It's wrong for anyone to violently force a minority position, yet the masses are perfectly allowed to give implicit consent to government forces (a coercive monopoly, mind you) to coerce their morality and superstition on all else. LOL
Democracy is a joke, a farce. There is no government run by the proletariat - the elites control almost all governments, and especially the United States and the Commonwealth and elsewhere in Europe.
And police aren't obligated to protect individuals. Their primary function is to protect the state. The cattle - err, the chattel - I mean the people - are only tax payers, and while their production is much enjoyed, for the state is nothing if not a parasite, they are only the victims of thieves, and they do not deserve to be individually or especially protected. That is, unless their check books are bulging with excess. I'll thank you to shtay out of my personal affairsh.
Police activity reports (external as well as self published) will always show that they spend most of thier time preventing citizens from harming one another, not the state
No. They "punish" criminals, and I reject punishment as such as constituting justice. It's akin to a thief punishing other thieves for breaking into territory that the former has marked and forbidden the latter. Taxation is extortion, whether you would like to admit it or not.
And you make it seem as though libertarians are some scourge. I suppose we are a scourge to silly statheists (that's statists who defend their beloved institution [the state] with theistic fervour).
Did I say anything about tax or punishment? The cops are there to stop violence but they have no role in punishment (done by a DA or the CPS), its determination (judges) or implementation (the prison system)
If you are lucky enough to have never needed any help from the state that makes you woefully ill informed to comment on its effectiveness.
BTW to compound words you need the Greek root, statheists, using your terms for sta would literally mean does not believe in the state-god
Regardless of the technical aspect, the ultimate aim of the police is to protect the state and punish [other] criminals. Police do not proactively stop or seek out criminals without mandate, ineffectual patrolling notwithstanding. They cannot. In the way of deterrence, the justice system as poor, and that applies to rehabilitation as well.
And no, I have never received help for the state beyond the coerced "help" such as schooling.
I'm much more concerned about one Black Swan that kills 20,000,000 people than 1,000,000 statistically predictable murders. We must arm ourselves to prevent any would be jackboots from even begging their mayhem. The temptation to over reach is inherent to the very nature of centralized power. Furthermore, guns can, when ubiquitous, prevent a wide rang of crimes from any being attempted. Fear of each other is a good thing in moderation; that's what you should take home.
I agree that one should not shoot someone or start a revolution because you are in the minority and not being represented (that is not a democracy, in which for better or for worse, majority rules), when people begin to resort to violence to get what they want because it is not being given to them by their government, that is when our democracy truly will fall, and anarchy will reign (because no two people fully agree on anything, and so everyone will find something to start shooting about).
One cannot have a functioning anarchistic society, human nature will not allow it, and saying that everyone should follow the laws that you believe are right because you have a gun is the epitome of a might makes right societal view.
To me individual is above democracy/state/mob. If someone - anyone, even state - steps on your toes, you may defend yourself. In my opinion the state powers are here to protect us from each other, but what if the other group steps on your toes through democratic means? (law that hinders your rights) What then? Democracy is good system, but I value the individual above it.
If someone tries to harm me. Person or group of persons. I think I am entitled to defend myself. In some situations even if I break the law. Because law is enforced with violence and the law can be in the wrong. There are so many stupid or even harmful laws now.
Like criminalization of cannabis as medicine. It helps with many diseases. Its ones health thats on the line there and I think you can defend your health with violent means. Get the medicine and if someone tries to stop you, you have the option of resisting. Its your health on the line.
And one might argue that "try to change the law through politics." Well when your sick as hell.. will you wait?? NO. Sure you might do that on the long run, but you also need the medicine NOW.
To address one particular point of yours, about higher gun related crimes in the US, while it's easy to spot the more availability of firearms is the main contributing factor to the high instance of firearm related crime, I'd say the example of Canada brings doubt to that supposition. Canada is a nation with similar gun ownership rates per capita, and similar laws into what guns can be owned (The Dawson College shooter, who owned a carbine assault rifle, owned them all legally.)
