Can anyone tell me about Politics....

[Pumpkin Row]

No, most people are not assholes, thieves, murders and rapist. However, it only takes one apple to spoil the bunch. Despite what you seem to think, not everyone responds to accommodations and negotiations. There are a lot of people in this world that are takers and they will take whatever they want unless there's someone to stop them.

That adds up to roughly 1% of the population, if we include people kidnapped and imprisoned by the state for things that weren't actually wrong. This, however, is exactly why everyone would be armed, and Private Security would be available without the state, it would cause "takers" to associate higher risk with hurting people, and those who aren't dissuaded would get shot in self defense. If they aren't, people would associate higher risk with trading with them, and their life among society would cease to exist.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month?

It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.

There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

There was a story in the newspaper a few days ago of two people robbing a convince store. The owner, an elderly lady handed over all the cash in the register and when one of the robbers said hand over the keys to your car, she complied. And when the other robber filled up a bag with sandwiches and beer. She said, "help yourself, take some napkins." As they left, one of the robbers turned his gun on the lady and blew her head off. Later when apprehended, he told the police, he killed the lady because she could identify him. He had to do it because it was in his own self interest. I would certainly not want live in a world where everyone was free to act in their own self interest and I doubt you would either.

Gosh, it sounds to me like in this situation:

1: They should have had private security, as they would in a stateless society due to increased purchasing power, reduced cost, and increased effectiveness.

2: The Road Pirates were useless, because they're reactive, not preventative.

3: The lady should have been armed, then she wouldn't have been the person being shot.

You're doing a fantastic job of proving my point.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.
Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.
Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.
It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.
This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.
I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

There was a story in the newspaper a few days ago of two people robbing a convince store. The owner, an elderly lady handed over all the cash in the register and when one of the robbers said hand over the keys to your car, she complied. And when the other robber filled up a bag with sandwiches and beer. She said, "help yourself, take some napkins." As they left, one of the robbers turned his gun on the lady and blew her head off. Later when apprehended, he told the police, he killed the lady because she could identify him. He had to do it because it was in his own self interest. I would certainly not want live in a world where everyone was free to act in their own self interest and I doubt you would either.

That happens more than people think. Down the street from me is a gas station with a small convenience store. A guy went into the store, pulled out his gun, and leaned over the counter to open the register and take cash. The clerk fully complied by backing away with his arms up. The robber shot him dead anyway. He got around 50 bucks.

My mailman lived with his ill mother who he was taking care of. A guy walked up to him while doing his job and shot him dead without giving him any option to surrender willfully. The mailman had five bucks on him.

Both assailants were eventually caught and stood trial. But that could have never happened without our police force and detectives. Weekend warriors could have never accomplished such a thing.

Not to drift off the subject, but this is also why we need armed citizens. Last week in the city, three guys tried to rob a pizza parlor, but one employee decided he would not let his funeral happen without a fight, so he shot one of the robbers and in the process, was shot himself. The police found the robber at the ER for his gunshot wound, and now the police can better identify who the other two men were. That would have never happened if that employee didn't use his firearm to fight back.

You're right, because without Centralized Security, people would have Private Security with them, and would be armed, allowing them to defend themselves instead of dying and the suspects being arrested AFTER they've already straight murdered someone. This is why I stated that the Road Pirates are purely reactive, and are not efficient or effective in the slightest, you're quite literally making my argument for me, by giving me anecdotal evidence in which the victims could have protected themselves, or used their Private Security to do so, but can't because their property and purchasing power are taken by the state to waste on a centralized security firm that's wasting its time on non-violent "criminals".

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

There was a story in the newspaper a few days ago of two people robbing a convince store. The owner, an elderly lady handed over all the cash in the register and when one of the robbers said hand over the keys to your car, she complied. And when the other robber filled up a bag with sandwiches and beer. She said, "help yourself, take some napkins." As they left, one of the robbers turned his gun on the lady and blew her head off. Later when apprehended, he told the police, he killed the lady because she could identify him. He had to do it because it was in his own self interest. I would certainly not want live in a world where everyone was free to act in their own self interest and I doubt you would either.

That happens more than people think. Down the street from me is a gas station with a small convenience store. A guy went into the store, pulled out his gun, and leaned over the counter to open the register and take cash. The clerk fully complied by backing away with his arms up. The robber shot him dead anyway. He got around 50 bucks.

