You are avoiding my question. And yes, you did put up a quite childish strawman..
I'll try once more before giving you up:
In situations where force is needed, what should officers use? Batons? Guns? Warning shots? Tasers? Pepper Spray? Brute Force? What is the alternative to tasing people that you find more tempting? Since you are particularly attacking this method of force.
Try NOT to avoid the question this time please:)
Most people can agree that unlawfull violence is bad, police officers or not. Most people can agree that unproportional violence is bad. The hard part is actually drawing the line. What IS unproportional violence? What is unlawfull violence? What is undue use of force? When should one NOT use force? And the following, that I already have asked: When necesary, what means of force should be used? I guess we all agree that tasers are better than guns, but what about mace versus tasers? When and where?
You are grossly oversimplifying, that is the problem, that combined with a heavy strawman-use.
You are not adressing any of my points.
Secondly, many of the problems in the sub prime mortage/stock bubble situation is in heavily regulated parts of the market, not in less regulated parts.
Again, getting your facts straight would improve your arguments quite a bit.
First of all, I'm not assuming anything, you are setting up a very simple strawman, please don't do that, it dumbs the debate down and puts you in a bad light.
My question is quite simple: what alternative ways of force should the police use in different situations in your view? Implied in this question is (of course) a situation where force is needed.
Should the police use a gun? Should they use warning shots? Should they use pepper spray? Should they use the tazer? Should they use rubber bullets? Should they use batons? Should they use shields and long sticks...
What kind of force do you think would be appropriate? When? How?
Is your real problem the education that american police forces use? Or the weapons they use...?
I can use my fork as a torture device, I can use my didigtal single lens reflex camera as a torture device if I want to. You use your choice of words to define the situation.
A few questions should be answered:
What other options do law enforcement agents have? Guns? Pepper Spray? Batons?
1) A free market is not an unregulated marked. I doubt that any serious libertanian philosopher suggest a market with no regulations what so ever.
2) You don't define "greed", "fair" or any of the other words you use so harshly, I would like a quick definition if you don't mind.
3) People like Matt Ridley, Richard Dawkins and quite a few evolutionary social scientists, are basing their theories about social science on the opposite of religion: science. Stating that people like Sowell refuses to use empirical evidence and relate to reality is.. not very wise.
Ulrikft.
First of all, we have a homeless problem in Scandinavia, an increasing one to be honest.
Secondly, the Scandinavian model has a few prerequisites: people have to have high morals when it comes to "do your duty THEN claim your right". If you have too many people just claiming their right, the model does not work.
When it comes to behaviour, you have quite a few arguments coined by people like Matt Ridley that argue from a evolutionary perspective that explain why and how people behave in different situation. The fact that no "libertarian economic" has been tried out in a modern society kind of makes your argument a bit flawed too.
So instead of trying to shout and yell, try to think. Getting a grip on the facts of the Scandinavian model would also improve your argument.
Ulrikft.
Slashdot Mirror
You are avoiding my question. And yes, you did put up a quite childish strawman..
:)
I'll try once more before giving you up:
In situations where force is needed, what should officers use? Batons? Guns? Warning shots? Tasers? Pepper Spray? Brute Force? What is the alternative to tasing people that you find more tempting? Since you are particularly attacking this method of force. Try NOT to avoid the question this time please
Most people can agree that unlawfull violence is bad, police officers or not. Most people can agree that unproportional violence is bad. The hard part is actually drawing the line. What IS unproportional violence? What is unlawfull violence? What is undue use of force? When should one NOT use force? And the following, that I already have asked: When necesary, what means of force should be used? I guess we all agree that tasers are better than guns, but what about mace versus tasers? When and where?
You are grossly oversimplifying, that is the problem, that combined with a heavy strawman-use.
You are not adressing any of my points. Secondly, many of the problems in the sub prime mortage/stock bubble situation is in heavily regulated parts of the market, not in less regulated parts. Again, getting your facts straight would improve your arguments quite a bit.
First of all, I'm not assuming anything, you are setting up a very simple strawman, please don't do that, it dumbs the debate down and puts you in a bad light. My question is quite simple: what alternative ways of force should the police use in different situations in your view? Implied in this question is (of course) a situation where force is needed. Should the police use a gun? Should they use warning shots? Should they use pepper spray? Should they use the tazer? Should they use rubber bullets? Should they use batons? Should they use shields and long sticks... What kind of force do you think would be appropriate? When? How? Is your real problem the education that american police forces use? Or the weapons they use...?
I can use my fork as a torture device, I can use my didigtal single lens reflex camera as a torture device if I want to. You use your choice of words to define the situation. A few questions should be answered: What other options do law enforcement agents have? Guns? Pepper Spray? Batons?
1) A free market is not an unregulated marked. I doubt that any serious libertanian philosopher suggest a market with no regulations what so ever. 2) You don't define "greed", "fair" or any of the other words you use so harshly, I would like a quick definition if you don't mind. 3) People like Matt Ridley, Richard Dawkins and quite a few evolutionary social scientists, are basing their theories about social science on the opposite of religion: science. Stating that people like Sowell refuses to use empirical evidence and relate to reality is.. not very wise. Ulrikft.
First of all, we have a homeless problem in Scandinavia, an increasing one to be honest. Secondly, the Scandinavian model has a few prerequisites: people have to have high morals when it comes to "do your duty THEN claim your right". If you have too many people just claiming their right, the model does not work. When it comes to behaviour, you have quite a few arguments coined by people like Matt Ridley that argue from a evolutionary perspective that explain why and how people behave in different situation. The fact that no "libertarian economic" has been tried out in a modern society kind of makes your argument a bit flawed too. So instead of trying to shout and yell, try to think. Getting a grip on the facts of the Scandinavian model would also improve your argument. Ulrikft.