More government = more corporatism

[Fenton Lum]

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

Stacking the Supreme Court is not a fascist move?

Everyone's attempting to do that very thing all the time aren't they now.

Well the thing is, he said if they didn't rule for his programs he would add more justices.......do you not know anything about History?
You realize that history didn't start when you were born.

How's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies?

That's the point, the Senate was also heavily Democrat and would have confirmed them. That's what made the threat credible

The question was, how's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies? As in right now.

 

[kaz]

Two citizens built houses a quarter of a mile from each other. They were through the woods and there was no conflict. Over the years they cleared trees and planted farms and started butting into each other. Furthermore, the access to the creek was far closer to one than the other. Now they disagree to the point of using arms on the property lines. Neither is going to back down, the one closest to the creek claims it's on their property if they divide the line. The other demands equal access to the water they need to live.

Go, how do they resolve it

Still not getting it I see...

Their dispute is not my business. I am not the judge, jury, and executioner of every civil dispute that happens in society.

Both are justified in self defense. Neither are justified in waging war. Property is established through general recognition and ones willingness to maintain his claim through the use of force.

Exactly, it's not your problem. If the guy with control of the creek doesn't share your view they should work it out and starts threatening the other that if he crosses his land he'll shoot him, and the other with the realization they can't survive without water and decides their choices are to fight or just lose their property and move and decides not to fight back, you say "their dispute is not my business."

We don't all want to live in Somalia where we just shoot it out and the one with the bigger firepower gets it's way

That's how america was "settled", and why the power structure now has precautions against it. They know how they got there.

No, it wasn't. There was a military and law enforcement. It wasn't just anarchy

 

[Fenton Lum]

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.



Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

Certainly all the crooked ones and the ones who murder unarmed citizens and kids in the streets, sure. Been a rash of that lately. I'm sure as a small govt guy you're alarmed by all that.

They are clearly investigating those. What is an abomination is the left declaring the cops guilty immediately without evidence as soon as it happens

Oh I forgot, "the left". Partisanshitheads are why we are as a soceity where we are.

 

[Onyx]

[
Exactly, it's not your problem. If the guy with control of the creek doesn't share your view they should work it out and starts threatening the other that if he crosses his land he'll shoot him, and the other with the realization they can't survive without water and decides their choices are to fight or just lose their property and move and decides not to fight back, you say "their dispute is not my business."

Because it isn't my business. If someone violates your property, you have the right to shoot them in self defense.

The civilian militia should always side with the party that is acting in self defense.

Once again, very simple. Self defense. That withstands whether the other person is not giving in to your needs.

Needy people need to care for themselves, not expect others to care for them.

You are sounding like a liberal now, arguing for public goods. If the guy wants water, he should fucking buy water from the many people that sell water.

We don't all want to live in Somalia where we just shoot it out and the one with the bigger firepower gets it's way

Yeah, you are not comprehending a single thing that I am telling you.

Those that intimidate and control others should be killed. I said that several times.

Everyone is legitimized in self defense of their personhood and property. The community is obligated to protect those subject to aggression.

Your comparisons to Somalia is asinine. Somalia is not an anarchy. It is an anocracy, which means it is controlled by many different states. Many different statists that anarchist would put into mass graves.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Two citizens built houses a quarter of a mile from each other. They were through the woods and there was no conflict. Over the years they cleared trees and planted farms and started butting into each other. Furthermore, the access to the creek was far closer to one than the other. Now they disagree to the point of using arms on the property lines. Neither is going to back down, the one closest to the creek claims it's on their property if they divide the line. The other demands equal access to the water they need to live.

Go, how do they resolve it

Still not getting it I see...

Their dispute is not my business. I am not the judge, jury, and executioner of every civil dispute that happens in society.

Both are justified in self defense. Neither are justified in waging war. Property is established through general recognition and ones willingness to maintain his claim through the use of force.

Exactly, it's not your problem. If the guy with control of the creek doesn't share your view they should work it out and starts threatening the other that if he crosses his land he'll shoot him, and the other with the realization they can't survive without water and decides their choices are to fight or just lose their property and move and decides not to fight back, you say "their dispute is not my business."

We don't all want to live in Somalia where we just shoot it out and the one with the bigger firepower gets it's way

That's how america was "settled", and why the power structure now has precautions against it. They know how they got there.

