Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 31. (Read 33901 times)

If you're a representative citizen, there's your answer. They're all idiots.

yes, why not. surely they must have had their reasons for doing so...

let me ask you a very simple question:

why have the state of Denmark not yet collapsed? its democracy been around for 164 years, the illusion of safety and the corruption of the government should be very clear to the population now... would you think? why are people not rebelling against the wrongful and evil state of Denmark?

please enlighten me.

So, you're telling me that if your grocery store shot all the employees of a rival grocery store, and changed the sign to theirs, you would continue shopping there?

the customers don't really care before its too late...

by supporting a private security firm, will make them wipe out competition so that they can gain monopoly, and there by creating a government that does not call itself "government" because that would make you unhappy.

Pay or else...

de fac·to 
/di ˈfaktō/
Adverb
In fact, whether by right or not.
Adjective
Denoting someone or something that is such in fact: "a de facto one-party system".

A private protection firm, unable to claim a monopoly, is neither a protection racket, nor a de facto government.

add some freedom nuts like you, and you get a de-facto governement.

Add a flag, and you get a government.

These stupid comparisons are going nowhere. I'm just going to get right out and tell you what the difference is: It's incentive. Specifically, what is the incentive for one dude with a gun to shoot people versus the other dude with a gun.

For a terrorist, the incentive is his religion. He doesn't care about money or quality of life. He just wants to kill anyone who doesn't think like him.

For a police officer, it's a paycheck and a sense of duty. The sense of duty is the only thing keeping him from doing bad thing (becoming a corrupt cop). There are plenty of officers who are only doing what they do for the money. And the money incentive will always be fulfilled, because the state will always take money from people in the form of taxes, and always pay officers to "keep the peace." Even if the police becomes corrupt, as long as they are protecting the government, the government will always  tax to get money, and pay police salary to keep itself safe.

For a security guard, the incentive is only money. And the money comes from a company who's ONLY incentive is to stay safe and secure, or to provide safety and security. The company employing the guard doesn't have the power to force someone to pay for their security, so their only option is to make sure that the security guards they hire actually do provide security, and anyone who becomes corrupt and resorts to extortion will likely get fired. Otherwise the bad security officers will reflect badly on the company.

The thing is, unlike private companies that actually depend on customers, government, as a bureaucracy, really doesn't care all that much about its reputation. Individual politicians do, but the rest of the government not so much, for the simple fact that they can declare you to be a customer, and you can't do a thing about it. It's pretty much like your cell phone provider, internet provider, or grocery store declaring that you are their customer, making it illegal for you to buy anyone else's products, and giving you a sense of "choice" by allowing you to elect the cashiers at the cash register.

Often?

So that means they have the option of using the guns, don't they? Then the question still stands. Why do they even have the option of using guns, if all guns are good for are threatening and killing people? Their job, after all, is to protect people.

police officers(in Denmark at least) often don't use their guns, they have non-lethal means to protect people.

But, wait:


So, the police officer, paid to protect you and the rest of society, is using a tool that has no use other than threatening or killing people. If he's being paid to protect people, he should be using a tool that can protect people, don't you think? Why, then, does he use a gun?

gun have no use for other then threatening people or killing people.

hammers on the other hand are useful to other things then killing people.

Dude in first pic is Igor Suprunyuck. He used that hammer to kill people. The guy in the second is using his hammer to build a house.

Both just dudes with hammers, though, right?

What you use the tool for is more important than the tool itself.

dude in first pic is russian? do want me to say that he is a noob?


can you please begin to make your point soon? im tired of looking at images of people with or without cool radios...

Not really.

What about these two guys?

okay accepted. the one dude is good for me under the assumption i wants to survive, the other is not.

but they are both dudes with guns, and therefor a great deal of equality between them.