You've obviously never been through a concealed carry class or taken any training on how to defend against an active shooter. You don't whip out your gun in the middle of a crowd and start indiscriminately firing. You first take cover, then you assess the situation and identify the shooter. You then make sure the target is clear between you and behind them before you even consider putting a finger on the trigger.
What you should be calling for is free government training on using a firearm for self defense instead of trying to reduce the number of people able to defend themselves.
As a logical person, I'd have to point out that you just grouped all people of a certain belief and then assigned them all the same behavior patterns. That's the definition of stereotyping and makes you no better than the people you claim are disgruntled. You just judged an entire religious belief (or lack thereof) based on your limited experiences. I hope you're happy.
That's why I love Penn Jillette as an advocate for atheists. He really has a way of explaining things well:
The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you.
And you are conveniently overlooking the fact that in most cases, main thoroughfares are also not designed for the traffic volumes or speeds that actually exist.
Neither were the arterial roads. I live in the suburbs of Atlanta and I cut through neighborhoods to avoid the jam packed arterial streets. I don't do it because I want to, but because idiot developers created a huge development around a small lake with no through streets. The city then let them do it without requiring the upgrading of the arterial streets that go around it. So why would I take a 2 lane arterial street with a 35mph speed limit where traffic is bumper to bumper averaging less than 5mph? I would prefer not to blow by their unnecessary stop signs that don't many anything safer for anybody, but I would really prefer that people get over themselves and realize that the whole world can't be residential streets.
There is a lot of truth to this. We are in for a lot of hurt as AI and robotics take over the vast majority of labor in the world. It's going to happen and it's going to happen in a generation. I am lucky to be in a highly paid, hard to automate job at the moment, but I don't understand why we are still working so much... The Industrial Revolution brought the weekend. Unions fought for limited 40 hour work weeks which became the norm. You'd think with computers, the internet, smart phones, and remote access we'd have reduced work hours, increased vacation, etc? Nope, vacation time is still stingy as all hell and if anything hours for salaried employees has gone up. We need to start dropping work days or work hours during the day to let more people in on the dwindling job market before it's too late.
And see, this is where you don't realize that the government is an evil that is not accountable to you. Maybe you might have some influence in a local city election. At the state level, incumbents win in landslides if they aren't running unopposed (which they generally are). Primary battles are a rarity at the state level. By the time you get up to the federal level, it is unlikely that a few votes matter, and even if they did the elected representative doesn't give two shits about what you care about. You'll be lucky to get a form email back if you voice any concerns. If you want influence with a politician and actually hold the government accountable, you need MONEY. Bribe them legally through campaign contributions and then suddenly they might be accountable to you.
Also, speaking of accountability... We shall see how accountable politicians really are. We have a major political party presidential candidate that is highly likely to have committed a crime while holding office. We already know they violated department policy and have an FBI investigation ongoing. Do you think this individual will be held accountable? Hopefully we find out before the election, though the vast majority of that party's supporters have already said they will still vote for this individual even if they are indicted.
Which brings me to your businesses which are accountable to shareholders... Which for public companies you are welcome to become one. Yes, it takes money to get a vote, but at least they are honest about that. And even if you aren't a shareholder, you can still choose which companies to support by voting with your dollars. Don't like the way Walmart operates? Don't shop there. You don't have to own Walmart shares to influence their behavior.
It could be exploited, but getting a major party candidate that supports changing the voting system is about as likely as a third party winning an election. So again, your proposed solution is no more likely than mine. I'd rather be counted as not supporting the currently shitty system though.
And see, this is where you lose your reality. You call Somalia libertarian while you espouse communism under the term "anarchy" or "direct democracy."
The only way the need can ever or has ever been met is by ensuring all of society contributes.
Show me any society in history where every need has been met for every individual AND it's because everyone in that society contributes. Star Trek doesn't count.
Private citizens can lie, abscond, misrepresent and commit fraud because their finances are private. Government in a free country on the other hand is accountable to the public and is budgets are public record.
Governments throughout history have committed fraud, embezzling, and general incompetence which has stolen or wasted a significant portion of public money. Even when the money is spent with good intentions, it can be spent on wasteful endeavors. The government also has the power to borrow infinitely and spend public money they don't have. This puts future generations on the hook for spending today that they may not receive any benefit from.
And the richer you are the more devastating your evils become.... It takes a corporation to talk politicians into needless wars that kill millions.... Only a giant bank can steal trillions from the world and cause a major recession and not only face no legal penalties but get paid a bailout.