No, it wasn't. There was a military and law enforcement. It wasn't just anarchy

It was genocide and slavery son, Jesus.

 

[kaz]

Stacking the Supreme Court is not a fascist move?

Everyone's attempting to do that very thing all the time aren't they now.

Well the thing is, he said if they didn't rule for his programs he would add more justices.......do you not know anything about History?
You realize that history didn't start when you were born.

How's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies?

That's the point, the Senate was also heavily Democrat and would have confirmed them. That's what made the threat credible

The question was, how's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies? As in right now.

Soominating a half dozen justices changing the size of the Supreme Court is the same as waiting until after a bitterly partisan election? Sure it is

 

[Fenton Lum]

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

I just stated a fact, whether you like it or not is no concern to me, facts are not emotional.

This is liberalism....no facts at all levels.


So what's your remedy?

Partisanshitheads like you aren't interested in remedies son.

You haven't proposed any "remedies" son

You don't want any, you just need to be "right".

 

[Fenton Lum]

Everyone's attempting to do that very thing all the time aren't they now.

Well the thing is, he said if they didn't rule for his programs he would add more justices.......do you not know anything about History?
You realize that history didn't start when you were born.

How's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies?

That's the point, the Senate was also heavily Democrat and would have confirmed them. That's what made the threat credible

The question was, how's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies? As in right now.

Soominating a half dozen justices changing the size of the Supreme Court is the same as waiting until after a bitterly partisan election? Sure it is

I'm not up on "soominating".

 

[kaz]

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

Certainly all the crooked ones and the ones who murder unarmed citizens and kids in the streets, sure. Been a rash of that lately. I'm sure as a small govt guy you're alarmed by all that.

They are clearly investigating those. What is an abomination is the left declaring the cops guilty immediately without evidence as soon as it happens

Oh I forgot, "the left". Partisanshitheads are why we are as a soceity where we are.

You're a partisanshithead, you're a Hitlaryette. And how is opposing both parties "partisan?" How is that supposed to make sense?

You're voting for a big government, establishment Democrat and arguing for an anarchist as if there's any integrity in that

 

[kaz]

Well the thing is, he said if they didn't rule for his programs he would add more justices.......do you not know anything about History?
You realize that history didn't start when you were born.

How's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies?

That's the point, the Senate was also heavily Democrat and would have confirmed them. That's what made the threat credible

The question was, how's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies? As in right now.

Soominating a half dozen justices changing the size of the Supreme Court is the same as waiting until after a bitterly partisan election? Sure it is

I'm not up on "soominating".

If you were't stupid based on the context you'd know it was "nominating"

 

[Fenton Lum]

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

Certainly all the crooked ones and the ones who murder unarmed citizens and kids in the streets, sure. Been a rash of that lately. I'm sure as a small govt guy you're alarmed by all that.

They are clearly investigating those. What is an abomination is the left declaring the cops guilty immediately without evidence as soon as it happens

Oh I forgot, "the left". Partisanshitheads are why we are as a soceity where we are.

You're a partisanshithead, you're a Hitlaryette. And how is opposing both parties "partisan?" How is that supposed to make sense?

You're voting for a big government, establishment Democrat and arguing for an anarchist as if there's any integrity in that

No son, you're assigning others the only position you know to argue against.

 

[Fenton Lum]

How's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies?

That's the point, the Senate was also heavily Democrat and would have confirmed them. That's what made the threat credible

The question was, how's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies? As in right now.

Soominating a half dozen justices changing the size of the Supreme Court is the same as waiting until after a bitterly partisan election? Sure it is

I'm not up on "soominating".

If you were't stupid based on the context you'd know it was "nominating"

Oh, so now you're reduced to name calling.

 

[kaz]

The civilian militia should always side with the party that is acting in self defense

Bullshit, you're just making that up. That's why I introduced the creek, reasonable men can disagree. The community may very well decide they understand both and think they have a reasonable case and they aren't getting involved.