My mailman lived with his ill mother who he was taking care of. A guy walked up to him while doing his job and shot him dead without giving him any option to surrender willfully. The mailman had five bucks on him.

Both assailants were eventually caught and stood trial. But that could have never happened without our police force and detectives. Weekend warriors could have never accomplished such a thing.

Not to drift off the subject, but this is also why we need armed citizens. Last week in the city, three guys tried to rob a pizza parlor, but one employee decided he would not let his funeral happen without a fight, so he shot one of the robbers and in the process, was shot himself. The police found the robber at the ER for his gunshot wound, and now the police can better identify who the other two men were. That would have never happened if that employee didn't use his firearm to fight back.

I am firmly convinced that humans are intrinsically evil. Only a moral education -- early -- can change that. This is why these theoretical discussions of socialism, communism and anarchy are pointless. They just dont take into consideration the nature of Man.

Back to another point though, I do think it is EVIL that the subjects/peons dont really own anything -- not even your home. There HAS to be a better way to find necessary services like trash collection, than PROPERTY TAXES. No one should EVER fear losing their home (something the PAID for) because of a property tax bill.

Except as I've pointed out, they DO take into consideration the nature of man, my argument is based entirely on the nature of man, that's exactly what's taken into consideration when Anarchy discussed. You should have been above discussing a topic you've done exactly zero research on, I'm disappointed. I suggest you research the Non-Aggression Principal, before claiming that ideas don't take into account human nature, while simultaneously ignoring that the nature of a political system is ignoring the nature of the ruling class, who are just as evil as all of the subjects.



We agree, partly, in your second paragraph. It IS evil that the Government does anything, including taxes, which is basically the Government declaring entitlement to the fruits of your labor, then sending Road Pirates after you if you refuse, which is a passive position, therefor meaning the burden of proof is on the Government to prove you have done wrong. They, however, can't because nobody is entitled to another person's property, that's called slavery.

 

[Flopper]

No, most people are not assholes, thieves, murders and rapist. However, it only takes one apple to spoil the bunch. Despite what you seem to think, not everyone responds to accommodations and negotiations. There are a lot of people in this world that are takers and they will take whatever they want unless there's someone to stop them.

That adds up to roughly 1% of the population, if we include people kidnapped and imprisoned by the state for things that weren't actually wrong. This, however, is exactly why everyone would be armed, and Private Security would be available without the state, it would cause "takers" to associate higher risk with hurting people, and those who aren't dissuaded would get shot in self defense. If they aren't, people would associate higher risk with trading with them, and their life among society would cease to exist.

So if my neighbor and I can't work things out we are free to shoot it out.

What you are endorsing is vigilante justice in which the public makes a spit second decision on life or death and guilt or innocence. It might be a surprise to you, but owning a gun does not prepare you to make those decision.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

There was a story in the newspaper a few days ago of two people robbing a convince store. The owner, an elderly lady handed over all the cash in the register and when one of the robbers said hand over the keys to your car, she complied. And when the other robber filled up a bag with sandwiches and beer. She said, "help yourself, take some napkins." As they left, one of the robbers turned his gun on the lady and blew her head off. Later when apprehended, he told the police, he killed the lady because she could identify him. He had to do it because it was in his own self interest. I would certainly not want live in a world where everyone was free to act in their own self interest and I doubt you would either.

That happens more than people think. Down the street from me is a gas station with a small convenience store. A guy went into the store, pulled out his gun, and leaned over the counter to open the register and take cash. The clerk fully complied by backing away with his arms up. The robber shot him dead anyway. He got around 50 bucks.

My mailman lived with his ill mother who he was taking care of. A guy walked up to him while doing his job and shot him dead without giving him any option to surrender willfully. The mailman had five bucks on him.

Both assailants were eventually caught and stood trial. But that could have never happened without our police force and detectives. Weekend warriors could have never accomplished such a thing.

Not to drift off the subject, but this is also why we need armed citizens. Last week in the city, three guys tried to rob a pizza parlor, but one employee decided he would not let his funeral happen without a fight, so he shot one of the robbers and in the process, was shot himself. The police found the robber at the ER for his gunshot wound, and now the police can better identify who the other two men were. That would have never happened if that employee didn't use his firearm to fight back.

