07-26-2015 05:57 PM
#76
| |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-26-2015 at 06:00 PM. | |
07-26-2015 06:04 PM
#77
| |
Seem fine are your words, not mine. Cambodia has a fraction of the violent crime of the U.S. but I definitely wouldn't consider the conditions here to be "fine." Merely better in that single regard. | |
07-26-2015 06:07 PM
#78
| |
My point about states and their existence isn't concerned with crime rates. States are selfish. They want to form and continue to exist. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-26-2015 at 06:16 PM. | |
07-26-2015 06:19 PM
#79
| |
https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over | |
07-26-2015 06:31 PM
#80
| |
... I understand how to argue, Renton. Why do you think someone else's argument would move me? Argument is empty. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-26-2015 at 06:39 PM. | |
07-26-2015 06:54 PM
#81
| |
Well, at least he's not drowning in gatorade. He's got libertarian/anarchocap-colored glasses firmly affixed to his face, but he seems to know where he's guessing. | |
| |
07-26-2015 07:31 PM
#82
| |
Not a lot of people out there talking about stateless societies other than anarcho-capitalists. Seeing as that is the topic, I don't know what you expect me to link. If you linked me to a guy with keynesian-socialist colored glasses on, I'm pretty sure I would have attempted to digest its points and made a response with minimal snark. I didn't respond to the Sapolsky stuff because I've seen it before and found it quite interesting, though not particularly relevant to this topic. | |
07-26-2015 08:23 PM
#83
| |
|
Rilla, you're still strawmanning the NAP. I'm not saying it's obvious though, because the majority of NAP claimants make the same mistake. |
07-28-2015 09:21 PM
#84
| |
Keller ruling means youre allowed to carry a concealed firearm in all 50 states, wuf. You were not punished by muggers using self defense laws?? you were the victim? the self defense laws protect YOU! | |
07-28-2015 09:58 PM
#85
| |
| |
07-28-2015 10:05 PM
#86
| |
|
For example, in the situation I cited, I would have shot the would-be mugger before he even touched me. I don't actually know if he was going to mug me, but he was chasing me and screaming at me and was acting every bit as gangster as you possibly could. No witnesses except his thug friend who for sure would have lied and said I was the aggressor. |
07-28-2015 10:12 PM
#87
| |
Honestly, thats entirely backward. The odds are overwhelmingly in your favor. Maybe im biased by where I live, Florida, which baaically has a shoot first and ask questions later. Wheres Chardrian where we need him? | |
07-28-2015 10:19 PM
#88
| |
|
I agree the odds are probably in my favor. The thing is that even if 5% of the time, lethal self-defense results in wrongful prosecution, it's a major disincentive to use lethal self-defense as a solution. Which is the way social justice enthusiasts want it. Too many people think perps are victims of circumstance and victims should have shown more restraint. |
07-29-2015 01:24 AM
#89
| |
Public defenders are usually better than non-public defenders. Its actually a really competitive thing. | |
07-29-2015 01:31 AM
#90
| |
Btw, I was discussing the minimum wage stuff with some law school buddies. | |
07-29-2015 01:34 AM
#91
| |
|
Borderline? These united states were founded on treason! |
07-29-2015 01:37 AM
#92
| |
Last thing: | |
07-29-2015 02:01 AM
#93
| |
|
Couldn't this be because "the people" are bringing the charge? The prosecution represents the state, which is supposed to represent the people. Contrast this to a civil case (which all market law would be). Now there isn't a democratically backed state coming down on one lonely defendant. Instead it's one party backing one claim and another backing a different claim. Even in the case of Shotgun Wuf v Thuggie, my insurance company would be representing me while his insurance company would be representing him. There would be no automatic assumption that I'm guilty because there would be no assumption that there is a democratically backed government that extended resources to put somebody they believe to be guilty away. Instead Teh Thuggie's insurance company would be doing its due diligence to get the best result that would most satisfy its customers, while mine would do the same. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-29-2015 at 02:04 AM. | |
07-29-2015 02:47 AM
#94
| |
Its not. People assume the only people who are charged with crimes are guilty of crimes. Its not so much that theres "a representative of the people", so much as people generally find police officers credible. Their job is to fight crime, and they said some guy did it. | |
07-29-2015 03:00 AM
#95
| |
Also, and perhaps this goes without saying, but there is a huge benefit to having a common system of laws (ie, a need for a legislature). | |
07-29-2015 01:48 PM
#96
| |
|
This still looks to me like arguing in the contemporary frame. In a law market, if I killed somebody, there wouldn't be any police for people to identify with. All security agents would work on contract and there would be no assumption that they serve the people. |
07-29-2015 04:15 PM
#97
| |
Reset button: | |
07-29-2015 05:14 PM
#98
| |
Well there's an entire animal rights movement that is attempting to push us in that direction. I suspect that most people will be against butchering animals once we are able to grow prime cuts in a laboratory for a comparable cost. | |
07-29-2015 05:46 PM
#99
| |
|
Everything eats something. Everything gets eaten. Eating meat is not wrong; mistreating animals is wrong. Eating animals is not mistreatment. |
07-29-2015 08:40 PM
#100
| |
You both dodged the question. | |
07-29-2015 08:49 PM
#101
| |
https://mises.org/library/rights-animals | |
07-29-2015 09:08 PM
#102
| |
|
I didn't think I dodged the question. I tried to sidestep the meaningless ideology stuff and get straight to the utility stuff. |
07-30-2015 04:31 PM
#103
| |
|
BTW I want to say JKDS I like some of the points you bring. They're different than most and have gotten me thinking. |
07-30-2015 07:22 PM
#104
| |
Sorry Euph, but I want to continue this convo with wuf a little. | |
07-30-2015 07:30 PM
#105
| |
Additonally: You'll have a police system as well. Some body of people who are responsible for enforcing the decisions of these negotiating companies. | |
07-30-2015 08:01 PM
#106
| |
What? Isn't the fact that the police have this immunity a big part of the reason why the U.S. police system is currently so broken? | |
07-30-2015 08:23 PM
#107
| |
@Renton: The issue in the current system is the extent of the immunity, and when it triggers. The biggest issue is when Deadly Force can be authorized. At the moment, it could be used "to effectuate the arrest of a felon". Ok...so that means that anytime a felon is resisting arrest, deadly force is an option, even though the scope of what a "felony" is has increased dramatically. That seems pretty clearly ridiculous, and incredibly wrong. Carrying pot isnt an offense where you should be able to be shot. | |
Last edited by JKDS; 07-30-2015 at 08:26 PM. | |
07-30-2015 10:09 PM
#108
| |
|
I don't disagree with this, but I do disagree that it would be that relevant in a law market. Cases would be civil, and your proposition breaks down in that case. Otherwise we'd be seeing plaintiffs having a higher rate of success than defendants than the evidence merits. If you disagree with this and you think the system wouldn't change fundamentally in this way in a law market, we'll have to leave it here. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-31-2015 at 01:53 AM. | |