When one man says he's going to his creek because he needs water which he always had access to and is his right and the other says he's defending his land. Explain unambiguously who is defending their rights? They both are. You can't even address a simple situation much less a complicated one

You are sounding like a liberal now, arguing for public goods

Bull shit, nowhere did I argue for "public good"

If the guy wants water, he should fucking buy water from the many people that sell water

So you side with the guy who extended his property. The guy always had access to the water, by what right is he shut off now? On the other hand, why is the other guy's ability to grow limited? That's why we need a public process to resolve issues

Yeah, you are not comprehending a single thing that I am telling you

You're only backing it up with ... yes it is ... and ... no it isn't ... just like I said

 

[kaz]

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

Certainly all the crooked ones and the ones who murder unarmed citizens and kids in the streets, sure. Been a rash of that lately. I'm sure as a small govt guy you're alarmed by all that.

They are clearly investigating those. What is an abomination is the left declaring the cops guilty immediately without evidence as soon as it happens

Oh I forgot, "the left". Partisanshitheads are why we are as a soceity where we are.

You're a partisanshithead, you're a Hitlaryette. And how is opposing both parties "partisan?" How is that supposed to make sense?

You're voting for a big government, establishment Democrat and arguing for an anarchist as if there's any integrity in that

No son, you're assigning others the only position you know to argue against.

You argue for the establishment, socialist candidate all the time

 

[kaz]

That's the point, the Senate was also heavily Democrat and would have confirmed them. That's what made the threat credible

The question was, how's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies? As in right now.

Soominating a half dozen justices changing the size of the Supreme Court is the same as waiting until after a bitterly partisan election? Sure it is

I'm not up on "soominating".

If you were't stupid based on the context you'd know it was "nominating"

Oh, so now you're reduced to name calling.

If you didn't know what that word was supposed to be then it's not name calling, you're actually stupid

 

[kaz]

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

I just stated a fact, whether you like it or not is no concern to me, facts are not emotional.

This is liberalism....no facts at all levels.


So what's your remedy?

Partisanshitheads like you aren't interested in remedies son.

You haven't proposed any "remedies" son

You don't want any, you just need to be "right".

No idea what that means or who you are quoting

 

[Fenton Lum]

Certainly all the crooked ones and the ones who murder unarmed citizens and kids in the streets, sure. Been a rash of that lately. I'm sure as a small govt guy you're alarmed by all that.

They are clearly investigating those. What is an abomination is the left declaring the cops guilty immediately without evidence as soon as it happens

Oh I forgot, "the left". Partisanshitheads are why we are as a soceity where we are.

You're a partisanshithead, you're a Hitlaryette. And how is opposing both parties "partisan?" How is that supposed to make sense?

You're voting for a big government, establishment Democrat and arguing for an anarchist as if there's any integrity in that

No son, you're assigning others the only position you know to argue against.

You argue for the establishment, socialist candidate all the time

Yeah? Where? Should be easy.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I just stated a fact, whether you like it or not is no concern to me, facts are not emotional.

This is liberalism....no facts at all levels.


So what's your remedy?

Partisanshitheads like you aren't interested in remedies son.

You haven't proposed any "remedies" son

You don't want any, you just need to be "right".

No idea what that means or who you are quoting

I've known you have no idea for quite some time.

 

[Onyx]

Bullshit, you're just making that up.

I have been advocating this consistently during my time on USMB

The community may very well decide they understand both and think they have a reasonable case and they aren't getting involved.

Again, Israel-Palestine.

Same exact scenario with statism.

When one man says he's going to his creek because he needs water which he always had access to and is his right and the other says he's defending his land. Explain unambiguously who is defending their rights? They both are.

False.

There is no right to water. There is only the liberty to get in your car and drive to a water vendor. Or build a well (it isn't clear if this guy is a farmer)

There is however a right to defend ones property from trespassers, which is why the community should side with the man where the creek is on his property.

So you side with the guy who extended his property. The guy always had access to the water, by what right is he shut off now?

Because the property is recognized as being his.

Therefore he can do with it as he likes.

On the other hand, why is the other guy's ability to grow limited?

It is not recognized as being his land.

He should stop whining that others do not want to selflessly do shit for him.

It is not societies role to play judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[kaz]

This is liberalism....no facts at all levels.


So what's your remedy?

Partisanshitheads like you aren't interested in remedies son.

You haven't proposed any "remedies" son

You don't want any, you just need to be "right".

No idea what that means or who you are quoting

I've known you have no idea for quite some time.