Bitcoin Forum

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-92-year-old-kills-intruder-20120905,0,1703793.story

bravo... just ... bravo Sir!

Nice.

o.o

Yes, a few of them are still around.

when seconds count the police are only minites away.

Minutes? More like hours, if you can even get a hold of them. Often times you just get busy signals.

U ain't see nuthin:
A 66 Year Old Texan Vic Stacey Puts Four 357 Magnum Pistol Rounds into a Killer Rifleman at 165 Yards  :o
http://vaticproject.blogspot.it/2012/09/citizen-shooter-saves-officer-with.html (http://vaticproject.blogspot.it/2012/09/citizen-shooter-saves-officer-with.html)

Nice job!

nice shot  8)

When you have only 5 seconds you need this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8NYF7Mz4i90#!

It is illegal for criminals to possess or use guns.

This video does not make any sense to me.

sarcasm aside, yea this is a guy you want on your team.

what exactly do you applaud?

from what i gather from the linked articles, it was very likely an intentional killing solely for the protection of his property. he didnt determine if the robber was armed nor did he give any warning before shooting to kill. since he was 92y old one can argue in his defense that his options are very limited and anything but the most radical reaction might have endangered himself.
if however, that is not the case, killing someone to prevent a moderately severe crime, is immoral imho, especially if you have less radical options, like wound or apprehend the criminal.
at best its acceptable, but certainly nothing to compliment somebody on or be thrilled about. after all, its still a situation where someone got killed.

If I lived near this man I would have already been there to shake his hand and buy him a beer.

Violent criminals need to die, especially those with the bravado to break into someone elses home.

That threat of death is a powerful motivator to stay straight.

Death is also a great corrections tool. He certainly will never do it again.

There is nothing immoral about a killing in defense, who means you harm.

be careful to shake his hand very gently though...


you ever wondered why all those socialist european countries without capital punishment and much harsher rules regarding the slaying of your fellow citizens have so much lower crime rates? (to put a number to that, the usa has around 7 times the per capita prison population of europe)


defense of what? your life, your house, your favorite coffee cup?
for me, the list of things valuable enough to kill for is rather short. for you, obviously not.
i also rather live in a country that doesnt behead you for a parking violation.

Yeah, the door is open.  Help yourself to a beer from the fridge. 


I saw some guys who forced their way into my town.  Discussion was out of the question.  Some other guys forced their way onto the street.  Took care of them pretty quick I tell ya.  They were seriously within like 200 yards of my wife.  What am I supposed to go out and ask them if there's a long range rifle under the coat?     

Seriously though, I've had strangers in my home on many occasions, and also been robbed of some small goods on a couple of occasions.  Never was I tempted to use violent force, and life went on with no big trouble.  Just sayin'   

he shot to kill the moment he saw the burglar. he didnt take a second to determine if the guy was armed. he didnt fire a warning shot or try to incapacitate him. afterwards he knew there was likely someone dying in his basement and didnt even bother to call the police.
how exactly is that still self defense?
and even in a case of self defense, killing an ordinary burglar isnt something to celebrate. its not like he just stopped hannibal lecter...

Nope never gave it a thought. Dont really care. This has nothing to do with law enforcement nor the judicial system, and shows an increase in crime - thus the desperate need for more citizens to buy guns. This has to do with a species of life defending themselves from the aggressive acts of others whos only intent is to cause them death, descruction, harm, or loss. If you take the time to enquire which, and to what degree, you deserve it all.



The home is all inclusive. Family and loved ones, various assets, property, and most certainly my favorite coffee cup... not cup of coffee.

This has absolutely nothing to do with statute/criminal law, enforcement, or penalties.

Its  a big ole bear protecting the den, cubs, and feeding grounds. Its a skunk spraying when threatened. Its a rattlesnake biting a predator. It protecting and defending whats yours. I can accept if you know nothing of this, if you have not worked and traded blood, sweat, tears, and time for anything you value, and created a home and a family you value.

Most criminals bank on citizens and home owners not being armed. Its conditioning. If they break into your home, they are fair game, and the police didnt stop them. They react. If you dont instantly react, you risk the harm or death of someone you love. For me, that is not problem to kill someone else to save a loved one,property, assets, or self, because they all mean the survival of my bloodline. I have no problem killing and field dressing big game. A predatorial intruder is no different.

If you allow yourself hesitation, you may have just aided in the murder of your kids, wife, mother, father.

You sir sadly come from an area that is lacking in social capital.

The symptoms of this are easy to see, total fear and distrust.  I'm guessing you are not going to stop and pick up any hitchhikers or help out a stranded traveller with some money for food.  Let me guess, you can't just go over to your neighbor's house anytime and look in their cupboard for flour if you are out.  Sorry to hear it.     

o.o

First, go look up what social capital means, comprehend the definition, then come tell me how THAT relates to an intruder forcing their way into my basement, kicking down my interior door, knowing that I am in there, and intending harm to anyone inside. Please be specific. Specificity is important when life and death is at stake.

