Yes it does, because minority start to think in term of skin color, and not social status. Look at Ferguson, Brown wasn't shot because he was black, he was shot because he was a lousy, self-entitled, thief who decided to assault a cop.
And what if, God forbid, someone rapes and murders someone you love? Do you and your weapon have the resources to find justice? If your answer is yes, then you are truly scary. The rest of us have evolved beyond your vigilante philosophy.
It's not "vigilente". I'm not actively seeking confrontation, I merely want to be able to defend myself. The millions of people who CCW in the US prove you wrong. Beside that, in the example you gave me, my mate would CCW. The only real point I can comment on is, "what if someone kills her ?". Well, that suck, but sending the perp to prison is not gonna bring her back, I'd move on.
I don't need police if I can carry a weapon to defend myself. And yeah, the firemen argument was dishonest from my part. Where can I sign up to carry a gun, not pay the police, not pay for schools, not pay for libraries (I actually buy my books, don't rent them), but pay for firemen ?
Given that people cannot travel freely wherever they want, no, law is not an expression of the will of the people choosing to live under it. You can try to escape, but your options are limited. The voluntary "social contract" theory is a fallacy. Law is imposed on people.
Last time I checked, you had no need to be invaded by a foreign army to suffer from unwarranted search and no-knock entry at the force of a stun grenade. Your own government do that for you.
The problem is that the system doesn't give you the options to choose where you put money in. You might want to put $1 for a better road, but there is nothing constraining those who tap in the pool to use it for a better road. If it was the case, paying taxes would be a joy, not a burden. You would actually enjoy to have a tax refund as low as possible, rather than as high as possible.
I challenge everyone disagreeing with me to say they enjoy paying taxes, and would be happy to pay even more.
Electricity ? I pay for electricity. While the company is publicly-owner, it is not providing me with a "free" service. Internet ? It'ss not a public service either. My ISP is actually a private company. Navigable waterways ? Seriously ? Did the government create rivers from nothing ? Safe food ? I'm not sure they're that safe when you see the amount of fat people you have south of the border. Police protection ? Where ? The police doesn't protect me, they merely sort out the mess after it happened (and forbid me to french-kiss my girlfriend on a bench because they judged it to be "indecent"). Fire protection ? Once again, firemen mostly clean-up the mess. Schools ? I don't have kids, so I shouldn't pay for schools. Libraries ? I don't go to libraries... which are handled at a local level anyway. As I'm not owner of my residence I don't pay property taxes. And finally, "parks" and "national forests"... really ? Did the government creates parks and tree from nothing ? My main recreation facility is actually a private property open to the public, and I'll never go to your "national forests" and "national parks" where you got to get (and pay for) a permit to take pictures...
Btw, your comment is interesting, it really sounds like you consider Government to be responsible for the creation of every wonder, kind of in a religious way. Whereas Government is merely a parasite.
No, because it is implying that infrastructure can only be built by public entities. You can not pay taxes, but have decent infrastructures, and you can pay taxes, but still have lousy infrastructure, or no infrastructure at all. An excellent summary on taxes is actually pretty quick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you can afford to maintain two active war for a decade, you can certainly afford better education for your children... or better infrastructures. Depends where your priorities are. I still maintain that the whole money sank in "defense" (which should really be called "offense") industries would probably have been of much better use locally, might it just be not to put the next few generations in debt.
You are assuming taxes are used for infrastructures, whereas if taxes were used only for infrastructures only, taxes would be much lower. The day taxes were used to finance infrastructure are long gone. Taxes are merely a way for politicians to buy their re-election. You vote right, you get power, subsidiaries, regulatory control, either on the business side, or on the unions side. There isn't much difference. Taxes are merely mostly used to buy social peace, have people lives their lives in safe jobs, good retirements, etc. Progress, discoveries, not longer really matter. What matter is stability. Be a there for the daily cash milking, don't make waves. Even health insurance could be criticize as a way to buy back people's irresponsibility. You've been smoking all your life, and now, you cost hundreds of thousands in health care ? Don't worry, we're here to cover for your irresponsibility. You've been irresponsible to ski out of the tracks ? Don't worry, we're here to cover for your irresponsibility. There is no way the system is not gonna go a-wire, as the very existence of the system is pushing people to be more and more irresponsible because, hey, mommy-state is here to back us if we fuck up.
You are assuming a perfect world where taxes are used efficiently, whereas most western government have rather low bang-for-the-buck. At the end of the day, what really happen is more of the realm of "Everyone pays taxes, but infrastructures still sucks".
This is pure petty resentment. Make the life of the other guy miserable because his values did not prevent him to easily do what it took me a huge effort to do. At the end of the day, the only thing which really matter is the result. There is nothing wrong in a bimbo marrying a rich dying guy to inherit [at least, part of] his money.
Society has strictly no duty to help those who truly cannot fend for themselves, just like cops have strictly no duty to put their lives on the line to save others. And before you contradict me on this point, have a look there: http://disinfo.com/2010/03/the...
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think girl's brain is more... pure ?
Yes it does, because minority start to think in term of skin color, and not social status. Look at Ferguson, Brown wasn't shot because he was black, he was shot because he was a lousy, self-entitled, thief who decided to assault a cop.
There is a tremendous huge gap between being a good coder and a good entrepreneur. Even fewer women have the "risk taking" balls to get this way.
This is sexist... We like boobs too.
And you are advocating for a pro-female, anti-male policy. The more thing change, the more they stay the same...
Could you learn how to correctly quote a comment ? I have no idea where the quote is, and where your answer is...