I think the real factor is our environment facilitates criminal behaviour much more than the environments in Canada, the UK, Spain, or many other western nations. In nations like Canada, UK, Netherlands, etc., they provide health care for all, higher education is typically easier to get into, and they focus more on rehabilitation of their criminals over that "tough on crime" farcical approach, leading to a decreased reoffender rate in those nations. Just my opinion...
the thing is the amount of crimes committed by "assault weapons" is very small compared to the crimes committed by hand guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, knives and the like
Perhaps, you're right about that. However, I'm pretty sure he meant democracy is suppose to stop us from shooting each other in order to influence policy.
Cops in America don't carry guns just because bad guys do. They carry guns because guns are effective means of applying force. If you pull a knife on a cop, instead of a gun, you will still get shot.
Likewise, I don't carry a gun because other people do. I carry one because it is the most effective self-defense tool there is. Anyone who tries to hurt me or my family, with a gun or not, risks getting shot.
I don't disagree, but I would rather live under the tyranny of the masses then under the tyranny of one man. Disarming citizens makes them helpless to fight tyranny.
They are armed because of the second amendment. If firearms weren't so readily available they wouldn't need firearms.
which takes me back to your previous comment about gun tracking.
I'm not sure they need to imitate the american system to mend that. Perhaps Brits should propose a solution to the state and vote on it. I'm not entirely sure how your processes work, I can't really make a suggestion for you.
It's wrong for anyone to violently force a minority position, yet the masses are perfectly allowed to give implicit consent to government forces (a coercive monopoly, mind you) to coerce their morality and superstition on all else. LOL
Democracy is a joke, a farce. There is no government run by the proletariat - the elites control almost all governments, and especially the United States and the Commonwealth and elsewhere in Europe.
doucher337 2 years ago
And police aren't obligated to protect individuals. Their primary function is to protect the state. The cattle - err, the chattel - I mean the people - are only tax payers, and while their production is much enjoyed, for the state is nothing if not a parasite, they are only the victims of thieves, and they do not deserve to be individually or especially protected. That is, unless their check books are bulging with excess. I'll thank you to shtay out of my personal affairsh.
doucher337 2 years ago
Oh god, another liberterian.
Police activity reports (external as well as self published) will always show that they spend most of thier time preventing citizens from harming one another, not the state
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
No. They "punish" criminals, and I reject punishment as such as constituting justice. It's akin to a thief punishing other thieves for breaking into territory that the former has marked and forbidden the latter. Taxation is extortion, whether you would like to admit it or not.
And you make it seem as though libertarians are some scourge. I suppose we are a scourge to silly statheists (that's statists who defend their beloved institution [the state] with theistic fervour).
doucher337 2 years ago
Did I say anything about tax or punishment? The cops are there to stop violence but they have no role in punishment (done by a DA or the CPS), its determination (judges) or implementation (the prison system)
If you are lucky enough to have never needed any help from the state that makes you woefully ill informed to comment on its effectiveness.
BTW to compound words you need the Greek root, statheists, using your terms for sta would literally mean does not believe in the state-god
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
That would be a facetious word, sir.
Regardless of the technical aspect, the ultimate aim of the police is to protect the state and punish [other] criminals. Police do not proactively stop or seek out criminals without mandate, ineffectual patrolling notwithstanding. They cannot. In the way of deterrence, the justice system as poor, and that applies to rehabilitation as well.
And no, I have never received help for the state beyond the coerced "help" such as schooling.
doucher337 2 years ago
I'm much more concerned about one Black Swan that kills 20,000,000 people than 1,000,000 statistically predictable murders. We must arm ourselves to prevent any would be jackboots from even begging their mayhem. The temptation to over reach is inherent to the very nature of centralized power. Furthermore, guns can, when ubiquitous, prevent a wide rang of crimes from any being attempted. Fear of each other is a good thing in moderation; that's what you should take home.
ArcaneKarma 2 years ago
ever* not any
ArcaneKarma 2 years ago
I agree that one should not shoot someone or start a revolution because you are in the minority and not being represented (that is not a democracy, in which for better or for worse, majority rules), when people begin to resort to violence to get what they want because it is not being given to them by their government, that is when our democracy truly will fall, and anarchy will reign (because no two people fully agree on anything, and so everyone will find something to start shooting about).