Funny how most of the political elite around the world also happen to be rich... As you say, they tend to be evil. Politicians may be urged by defense contractors to engage in war, but it definitely is not required. Plenty of nations go to war because of crazy governments and not corporations. Bringing up banks stealing trillions of dollars and getting off with no penalties is rather ironic since it's the government that encouraged and then pardoned the crime.
Maybe in your fantasy world where all people are equally powerful and form a collective "government" where they all share in resources equally things would be great. Sadly, in a universe with finite resources where economic principles of scarcity are true, this is a utopian fantasy that cannot exist.
I am totally cool with him coming up with whatever theories and definitions he wants to follow and calling ice cream a banana if he wants to. But we haven't have a public discussion on bananas if he is talking about ice cream... What he is doing is creating theories of what other people (libertarians) believe and then shitting on them for it. I don't care if he wants to call himself an anarchist meaning whatever he wants it to mean, but I do care when he says libertarian means what he wants it to mean instead of what libertarians actually mean and is generally accepted to be the definition.
I have my own theories, most of which align with the traditionally accepted definition of libertarianism. I quote people who say smart things because apparently my own thoughts aren't accepted because I'm accused of being a petulant child.
No, you must have missed my earlier statements. I am arguing that it isn't incompatible with libertarianism to be against abortions. In no way am I advocating for state control of pregnancies or enforcement of carrying to term. I was merely explaining how the law could handle abortions if it were to be made illegal. Again, it all hinges on what rights we consider people to have and what the definition of life is. There is no libertarian consensus on this.
An abortion isn't just deciding to stop supporting a growing embryo or beyond. It's taking active steps to terminate a pregnancy. A mother can't just say, I don't want this fetus inside me and it naturally comes out and dies on its own. You have to either chemically poison it, or physically cut things apart to remove the ability to provide support. I'm not saying there is a good way of using the government to prevent or punish this, but abortion is not a passive thing like telling the fetus to leave. I guess you can claim self defense, but that's a tricky line as well considering through action (coitus) and inaction (insufficient or failed birth control) said party was invited into the property.
You are correct in that interpretations and current laws have exceeded the Constitutional mandate and sadly the Supreme Court has come down on the wrong side for quite awhile.
So let me get this straight. You get to make up your own definitions of political theories and then argue with other people based on your singular beliefs? Right. I am the teenaged narcissistic mom's basement dweller...
For reference, Google's definition of Libertarianism: "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."
Notice how the state is still in control of things, just minimally so? No anarchy or socialism in that definition. Similarly, I haven't found a single definition of anarchy that includes large government...
You seem to think libertarians can't have a conscience or empathy. The reality is that libertarians don't dump their responsibilities on the government. As Penn Jillette expressed:
It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
For reference, I am turning 30 this year and am in the top 15% of wage earners in my single income household. I read Atlas Shrugged and I enjoyed it (because I am an engineer and find trains interesting), however my wife can't stomach it, but is still a libertarian.
No, there is no theoretical basis for assuming a limited government cannot be powerful in the areas where it actually has jurisdiction. And no, I don't misunderstand anarchism, you do. You are making up your own definition. Every dictionary pretty much agrees: Anarchy: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
I think you missed some words in Clause 3 there...
...with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
So if your business operates in one state, doesn't sell overseas or to Indian Tribes the federal government has no power to regulate your commerce. Most states do not require a business license, but only registration of your business. Even then I've found that improperly registered businesses will not be pursued by the state. The only state required license for a business is if you want to set up a legal entity to protect your personal assets.
No, you are confusing libertarians with anarchists again... Libertarians believe in a strong central government, but a SMALL strong central government that only does it's job of enforcing laws to protect the rights of the citizens. No one seriously believes that Somalia was ever close to libertarian in operation.
Unless you accept the high likelihood of failure by continuing to vote for a 3rd party or independent candidates... Winning an election is a short term hollow victory if the winner is just as corrupt if not more than their predecessor.
Again, it depends on if you consider the entity a human being created by the mother. Maybe if the pushing someone off the boat analogy doesn't work, how about this one? A mother and a baby are in a space ship and the mother decides she doesn't want to take care of the baby anymore. Can the mother shove the baby out of the airlock? That baby is totally trespassing in the mother's property of the spaceship and has no intrinsic right to be there and share the mother's oxygen and food.
If you consider a gestational entity a human, you cannot terminate its life support anymore than you can pull the plug on someone hooked up to a respirator because you don't want to provide for their care anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
You've obviously never been through a concealed carry class or taken any training on how to defend against an active shooter. You don't whip out your gun in the middle of a crowd and start indiscriminately firing. You first take cover, then you assess the situation and identify the shooter. You then make sure the target is clear between you and behind them before you even consider putting a finger on the trigger.
What you should be calling for is free government training on using a firearm for self defense instead of trying to reduce the number of people able to defend themselves.
As a logical person, I'd have to point out that you just grouped all people of a certain belief and then assigned them all the same behavior patterns. That's the definition of stereotyping and makes you no better than the people you claim are disgruntled. You just judged an entire religious belief (or lack thereof) based on your limited experiences. I hope you're happy.
That's why I love Penn Jillette as an advocate for atheists. He really has a way of explaining things well:
The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you.
Not to defend the parent (as I am an atheist), but silence has been copyrighted as a creative work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
High 5 Bro!
http://vignette2.wikia.nocooki...
Or unless the poster is a doctor...
Unless they are a doctor?
For some reason people vote based on wanting to win even if what they are winning is a free punch in the nuts.
Umm [Citation Needed]
SS, Labor, and Unemployment is a whopping 1/3 alone. Military is only 16%.
https://media.nationalprioriti...
And you are conveniently overlooking the fact that in most cases, main thoroughfares are also not designed for the traffic volumes or speeds that actually exist.
Neither were the arterial roads. I live in the suburbs of Atlanta and I cut through neighborhoods to avoid the jam packed arterial streets. I don't do it because I want to, but because idiot developers created a huge development around a small lake with no through streets. The city then let them do it without requiring the upgrading of the arterial streets that go around it. So why would I take a 2 lane arterial street with a 35mph speed limit where traffic is bumper to bumper averaging less than 5mph? I would prefer not to blow by their unnecessary stop signs that don't many anything safer for anybody, but I would really prefer that people get over themselves and realize that the whole world can't be residential streets.
There is a lot of truth to this. We are in for a lot of hurt as AI and robotics take over the vast majority of labor in the world. It's going to happen and it's going to happen in a generation. I am lucky to be in a highly paid, hard to automate job at the moment, but I don't understand why we are still working so much... The Industrial Revolution brought the weekend. Unions fought for limited 40 hour work weeks which became the norm. You'd think with computers, the internet, smart phones, and remote access we'd have reduced work hours, increased vacation, etc? Nope, vacation time is still stingy as all hell and if anything hours for salaried employees has gone up. We need to start dropping work days or work hours during the day to let more people in on the dwindling job market before it's too late.
And see, this is where you don't realize that the government is an evil that is not accountable to you. Maybe you might have some influence in a local city election. At the state level, incumbents win in landslides if they aren't running unopposed (which they generally are). Primary battles are a rarity at the state level. By the time you get up to the federal level, it is unlikely that a few votes matter, and even if they did the elected representative doesn't give two shits about what you care about. You'll be lucky to get a form email back if you voice any concerns. If you want influence with a politician and actually hold the government accountable, you need MONEY. Bribe them legally through campaign contributions and then suddenly they might be accountable to you.
Also, speaking of accountability... We shall see how accountable politicians really are. We have a major political party presidential candidate that is highly likely to have committed a crime while holding office. We already know they violated department policy and have an FBI investigation ongoing. Do you think this individual will be held accountable? Hopefully we find out before the election, though the vast majority of that party's supporters have already said they will still vote for this individual even if they are indicted.
Which brings me to your businesses which are accountable to shareholders... Which for public companies you are welcome to become one. Yes, it takes money to get a vote, but at least they are honest about that. And even if you aren't a shareholder, you can still choose which companies to support by voting with your dollars. Don't like the way Walmart operates? Don't shop there. You don't have to own Walmart shares to influence their behavior.
It could be exploited, but getting a major party candidate that supports changing the voting system is about as likely as a third party winning an election. So again, your proposed solution is no more likely than mine. I'd rather be counted as not supporting the currently shitty system though.
And see, this is where you lose your reality. You call Somalia libertarian while you espouse communism under the term "anarchy" or "direct democracy."
The only way the need can ever or has ever been met is by ensuring all of society contributes.
Show me any society in history where every need has been met for every individual AND it's because everyone in that society contributes. Star Trek doesn't count.
Private citizens can lie, abscond, misrepresent and commit fraud because their finances are private. Government in a free country on the other hand is accountable to the public and is budgets are public record.
Governments throughout history have committed fraud, embezzling, and general incompetence which has stolen or wasted a significant portion of public money. Even when the money is spent with good intentions, it can be spent on wasteful endeavors. The government also has the power to borrow infinitely and spend public money they don't have. This puts future generations on the hook for spending today that they may not receive any benefit from.
And the richer you are the more devastating your evils become. ... It takes a corporation to talk politicians into needless wars that kill millions. ... Only a giant bank can steal trillions from the world and cause a major recession and not only face no legal penalties but get paid a bailout.
Funny how most of the political elite around the world also happen to be rich... As you say, they tend to be evil. Politicians may be urged by defense contractors to engage in war, but it definitely is not required. Plenty of nations go to war because of crazy governments and not corporations. Bringing up banks stealing trillions of dollars and getting off with no penalties is rather ironic since it's the government that encouraged and then pardoned the crime.
Maybe in your fantasy world where all people are equally powerful and form a collective "government" where they all share in resources equally things would be great. Sadly, in a universe with finite resources where economic principles of scarcity are true, this is a utopian fantasy that cannot exist.
I am totally cool with him coming up with whatever theories and definitions he wants to follow and calling ice cream a banana if he wants to. But we haven't have a public discussion on bananas if he is talking about ice cream... What he is doing is creating theories of what other people (libertarians) believe and then shitting on them for it. I don't care if he wants to call himself an anarchist meaning whatever he wants it to mean, but I do care when he says libertarian means what he wants it to mean instead of what libertarians actually mean and is generally accepted to be the definition.
I have my own theories, most of which align with the traditionally accepted definition of libertarianism. I quote people who say smart things because apparently my own thoughts aren't accepted because I'm accused of being a petulant child.
No, you must have missed my earlier statements. I am arguing that it isn't incompatible with libertarianism to be against abortions. In no way am I advocating for state control of pregnancies or enforcement of carrying to term. I was merely explaining how the law could handle abortions if it were to be made illegal. Again, it all hinges on what rights we consider people to have and what the definition of life is. There is no libertarian consensus on this.
An abortion isn't just deciding to stop supporting a growing embryo or beyond. It's taking active steps to terminate a pregnancy. A mother can't just say, I don't want this fetus inside me and it naturally comes out and dies on its own. You have to either chemically poison it, or physically cut things apart to remove the ability to provide support. I'm not saying there is a good way of using the government to prevent or punish this, but abortion is not a passive thing like telling the fetus to leave. I guess you can claim self defense, but that's a tricky line as well considering through action (coitus) and inaction (insufficient or failed birth control) said party was invited into the property.
You are correct in that interpretations and current laws have exceeded the Constitutional mandate and sadly the Supreme Court has come down on the wrong side for quite awhile.
So let me get this straight. You get to make up your own definitions of political theories and then argue with other people based on your singular beliefs? Right. I am the teenaged narcissistic mom's basement dweller...
For reference, Google's definition of Libertarianism: "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."
Notice how the state is still in control of things, just minimally so? No anarchy or socialism in that definition. Similarly, I haven't found a single definition of anarchy that includes large government...
You seem to think libertarians can't have a conscience or empathy. The reality is that libertarians don't dump their responsibilities on the government. As Penn Jillette expressed:
It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
For reference, I am turning 30 this year and am in the top 15% of wage earners in my single income household. I read Atlas Shrugged and I enjoyed it (because I am an engineer and find trains interesting), however my wife can't stomach it, but is still a libertarian.
No, there is no theoretical basis for assuming a limited government cannot be powerful in the areas where it actually has jurisdiction.
And no, I don't misunderstand anarchism, you do. You are making up your own definition. Every dictionary pretty much agrees: Anarchy: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
I think you missed some words in Clause 3 there...
...with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
So if your business operates in one state, doesn't sell overseas or to Indian Tribes the federal government has no power to regulate your commerce. Most states do not require a business license, but only registration of your business. Even then I've found that improperly registered businesses will not be pursued by the state. The only state required license for a business is if you want to set up a legal entity to protect your personal assets.
Is there any post you've made that doesn't conflate libertarianism with unregulated capitalism?
No, you are confusing libertarians with anarchists again... Libertarians believe in a strong central government, but a SMALL strong central government that only does it's job of enforcing laws to protect the rights of the citizens. No one seriously believes that Somalia was ever close to libertarian in operation.
Unless you accept the high likelihood of failure by continuing to vote for a 3rd party or independent candidates... Winning an election is a short term hollow victory if the winner is just as corrupt if not more than their predecessor.
Again, it depends on if you consider the entity a human being created by the mother. Maybe if the pushing someone off the boat analogy doesn't work, how about this one? A mother and a baby are in a space ship and the mother decides she doesn't want to take care of the baby anymore. Can the mother shove the baby out of the airlock? That baby is totally trespassing in the mother's property of the spaceship and has no intrinsic right to be there and share the mother's oxygen and food.
If you consider a gestational entity a human, you cannot terminate its life support anymore than you can pull the plug on someone hooked up to a respirator because you don't want to provide for their care anymore.