfectly valid.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 251
I cannot accept the arguement, however rational, that a society of entirely self-governed people can exist peacefully or sustainablely until there is a solution for this kind of person.

You just whack them and be done with it. Not sure what's the difference between that and using police to arrest them and put them in jail.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
I still consider private security/defense and 'phyles' to be sort of government in it's own right. 

To be a government it has to do one of the following at least:
  • Coercively maintain a monopoly, particularly a monopoly on ultimate decision concerning conflicts (Justice).
  • Coercively finance themselves (taxation/theft)

If they're not initiating force or threat either to tax or to keep their geographical monopoly, they can't be considered governments.

At a minimum, the parents would have to be compensated for the children taken from them, because in that imaginary system children are legally and economicly the property of their parents.

Children are not slaves of their parents, who told you that?
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
My point here is that people like this exist.  And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists.  To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies.

Of course legitimate use of force exists. What doesn't follow is that you have to use illegitimate force (steal from innocents, from ex.) in order to keep legitimate uses of force.

A very basic video for better understanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o
Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
Government claims responsibility for keeping us safe, fails, therefore we need government.
Pages:
Jump to: