You can't sqaunder something you don't yet have. Repealing a tax may decrease future projected revenues, but it doesn't qualify as "removing billions from the coffers", as those billions aren't yet there to be removed.
And frankly, the natural reason the gulf tends to widen between the rich and poor is, obviously, because the rich are much better at making and controlling money. Decreasing unfair taxes isn't punishing the poor, it's removing a punishment from those who have estates.
Someone who instead of deciding whether it's appropriate to shoot, is already shooting to kill.
I've given it a lot of thought actually...it's the type of person I am. I try and think about things in advance.
Individuals aren't supposed to judge and punish the actions of others.
I would be neither judging nor punishing. Simply protecting my own property (and possibly myself and my wife) in the only reasonable way I know how.
Sure draw the gun, warning shots even.. but deadly force should only be to protect from immediate harm.
I would agree with that if there were actually an effective alternative. I could shout, and that might work, but only the threat of force would actually (probably) have any affect. That threat could be by me waving a gun around and/or firing a warning shot and the thief imagining what might happen next. Or, it could come simply from him thinking he could get shot if he is seen, so simply being caught may create that threat (in his mind).
Bottom line you're the one that's creating life threatening situation with that kind of attitude.
I would never murder, rape, steal from, or otherwise attack another person. I would be willing to risk my own life to save another person. I've stood outnumbered, ready to fight at 5-1 odds (me and one other guy) to defend a black guy at a very white, southern party. I value human life and the rights of individuals to not be attacked or have their own property attacked. I'm a very easy-going guy. Yet, sitting in my home, bothering nobody, and a thief comes and tries to take stuff that doesn't belong to him, and you label me as having created a "life threatening situation"...cute.
First, any 7-y/o death would be terribly unfortunate. However, how can one reasonably divde along such lines? For example, it's not reasonable to form the law such that "You can use violent force only if the perpetrator is above the age of 18", or some such. Further, what about "kids" that are older...say, 16 or 17? How many kids (I've known several) commit serious crimes (auto theft, major destruction of property, burglary, etc.) because they KNOW that as soon as they turn 18, it's wipped away? Now, how many of those kids wouldn't have done such a thing if they also knew it was a likely scenario they would be shot and killed?
So, while I would never like the idea of a 7 year old being killed in any circumstance (I realize kids do make stupid mistakes), do we simply allow criminals to steal anything they want (without a person being able to do anything about it) because of the occasional 7 yo that might get caught up in some serious mess? I suppose that's exactly what you are implying...but I'm not sure it's a good or reasonable answer.
One thing is for sure, in this hypothetical "thief gets shot", no matter what the age of the thief, the thief himself is solely responsible (not legally, but ethically) for the entire situation having occured. Yet, legally, he is made to be not responsible...
Laws vary from state to state. Personally, regardless of what any law says, my (and I'm only speaking for myself) argument is simply that a person should be able to protect his own property, and that, in most cases, use of violent force is the only reasonable method to do so. (Personally, I'm no kung-fu expert)
I love how these things always turn into cries of "...for the children!". Go away. Perhaps you should have been shot as a child...you're obviously a thief.
Yeah, it seems like reasonable force until he pulls out a gun himself, or he turns out to be 6'6" 250 lbs. Bottom line, I'm not hurting anyone. I shouldn't have to wait to be shot to be able to use a gun myself. If a thief creates a situation, any and all circumstances resulting from that situation should rest only on his shoulders (wether that includes him dying, me dying, etc.) Someone who wants to steal other people's stuff are free to put their life on the line, but I shouldn't have to be worried about trying to figure out "reasonable force" because some lowlife (who may or may not be armed) decided he wants my TV, or be forced between using "reasonable force" or just waving goodbye to my stuff.
Your property is not worth someone's life, even that of a criminal.
Here's an idea, let the thief make that decision. Make it completely legal to use violent force to protect your property, then each thief has to decide wether my property is really worth him losing his life...
It's not subjective, as they are two completely different issues. Now, while I don't think it's ok to shoot someone for cutting you off, we don't have to argue that point. Specifically, we were talking about protecting property. Someone who cut you off a moment ago, is not in any way at all currently threatening to steal from you (or otherwise violate your property rights).
As for "grow a little", I would never take pleasure in shooting someone (wether or not they actually ended up doead). However, I do believe I should have the right to protect my property. And, there is absolutely no real way to do that without violent force. However, I wouldn't feel guilty for it either, as the whole situation (starting with the attempted theft all the way up to the thief getting shot) was set up by the thief himself. I was an involuntary participant (in this hypothetical situation).
Just because I know it will really make people roll their eyes, I would even think it reasonable that the thief should have to reimburse me for my bullet.:)
Of course, I'm talking about how I think things should be. I may (for example) be thrown in jail for shooting someone who is stealing my vehicle parked in my driveway, but I'm arguing that I should be allowed to do that. One shouldn't be allowed to own intangible property...but that's a discussion for another thread. In any case, by my reasoning, property rights would only apply to actual tangible things.
Why don't you break in my house and steal something?...you'll find out I'm neither.
Look it up, wanting to protect one's property does not qualify one as a psychopath I assure you. On the other hand, thinking you have the right to take whatever you want from anyone will work towards defining you as a psychopath....what does that make you?
There is very little in my opinion lower than a thief, you people are truly a menace to society. Should you be dead? I don't know. But I think a person absolutely has the right (not neceassarily legal right) to use force to prevent thieves like yourself from operating freely. There really is no alternative (to violent force) except get taken advantage of and file a useless police report later.
I'm sure you'd consider it fair when someone puts a bullet in your wife for cutting him off in traffic.
These two things are hardly comparable. Exactly at what point does a person (in your opinion) get to start protecting their own property? And keep in mind, generally speaking, police do not exist to prevent crimes. They can't (by virture of not being able to be everywhere at once), they can only try to solve crimes that have already been comitted. And anyone who has had something stolen from them (either a vehicle, or something else) can tell you it *might* be found, but the perpetrator likely never will be, and you will no doubt be out money after it's all said and done.
I suppose you would just prefer everyone wave and say "have a nice day" when they are being stolen from... Like I said, god forbid people be able to protect their property. Let's make sure the criminals have all the rights and the rest of us just sit back and take it in the ass.
or a store owner shoots two kids that are shoplifting
Yeah, god forbid people actually be able to protect their own property...
Legal or not, I can assure you that anyone caught stealing anything from me would be shot on site. And while I may end up in jail (or not...IANAL) I would be in the right.
Does the fact that Bollywood makes 3 times as many movies as Hollywood, but only sold 38% more tickets suggest anything about the quality of the movies?
Have you noticed how every carrier has a commercial now, saying that if you switch to them, you can keep your old number? As if they came up with this and are the only carrier with which you can do that...
You were implying that I thought all poor people were lazy, therefore I should as my parents if they were lazy. I never implied that.
Far more than 1-2% of my money goes to social programs. Perhaps you don't get a real paycheck yet, but one day you may, and you will see that.
At any rate, I know I won't be changing your mind. It's ok though. You can sleep comfortably at night knowing that all those dollars paid by other people are being efficiently used to give the poor every opportunity to be not poor. Why don't you pat yourself on the back?
I still disagree with that, BTW, and I don't see how any of the other independently valid points you made here should affect that whatsoever.
It all works together. While charity is certainly a good thing (moral judgement), robbing people, even if it goes to a perfectly efficient charitable cause, is still theft. Theft is wrong, especially when perpetuated by a government that is supposed to protect against just such things.
Further, the fact that social programs are so inefficient, makes the crime all that much more so. Now, not only do I get robbed twice a month, the money isn't even used in a responsible manner.
As for the issue of bigger governments preventing tyranny, well, it's sort of a circular problem. Government has to get big (in the sense of intruding on every part of life, not in the sense that it has to be a big country, e.g. Cuba...small country, big government) in order to become tyrannical. However, you are suggesting that government has to be the one to watch government. While the U.S. has found a probably somewhat decent way to do this (compared to other governments), it's still not effective much at all. It would be equivalent to saying you found a viable way to swim across the Pacific because you decided to wear a life jacket. With or without the lifejacket, and while the lifejacket is certainly an improvement to the condition of no lifejacket, you still aren't going to make it. It's also a little like asking the fox to gaurd the henhouse. The real reason that the U.S. went the first 100 or so years with such small government, is because it was well established that the people in the country at that time were willing to commit violence against government officials commitng crimes against it's citizens. Now, we just blindly trust that officials will be ethical people, especially when dealing with the money they are supposed taking care of. However, people in government aren't going to be any more ethical than you average Joe (who, I'm reasonably sure, you wouldn't blindly hand over 25% of your paycheck to every month). And considering that it's reasonable to say that anyone who is involved in government at a national level is likely "power hungry" (to some degree or another), it's even less likely they will be ethical when being unethical gives them more of what they want (power).
The only way to insure that money is spent wisely, is to allow those with the money to spend it. They have "skin in the game", so to speak. They have a built-in reason to make sure that, to use an example you pointed out, things like "welfare fraud" (which without welfare would become "charity fraud") do not happen. No such check exists for government officials. Their only concern is buying more votes, and they do that by robbing from the minority, and hading it out to the majority.
Realistically, nothing I say here will matter. As long as a few people have the support of the majority to enslave (or otherwise take advantage of) a minority, the minority will only ever be able to change that through violent revolt, which probably wouldn't be very successful either, as is the case when being a minority taking on a larger party. Which leads to, as long as the mindset of the American people (as a whole) stays the same, this will never change. As long as the government doesn't make the mistake of over exploiting the majority, and as long as exploited people justify the exploitation to themselves (and they get plenty of help from government officials to this end through propaganda), it will never change. I do love this country, however my love for this country resides in the ideals it was founded on, rather than the ideals it runs on today.
Not trolling. As for most historical examples, I'm not supporting enslavement of people, as happened in many cases in history (feudalist Europe as an example). Here's a funny statement: "...a strong state is needed to prevent rise of an excessively strong (tyrranical) state."
Huh?
Excessive government is usually the problem in the "historical evidence" you refer to. Further more, yes, I believe social programs perpetuate the very problems they claim to solve. How did people ever get a long before social security for example? It hasn't really been around that long...less than 100 hundred years. What I think happens is two things:
1) The lazy get lazier. As I've said before, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to work. However, subsidizing this behavior leads to more of the same behavior, not less. Which makes sense. If some people are willing to participate in activity A, whatever that may be, it stands to reason that those same people will participate in that activity to an even greater degree when they get paid to do so. But why let logic get in the way?
2) People become less involved. Why actually spend some of your time mentoring a young poor black kid, when you can sleep comfortably at night knowing that you paid your taxes, and argued with some idiot like me who would do away with public libraries? Especially considering that if you only mentored one poor kid a year, say a couple times a month, it would probably have as much impact as 2 or 3 public libraries...or more.
Here's a thought. Instead of being so wound up about our precious "social programs", why don't we just start actually caring about our fellow man? In a way, it kind of makes me think of how some people talk about slavery now adays. I've actually heard many times (I live in the south, and am otherwise a typical white country boy) people talk about how slave owners would treat their slaves so well. While there is certainly a little truth to that, the fact is that they were still slaves. To act as if you are doing some great social justice by providing public libraries, left to be managed by the completly inept governments of this country, is simply absurd. If you want to help people, then do so. But stop robbing those around you so that you can feel good at the end of the day.
Not only do I think that would be an improvement, so do a lot of governments, who have implemented just such road tolls, mainly to alleviate the "tragedy of the commons" issue that we all see everyday on interstates.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't sqaunder something you don't yet have. Repealing a tax may decrease future projected revenues, but it doesn't qualify as "removing billions from the coffers", as those billions aren't yet there to be removed.
And frankly, the natural reason the gulf tends to widen between the rich and poor is, obviously, because the rich are much better at making and controlling money. Decreasing unfair taxes isn't punishing the poor, it's removing a punishment from those who have estates.
Someone who instead of deciding whether it's appropriate to shoot, is already shooting to kill.
I've given it a lot of thought actually...it's the type of person I am. I try and think about things in advance.
Individuals aren't supposed to judge and punish the actions of others.
I would be neither judging nor punishing. Simply protecting my own property (and possibly myself and my wife) in the only reasonable way I know how.
Sure draw the gun, warning shots even.. but deadly force should only be to protect from immediate harm.
I would agree with that if there were actually an effective alternative. I could shout, and that might work, but only the threat of force would actually (probably) have any affect. That threat could be by me waving a gun around and/or firing a warning shot and the thief imagining what might happen next. Or, it could come simply from him thinking he could get shot if he is seen, so simply being caught may create that threat (in his mind).
Bottom line you're the one that's creating life threatening situation with that kind of attitude.
I would never murder, rape, steal from, or otherwise attack another person. I would be willing to risk my own life to save another person. I've stood outnumbered, ready to fight at 5-1 odds (me and one other guy) to defend a black guy at a very white, southern party. I value human life and the rights of individuals to not be attacked or have their own property attacked. I'm a very easy-going guy. Yet, sitting in my home, bothering nobody, and a thief comes and tries to take stuff that doesn't belong to him, and you label me as having created a "life threatening situation"...cute.
So are you prepared to take responsibility for your actions?
Yes. That's probably an unusual concept to you.
Not only should they have had the right...right now I'm kinda wishing they had.
First, any 7-y/o death would be terribly unfortunate. However, how can one reasonably divde along such lines? For example, it's not reasonable to form the law such that "You can use violent force only if the perpetrator is above the age of 18", or some such. Further, what about "kids" that are older...say, 16 or 17? How many kids (I've known several) commit serious crimes (auto theft, major destruction of property, burglary, etc.) because they KNOW that as soon as they turn 18, it's wipped away? Now, how many of those kids wouldn't have done such a thing if they also knew it was a likely scenario they would be shot and killed?
So, while I would never like the idea of a 7 year old being killed in any circumstance (I realize kids do make stupid mistakes), do we simply allow criminals to steal anything they want (without a person being able to do anything about it) because of the occasional 7 yo that might get caught up in some serious mess? I suppose that's exactly what you are implying...but I'm not sure it's a good or reasonable answer.
One thing is for sure, in this hypothetical "thief gets shot", no matter what the age of the thief, the thief himself is solely responsible (not legally, but ethically) for the entire situation having occured. Yet, legally, he is made to be not responsible...
Laws vary from state to state. Personally, regardless of what any law says, my (and I'm only speaking for myself) argument is simply that a person should be able to protect his own property, and that, in most cases, use of violent force is the only reasonable method to do so. (Personally, I'm no kung-fu expert)
I love how these things always turn into cries of "...for the children!". Go away. Perhaps you should have been shot as a child...you're obviously a thief.
I think I'll move to Texas...also ironically, I too am against the death penalty.
I'll bet if you had known that was a probable scenario, you wouldn't have done it...
Yeah, it seems like reasonable force until he pulls out a gun himself, or he turns out to be 6'6" 250 lbs. Bottom line, I'm not hurting anyone. I shouldn't have to wait to be shot to be able to use a gun myself. If a thief creates a situation, any and all circumstances resulting from that situation should rest only on his shoulders (wether that includes him dying, me dying, etc.) Someone who wants to steal other people's stuff are free to put their life on the line, but I shouldn't have to be worried about trying to figure out "reasonable force" because some lowlife (who may or may not be armed) decided he wants my TV, or be forced between using "reasonable force" or just waving goodbye to my stuff.
Well the topic of the article is intangible property rights,
True, but the parent I was replying to was talking about protecting tangible property...
Your property is not worth someone's life, even that of a criminal.
Here's an idea, let the thief make that decision. Make it completely legal to use violent force to protect your property, then each thief has to decide wether my property is really worth him losing his life...
It's not subjective, as they are two completely different issues. Now, while I don't think it's ok to shoot someone for cutting you off, we don't have to argue that point. Specifically, we were talking about protecting property. Someone who cut you off a moment ago, is not in any way at all currently threatening to steal from you (or otherwise violate your property rights).
:)
As for "grow a little", I would never take pleasure in shooting someone (wether or not they actually ended up doead). However, I do believe I should have the right to protect my property. And, there is absolutely no real way to do that without violent force. However, I wouldn't feel guilty for it either, as the whole situation (starting with the attempted theft all the way up to the thief getting shot) was set up by the thief himself. I was an involuntary participant (in this hypothetical situation).
Just because I know it will really make people roll their eyes, I would even think it reasonable that the thief should have to reimburse me for my bullet.
Of course, I'm talking about how I think things should be. I may (for example) be thrown in jail for shooting someone who is stealing my vehicle parked in my driveway, but I'm arguing that I should be allowed to do that. One shouldn't be allowed to own intangible property...but that's a discussion for another thread. In any case, by my reasoning, property rights would only apply to actual tangible things.
Why don't you break in my house and steal something?...you'll find out I'm neither.
Look it up, wanting to protect one's property does not qualify one as a psychopath I assure you. On the other hand, thinking you have the right to take whatever you want from anyone will work towards defining you as a psychopath....what does that make you?
Should I be dead?
There is very little in my opinion lower than a thief, you people are truly a menace to society. Should you be dead? I don't know. But I think a person absolutely has the right (not neceassarily legal right) to use force to prevent thieves like yourself from operating freely. There really is no alternative (to violent force) except get taken advantage of and file a useless police report later.
I'm sure you'd consider it fair when someone puts a bullet in your wife for cutting him off in traffic.
These two things are hardly comparable. Exactly at what point does a person (in your opinion) get to start protecting their own property? And keep in mind, generally speaking, police do not exist to prevent crimes. They can't (by virture of not being able to be everywhere at once), they can only try to solve crimes that have already been comitted. And anyone who has had something stolen from them (either a vehicle, or something else) can tell you it *might* be found, but the perpetrator likely never will be, and you will no doubt be out money after it's all said and done.
I suppose you would just prefer everyone wave and say "have a nice day" when they are being stolen from... Like I said, god forbid people be able to protect their property. Let's make sure the criminals have all the rights and the rest of us just sit back and take it in the ass.
or a store owner shoots two kids that are shoplifting
Yeah, god forbid people actually be able to protect their own property...
Legal or not, I can assure you that anyone caught stealing anything from me would be shot on site. And while I may end up in jail (or not...IANAL) I would be in the right.
or at least make it mandatory to for-profit organizations to give a certain minimum amount
Does the fact that Bollywood makes 3 times as many movies as Hollywood, but only sold 38% more tickets suggest anything about the quality of the movies?
Have you noticed how every carrier has a commercial now, saying that if you switch to them, you can keep your old number? As if they came up with this and are the only carrier with which you can do that...
You were implying that I thought all poor people were lazy, therefore I should as my parents if they were lazy. I never implied that.
Far more than 1-2% of my money goes to social programs. Perhaps you don't get a real paycheck yet, but one day you may, and you will see that.
At any rate, I know I won't be changing your mind. It's ok though. You can sleep comfortably at night knowing that all those dollars paid by other people are being efficiently used to give the poor every opportunity to be not poor. Why don't you pat yourself on the back?
I still disagree with that, BTW, and I don't see how any of the other independently valid points you made here should affect that whatsoever.
It all works together. While charity is certainly a good thing (moral judgement), robbing people, even if it goes to a perfectly efficient charitable cause, is still theft. Theft is wrong, especially when perpetuated by a government that is supposed to protect against just such things.
Further, the fact that social programs are so inefficient, makes the crime all that much more so. Now, not only do I get robbed twice a month, the money isn't even used in a responsible manner.