And what if, God forbid, someone rapes and murders someone you love? Do you and your weapon have the resources to find justice? If your answer is yes, then you are truly scary. The rest of us have evolved beyond your vigilante philosophy.
It's not "vigilente". I'm not actively seeking confrontation, I merely want to be able to defend myself. The millions of people who CCW in the US prove you wrong. Beside that, in the example you gave me, my mate would CCW. The only real point I can comment on is, "what if someone kills her ?". Well, that suck, but sending the perp to prison is not gonna bring her back, I'd move on.
I don't need police if I can carry a weapon to defend myself. And yeah, the firemen argument was dishonest from my part. Where can I sign up to carry a gun, not pay the police, not pay for schools, not pay for libraries (I actually buy my books, don't rent them), but pay for firemen ?
Given the recent (post WWII) stance taken by Governments to ERODE "unalienable rights", I doubt you statement has much weight...
Given that people cannot travel freely wherever they want, no, law is not an expression of the will of the people choosing to live under it. You can try to escape, but your options are limited. The voluntary "social contract" theory is a fallacy. Law is imposed on people.
Last time I checked, you had no need to be invaded by a foreign army to suffer from unwarranted search and no-knock entry at the force of a stun grenade. Your own government do that for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs9LNAI0nBc
The problem is that the system doesn't give you the options to choose where you put money in. You might want to put $1 for a better road, but there is nothing constraining those who tap in the pool to use it for a better road. If it was the case, paying taxes would be a joy, not a burden. You would actually enjoy to have a tax refund as low as possible, rather than as high as possible.
I challenge everyone disagreeing with me to say they enjoy paying taxes, and would be happy to pay even more.
1) $25k, 2) I don't commute daily ;-)
Electricity ? I pay for electricity. While the company is publicly-owner, it is not providing me with a "free" service. Internet ? It'ss not a public service either. My ISP is actually a private company. Navigable waterways ? Seriously ? Did the government create rivers from nothing ? Safe food ? I'm not sure they're that safe when you see the amount of fat people you have south of the border. Police protection ? Where ? The police doesn't protect me, they merely sort out the mess after it happened (and forbid me to french-kiss my girlfriend on a bench because they judged it to be "indecent"). Fire protection ? Once again, firemen mostly clean-up the mess. Schools ? I don't have kids, so I shouldn't pay for schools. Libraries ? I don't go to libraries... which are handled at a local level anyway. As I'm not owner of my residence I don't pay property taxes. And finally, "parks" and "national forests"... really ? Did the government creates parks and tree from nothing ? My main recreation facility is actually a private property open to the public, and I'll never go to your "national forests" and "national parks" where you got to get (and pay for) a permit to take pictures...
Btw, your comment is interesting, it really sounds like you consider Government to be responsible for the creation of every wonder, kind of in a religious way. Whereas Government is merely a parasite.
There is also Warren v. District of Columbia and Castle Rock v. Gonzales, though, not directly quoted in the post.
Hartzler v. City of San Jose and DeShaney v. Winnebago are not enough for you ?
The main difference is that if a private company waste too much money, there is a high likelihood it will cease to exist altogether.
No. You'd shoot to stop a threat, not to kill.
No, because it is implying that infrastructure can only be built by public entities. You can not pay taxes, but have decent infrastructures, and you can pay taxes, but still have lousy infrastructure, or no infrastructure at all. An excellent summary on taxes is actually pretty quick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
and I'm not even mentioning bailing out banks and too-large-to-fail companies...
Read my comment above.
If you can afford to maintain two active war for a decade, you can certainly afford better education for your children... or better infrastructures. Depends where your priorities are. I still maintain that the whole money sank in "defense" (which should really be called "offense") industries would probably have been of much better use locally, might it just be not to put the next few generations in debt.
You are assuming taxes are used for infrastructures, whereas if taxes were used only for infrastructures only, taxes would be much lower. The day taxes were used to finance infrastructure are long gone. Taxes are merely a way for politicians to buy their re-election. You vote right, you get power, subsidiaries, regulatory control, either on the business side, or on the unions side. There isn't much difference. Taxes are merely mostly used to buy social peace, have people lives their lives in safe jobs, good retirements, etc. Progress, discoveries, not longer really matter. What matter is stability. Be a there for the daily cash milking, don't make waves. Even health insurance could be criticize as a way to buy back people's irresponsibility. You've been smoking all your life, and now, you cost hundreds of thousands in health care ? Don't worry, we're here to cover for your irresponsibility. You've been irresponsible to ski out of the tracks ? Don't worry, we're here to cover for your irresponsibility. There is no way the system is not gonna go a-wire, as the very existence of the system is pushing people to be more and more irresponsible because, hey, mommy-state is here to back us if we fuck up.
You are assuming a perfect world where taxes are used efficiently, whereas most western government have rather low bang-for-the-buck. At the end of the day, what really happen is more of the realm of "Everyone pays taxes, but infrastructures still sucks".
This is pure petty resentment. Make the life of the other guy miserable because his values did not prevent him to easily do what it took me a huge effort to do. At the end of the day, the only thing which really matter is the result. There is nothing wrong in a bimbo marrying a rich dying guy to inherit [at least, part of] his money.
Society has strictly no duty to help those who truly cannot fend for themselves, just like cops have strictly no duty to put their lives on the line to save others. And before you contradict me on this point, have a look there: http://disinfo.com/2010/03/the...
I'd much prefer a soft armor capable of stopping a .308WIN at 50 yards..