wait for it.. wait for it.. OH DAMN

You didnt read the whole thread.
Read what I was responding to. I dont believe that, I was using his logic.
Dont post stupid shit when you dont read before and after such post was posted

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm so much against powerful government that I'd have liked it if we had stayed with the Articles of Confederation.

So again, what the hell are you talking about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've had some really big, lengthy arguments with Tiassa over the years. And, on the other hand, I often agree with your views on political issues. But, in this case, I think you're very, very wrong.

The law and its enforcement should be about individual rights and safety (both for citizens and police), not anyone's or anything's dignity. There are times when I think shootings - both by police officers and by citizens acting in self defense - are 100% justified. There are even times when I think vigilantism is justified. But shooting someone for diminishing the dignity of the state sounds like the epitome of Stalinism. :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He can post whatever the hell he wants, that is in compliance with the rules.

 

I know what you are saying.


But I am not saying that the people ought to be shot in order to maintain the dignity of the state; rather, in order to maintain the dignity of the public and to enforce compliance with the law.

Libertarianism is very much based on rules and principles

 

Yet you support the aspects of a powerful government

 

No, I support the idea of powerful police that can actually do their job; the key isn't to make them less powerful, but to limit what areas they enforce in. But once we agree on that, on what the police ought to do, we ought to allow them to do it with any means necessary or at least close to any means necessary.

 

I would think it obvious

Well, there's this—

It's a safe position for him to take. He gets a petty psychological reward from spouting such arguments. Yet, he remains safe in many societies from ever being subject to the sort of injustice he advocates because there are enough people fighting against such outcomes, who will not accept such results even for those who believe such circumstances proper, because they do not wish to chip away at the walls of justice that preserve society.​

—from which the next two paragraphs derive.

And also this—

He considers a Syrian fascist, a Nazi wannabe, a hero.​

—especially as the assertion includes incontrovertable evidence.

Well, considering he designed the Syrian Social Nationalist Party after the Nazis, it seems pretty clear.

How long have you lived in Seattle? We should get together for a drink. I didn't know, else I would have suggested it sooner.

 

I think my problem here is with the word "dignity". That shouldn't be a factor in the law or acts of violence.

Every political system (Libertarianism included) is based on rules and principles, but it is possible to go too far in enforcing those rules. Like I said before; this girl totally deserved an ass-kicking. But since she was unarmed and didn't seem to pose a threat to the life of the officer, shooting her would have been totally unacceptable.

 

And it's wrong.

First of all, I was not advocating a cap on the freedom of speech, so I'm certainly not "...safe in many societies from ever being subject to the sort of injustice he advocates..." because I'm not advocating injustice. I'm advocating the strong enforcement of the law, but we are, are we not?, under the impression that it is a just law (you shouldn't jaywalk)

No, he designed the SSNP during an era where there was strong nationalism in all nations and deep political unrest; and naturally, he included many elements from the "Nazi" party, but that has more to do with his ideas on governmental organization than it does with his ideas on race or genocide. He wasn't a racist and didn't support genocide.

Never, though I do hear that the weather is quite good there. I wish it would rain more often here.

 

Who are you to tell me I didn't? I read it, every single word.

There is a difference between excesive, and what you were talking about.

I read. And what I read was a little bit extreme, in both your cases.

Yes we should uphold the law.
Yes we should use every means neccessary.
I don't think someone should be shot for Jaywalking.
However I do feel that the cop was right in doing what he did.
When Norse said that we should use excessive means, then you said:

That's beyond excessive means.

I apologize for generalizing and saying that you believe America is Nazi.

 

He believes that freedom means freedom to break the law.


Nobody is above the law.

 

Amen to that.

 

Umm, well the deffinition of excesive is going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree.
So, I believe my example was quite excessive, showing the flaw in his logic.

You could not watch the video, so you do not understand the situation.

Accepted

 

Except for police?

 

The police enforce the law; this is why they have the legal authority to shoot people who shoot at them, for instance.

 

As The Clash once said;

"Murder is a crime. Unless commited by the police."

 

I read the thread before I started posting, and you guys give a detailed summary throughout. I didn't have to.

 

I see. So the police should sit idly by and do nothing.


Let's ask the Brits how their police are able to protect them, should we?

 

You still do not have a full view of what happened.
Youre taking 2nd hand, confliticting accounts.