As for the issue of bigger governments preventing tyranny, well, it's sort of a circular problem. Government has to get big (in the sense of intruding on every part of life, not in the sense that it has to be a big country, e.g. Cuba...small country, big government) in order to become tyrannical. However, you are suggesting that government has to be the one to watch government. While the U.S. has found a probably somewhat decent way to do this (compared to other governments), it's still not effective much at all. It would be equivalent to saying you found a viable way to swim across the Pacific because you decided to wear a life jacket. With or without the lifejacket, and while the lifejacket is certainly an improvement to the condition of no lifejacket, you still aren't going to make it. It's also a little like asking the fox to gaurd the henhouse. The real reason that the U.S. went the first 100 or so years with such small government, is because it was well established that the people in the country at that time were willing to commit violence against government officials commitng crimes against it's citizens. Now, we just blindly trust that officials will be ethical people, especially when dealing with the money they are supposed taking care of. However, people in government aren't going to be any more ethical than you average Joe (who, I'm reasonably sure, you wouldn't blindly hand over 25% of your paycheck to every month). And considering that it's reasonable to say that anyone who is involved in government at a national level is likely "power hungry" (to some degree or another), it's even less likely they will be ethical when being unethical gives them more of what they want (power).
The only way to insure that money is spent wisely, is to allow those with the money to spend it. They have "skin in the game", so to speak. They have a built-in reason to make sure that, to use an example you pointed out, things like "welfare fraud" (which without welfare would become "charity fraud") do not happen. No such check exists for government officials. Their only concern is buying more votes, and they do that by robbing from the minority, and hading it out to the majority.
Realistically, nothing I say here will matter. As long as a few people have the support of the majority to enslave (or otherwise take advantage of) a minority, the minority will only ever be able to change that through violent revolt, which probably wouldn't be very successful either, as is the case when being a minority taking on a larger party. Which leads to, as long as the mindset of the American people (as a whole) stays the same, this will never change. As long as the government doesn't make the mistake of over exploiting the majority, and as long as exploited people justify the exploitation to themselves (and they get plenty of help from government officials to this end through propaganda), it will never change. I do love this country, however my love for this country resides in the ideals it was founded on, rather than the ideals it runs on today.
Not trolling. As for most historical examples, I'm not supporting enslavement of people, as happened in many cases in history (feudalist Europe as an example). Here's a funny statement: "...a strong state is needed to prevent rise of an excessively strong (tyrranical) state."
Huh?
Excessive government is usually the problem in the "historical evidence" you refer to. Further more, yes, I believe social programs perpetuate the very problems they claim to solve. How did people ever get a long before social security for example? It hasn't really been around that long...less than 100 hundred years. What I think happens is two things:
1) The lazy get lazier. As I've said before, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to work. However, subsidizing this behavior leads to more of the same behavior, not less. Which makes sense. If some people are willing to participate in activity A, whatever that may be, it stands to reason that those same people will participate in that activity to an even greater degree when they get paid to do so. But why let logic get in the way?
2) People become less involved. Why actually spend some of your time mentoring a young poor black kid, when you can sleep comfortably at night knowing that you paid your taxes, and argued with some idiot like me who would do away with public libraries? Especially considering that if you only mentored one poor kid a year, say a couple times a month, it would probably have as much impact as 2 or 3 public libraries...or more.
Here's a thought. Instead of being so wound up about our precious "social programs", why don't we just start actually caring about our fellow man? In a way, it kind of makes me think of how some people talk about slavery now adays. I've actually heard many times (I live in the south, and am otherwise a typical white country boy) people talk about how slave owners would treat their slaves so well. While there is certainly a little truth to that, the fact is that they were still slaves. To act as if you are doing some great social justice by providing public libraries, left to be managed by the completly inept governments of this country, is simply absurd. If you want to help people, then do so. But stop robbing those around you so that you can feel good at the end of the day.
Not only do I think that would be an improvement, so do a lot of governments, who have implemented just such road tolls, mainly to alleviate the "tragedy of the commons" issue that we all see everyday on interstates.