You're right, because without Centralized Security, people would have Private Security with them, and would be armed, allowing them to defend themselves instead of dying and the suspects being arrested AFTER they've already straight murdered someone. This is why I stated that the Road Pirates are purely reactive, and are not efficient or effective in the slightest, you're quite literally making my argument for me, by giving me anecdotal evidence in which the victims could have protected themselves, or used their Private Security to do so, but can't because their property and purchasing power are taken by the state to waste on a centralized security firm that's wasting its time on non-violent "criminals".

What are you talking about? Any citizen with no criminal record can apply, get the training, and possess a CCW in this state, and any business can hire private security if they desire. There is no law stopping either.

If three guys wanted to rob a business, the first person they would disable is the security guard because it's obvious why he's there. Like a police officer, he wears a uniform and has an exterior gun holster. He's not going to draw that gun if a bad guy pulls a gun first and points it to his head. The only result would be the criminals rob the place and have a new gun they stole from the guard.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, most people are not assholes, thieves, murders and rapist. However, it only takes one apple to spoil the bunch. Despite what you seem to think, not everyone responds to accommodations and negotiations. There are a lot of people in this world that are takers and they will take whatever they want unless there's someone to stop them.

That adds up to roughly 1% of the population, if we include people kidnapped and imprisoned by the state for things that weren't actually wrong. This, however, is exactly why everyone would be armed, and Private Security would be available without the state, it would cause "takers" to associate higher risk with hurting people, and those who aren't dissuaded would get shot in self defense. If they aren't, people would associate higher risk with trading with them, and their life among society would cease to exist.

So if my neighbor and I can't work things out we are free to shoot it out.

I find it hilarious that you have to construct such strawmen, because you're so thoroughly beaten. I said nothing remotely implying that. You're either dumb as bricks, or a dishonest snake, take your pick, either way your conclusion doesn't logically follow with anything I said.

What you are endorsing is vigilante justice in which the public makes a spit second decision on life or death and guilt or innocence. It might be a surprise to you, but owning a gun does not prepare you to make those decision.

"Vigilante Justice" is just a way of saying "The Government doesn't agree with how you solved that problem". Killing someone in self defense is vigilante justice, so if you're against people defending themselves, please just outright state that instead of pretending that the Government not being in support of something somehow makes it inherently bad. A good example of this is Nazi Germany straight murdering numerous people. Obviously this was bad, but the Government endorsed it, so by that logic, this is totally legitimate to you.

What makes the Government ready to make this decision? What makes anyone ready to kill someone unless their life is on the line? This is why I said that ultimately people are only incentivized to protect themselves, otherwise they risk having their decision heavily scrutinized and criticized by all of society. Nobody is incentivized to hurt anyone unless absolutely necessary, and that's how it should be, rather than an unaccountable ruling class deciding that actions and passive positions which result in no victims should be "punished" with kidnapping, robbery, or murder.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What are you talking about? Any citizen with no criminal record can apply, get the training, and possess a CCW in this state, and any business can hire private security if they desire. There is no law stopping either.

The Government's laws make it more expensive, such as using a currency with declining purchasing power, taxes with force people to pay for centralized "security", laws preventing competitors from entering the market, which reduces competition. The entire statist framework is inherently making it more difficult to purchase and use private security, as well as obtain firearms, barriers like licensing is a perfect example of this, you even mentioned the fact that there are requirements.

If three guys wanted to rob a business, the first person they would disable is the security guard because it's obvious why he's there. Like a police officer, he wears a uniform and has an exterior gun holster. He's not going to draw that gun if a bad guy pulls a gun first and points it to his head. The only result would be the criminals rob the place and have a new gun they stole from the guard.

Well, for one thing, your statement implies that there would be one security guard, when people could use multiple when there's no State. Besides that, the mere fact that there is security and that the victim is armed would cause people to associate higher risk with such an act. Especially when society is mostly armed, there would be no way to tell if people are armed, there's just the likelihood, and that too would dissuade most people from even considering initiating force.

Besides, the moment someone draws their gun on the security, even assuming we're using your alternate universe where logic doesn't exist, even the potential victim could just shoot, or heck, just threaten the man who pulled their gun on the security guard. Your whataboutism is noted, by the way. You squirm just like a "leftist".