Well, it's just like us free marketers said. Humans self-organize and find ways to protect themselves against outside aggression and coercion. The question cannot be asked enough. Why do really need Government when the market does everything so much better? Fed up with crime, Detroiters fight back | detnews.com | The Detroit News
That's right kylesa, people will wake up, arm themselves and take care of business the RIGHT way. The govt tends to use the police force, as well as other govt agencies, to strip us of our hard earned money, by force mind you, in the name of "taxes"
damn libertarians but really, we live in reality. It may sound good, but at what cost? Im a fan of de-population, but not like this. edit- if humans are so self capable n stuff, why havent we stopped all the current government's BS already?
De-population? By all means lead the way and start it off. Gotta get rid of the scum some way. Thats exactly one of the best way of de-populizing. You break into my house and you aint walking outta here. As far as the govt BS goes, I personally think that there is an underlying fear that WE THE PEOPLE have of the govt. But we do need to start acting fast to get this country going in the right direction.
Nope. It's called taking responsibility for yourself and not giving credence to a brutal monopoly on violence. You know what else sounds good? Giving Government supreme power over our lives, and we pay taxes to maintain a police force that ends up being abusive. Paying taxes to fund a police force and pay for roads may sound good, but at what cost? ...de-population has nothing to do with this... Because Governments have brainwashed people into thinking they need the Government.
Taking responsibility for yourself = state of nature. Why do you try to come across like a know it all? Go read this: State of nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Taking responsibility for yourself = personal responsibility. Not sure how you fucked this up... Reading too much Hobbes, I presume.
You said it's considered a state of war. That's not even remotely close to true. You're making the implication that without Government we would be in a perpetual state of war, but we have Government and are in a perpetual state of war anyways. In a society based on voluntary exchange, free from coercion, it would be just like a modern society with self-organization instead of central planning. Trying to say that it's a state of war is silly, especially because such a system that I preach would have rules which would be enforced by privately-hired police. That is why I created this thread. The most fundamental argument FOR Government is that we need these services to be provided for us by a central authority. The reason I made this thread, was to show that in absence of Government (in this case, it's not even a complete absence) people will self-organize and protect themselves from outside aggression, completely detonating the idea of a 'need' for Government.
lol, Statists try and justify the 'Social Contract' by using the 'State of Nature' argument. How about we look at the 'State of Government' theory, and see how that's working out?
I really wish I could understand that argument. I guess I'm still waiting for them to send me that contract so I can politely decline.
It's what happens when your brain subconsciously realizes that you're full of shit. It spits out something that's illogical, and hopes people will accept it.
Yes they have and unfortunately to too great of length. Amazing how we survived when there was very little to no govt back in the day. People governed themselves. Do we need police? ehhh not really. If I was standing there talking to my neighbor KNOWING that he/she is armed or there is a great possibility that he/she is armed, uuuuhhhhh I don't think imma be messing with him/her at all. Look at what happened when that psycho was in the clock tower in Texas shooting people. What happened? Quite a few people grabbed their guns and started taking care of business. The RIGHT way. Will there be crazy people in society? Hell yeah there is, and there will be with or with out the police or govt.
Has anyone played GTA and been a little more liberal with shooting random pedestrians when you know they aren't gang members packin heat? I know I have...
Dude, it's just a game. Everybody knows it a goddamn pixels that has no meaning. In gta, I blow shit up and do bunch of psycho things doesn't mean that I do it in real life. We all have one life and that's it. Why should I kill someone for pleasure for 20+ life, is it worth it? Hell no. But in a psychopath mind, they'll probably will try kill many as possible before he/she dies. Like the poster above you talked about the psychopath in tower down in Texas. People knew what they were doing and knew that he was a psychopath. Standing around and hoping to get shot at while waiting for the police to show up. When they show up, another hours pass by telling him to get down, it doesn't work that way. You fucking shoot him in the head, and then there is one less psycho in the world. Look the school of combine/tech, a lot of people died because they have nothing to defend from a shooter. 20 minutes later, the police finally shows up, that's when they kill themselves, mission completed; for killing a lot of people.
I think he makes a good point though, armed citizens capable of self defense are less susceptible to crime than unarmed citizens who rely on cops. State protection amounts to someone arriving after the crime and doing paperwork.
A good case study of your point would be texas, since changing their gun laws to pretty much anywhere open carry, crime has gone down. On my phone on highway, will link later
I am a firm believer in the 2nd Ammendment right to keep and bear arms. The police have too many responsibilities to get to most calls in a time efficient matter. Not all the time, but they have their hands full. Regardless, I believe that as the man and father of my home, it is my duty to protect my family to the death. I'm a former police officer and understand both sides of the argument, leading me to believe that you are better off being able to defend yourself and your family, but when the police DO show up, you better follow their orders until they get the situation sorted out. I would never take someone's life over taking my property. I will hunt him down and make him pay the price, but he won't die by my hand. That being said, if I fear for the safety of my family, the only thing limiting my response would be the amount of ammunition I have on hand.
Florida went through a similar situation back when tourists were being robbed. Criminals would target tourists because they knew that Florida citizens might very well be armed. Also, look at Australia's venture into gun control. Since the laws were put on the books restricting the carry and use of firearms, violent crime rates shot through the roof. I will link up info as soon as I can locate it. It's been a LONG time since I read the article on it. ULTIMATELY, Americans were given the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical gov't. It was part of the original checks and balances. The government SHOULD be afraid of the power and capabilities of it's citizens!