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
One cannot have a functioning anarchistic society, human nature will not allow it, and saying that everyone should follow the laws that you believe are right because you have a gun is the epitome of a might makes right societal view.
gerberakasbah 2 years ago
To me individual is above democracy/state/mob. If someone - anyone, even state - steps on your toes, you may defend yourself. In my opinion the state powers are here to protect us from each other, but what if the other group steps on your toes through democratic means? (law that hinders your rights) What then? Democracy is good system, but I value the individual above it.
pzkane 2 years ago
Then you don't actually beleive in democracy at all, you beleive in you
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
The individual, yes.
If someone tries to harm me. Person or group of persons. I think I am entitled to defend myself. In some situations even if I break the law. Because law is enforced with violence and the law can be in the wrong. There are so many stupid or even harmful laws now.
pzkane 2 years ago
Like criminalization of cannabis as medicine. It helps with many diseases. Its ones health thats on the line there and I think you can defend your health with violent means. Get the medicine and if someone tries to stop you, you have the option of resisting. Its your health on the line.
pzkane 2 years ago
And one might argue that "try to change the law through politics." Well when your sick as hell.. will you wait?? NO. Sure you might do that on the long run, but you also need the medicine NOW.
So yah.. thats that. In short.
pzkane 2 years ago
To address one particular point of yours, about higher gun related crimes in the US, while it's easy to spot the more availability of firearms is the main contributing factor to the high instance of firearm related crime, I'd say the example of Canada brings doubt to that supposition. Canada is a nation with similar gun ownership rates per capita, and similar laws into what guns can be owned (The Dawson College shooter, who owned a carbine assault rifle, owned them all legally.)
TiradeFaction 2 years ago
I think the real factor is our environment facilitates criminal behaviour much more than the environments in Canada, the UK, Spain, or many other western nations. In nations like Canada, UK, Netherlands, etc., they provide health care for all, higher education is typically easier to get into, and they focus more on rehabilitation of their criminals over that "tough on crime" farcical approach, leading to a decreased reoffender rate in those nations. Just my opinion...
TiradeFaction 2 years ago
the thing is the amount of crimes committed by "assault weapons" is very small compared to the crimes committed by hand guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, knives and the like
uglyox 2 years ago
you're just waaay tooo content with your lack of rights as an individual.
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago
you don't think that democracy is a "might is right" system?
a large group of people create an armed force that tells other people what they can and can't do. that's democracy.
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago
Perhaps, you're right about that. However, I'm pretty sure he meant democracy is suppose to stop us from shooting each other in order to influence policy.
lourj3883 2 years ago
Indeed
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
Cops in America don't carry guns just because bad guys do. They carry guns because guns are effective means of applying force. If you pull a knife on a cop, instead of a gun, you will still get shot.
Likewise, I don't carry a gun because other people do. I carry one because it is the most effective self-defense tool there is. Anyone who tries to hurt me or my family, with a gun or not, risks getting shot.
fiacharrey 2 years ago
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson.
Even our American forefathers saw the necessity for armed citizens. What happens when your Democracy slips into a some form of a dictatorship?
appybuddha 2 years ago
Appy - Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others - Winston Churchill
He knew the truth. Democracy is tryanny of the masses
Tothemattresses 2 years ago
I don't disagree, but I would rather live under the tyranny of the masses then under the tyranny of one man. Disarming citizens makes them helpless to fight tyranny.
appybuddha 2 years ago
"What happens when your Democracy slips into a some form of a dictatorship?"
Ah Lord democracy...
Nathanael787 2 years ago
The points about the cops is kind of a catch 22,
They are armed because of the second amendment. If firearms weren't so readily available they wouldn't need firearms.
which takes me back to your previous comment about gun tracking.
I'm not sure they need to imitate the american system to mend that. Perhaps Brits should propose a solution to the state and vote on it. I'm not entirely sure how your processes work, I can't really make a suggestion for you.
Please respond.
lourj3883 2 years ago
I should probably not comment before the end of your videos. haha
lourj3883 2 years ago