I instantly fear and distrust an intruder forcing their way into my basement, kicking down my interior door, knowing that I am in there, and intending harm to anyone inside. Fear is not a bad thing. Much like pain, it serves as valuable warnings.

I do not pick up hitchers.

I do help out my fellow man... just not those who intend me harm or cause me loss.

I prepare and I take care of myself, my family, and my responsibilities. I do not depend on others to do it for me. I am not lazy or disabled. I dont want to feel beholding to anyone. Its no ones responsibility but mine to make sure my flour or sugar is full. That said, I would not be living here if my neighbors were bad. We get along quite well, although the one south of us, their son needs a bit more discipline in my opinion.

UPDATE: Interview with the victim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFiYkTCMXwc

ps - dont give me any shit for posting an alex jones link.

before i go ahead and click that link... which one is the victim?

Great event to spawn some nice libertarian circle-jerk.

There is more to come ITT, oh don't forget to thank the trolls there will be just the certain amount of them to keep the discussion going.

You're right. Thanks, ElectricMucus.

FAKE, a single shot from a .22lr can't kill someone, it's a fact, lol.

I think it's a lot better to make sure he's dead. Blow his brains out for good measure.

Well thanks for providing that extra specific information which you had left out before.  Yes the details of "kicking down an interior door, knowing you are there, and intending to harm anyone inside"  do make a difference to your earlier statements, though they don't provide a clear story in my mind.  Why does this guy want to harm you?      

There's a lot to read about social capital, the wikipedia article seems not too far off my ideas on the subject, but in my opinion its just an idea to keep in mind and I'm not going to recommend devoting hours to study the concept.  One easy way to measure it in an area is to see how quickly you will be picked up when hitchhiking.  Japanese seem to have a very high level of it.  Often big cities lack in it.  Another way to measure social capital might be how quickly you are shot at when entering a home or how many locks and fences are up around the neighborhood.  

I agree. Fornit, in real life things happen way quicker than in the movies. Hannibal Lector? Ordinary burglar? Doesn't matter. A threat is a threat. Does the guy need to want to eat your liver before you consider him a danger?

I can understand the people who are saying that there is nothing to applaud.  It is a sad situation all around.  :( However this a practical matter of defending yourself. Criminals who break into peoples homes know that they are risking death, this is why they try to target the weak and unarmed. This intruder should not be at all surprised to find himself dead taking on a man who has likely dropped the hammer on highly trained soldiers.
As far as shooting to wound, this should NEVER be done in a home defense scenario.  You should ALWAYS shoot for the heart and keep shooting until the gun is out of his hand. 

I do not celebrate death.

I celebrate a Man standing his ground and using his rights when violated.

I celebrate law enforcement and prosecution honoring their oaths in this instance.

I celebrate the system actually working as its disseminated to us... working FOR The People, instead of against Us.

I celebrate justice. This was just that.

No offense but I could care less.


We need security and protection at home. We didnt use to. When I was a boy every house was unlocked. You just knocked and walked in if you are friends. If not, then you waited until they answered the door. There was very little crime.

Now people have a hard time surviving and many are not given the tools to succeed. So they attempt to deprive others of what they worked for and their lives to get what they need to survive.

All the BS that is forced upon us is not helping. Its hurting. Its intentional. Poor people are blaming people with money and we are all in the same boat. Some have better tools at their disposal - knowledge, skillsets, etc. to better survive, but in the end its no different than a crazed animal trying to hurt my family.

I have no problem with killing in self defense or defense of others, but this case is a stretch.

Why couldn't he have yelled out "I've got a gun and I'm calling the police".  That and a couple warning shots and the guys woulda ran off.  If the guys would have continued to pursue--sure shoot them dead.  But there is really no need to "stalk" them like he did.

He sat in his chair and waited for the guy to kick down his door before shooting. Not what I call "stalking."

Why didn't he yell while the guy was kicking/banging on the door?  He could have diffused the situation, or at least tried, but instead gladly invited the conflict.  It is likely that the guy did not think anyone was home and had no intention to harm anyone.

The word you're looking for is defused, and you're neglecting the fact that the house had been broken into several times before. Shouting "boo" and scaring them off would only delay another attempt.

So killing somebody is ok because they might commit a future crime?  And i don't think his house had been broken into before, just the neighbors.  Not that it matters anyways because we are not talking about the past or future, but this isolated incidence.


This is at best manslaughter, at worst murder.  Just because somebody commits a crime or a "wrong" does not immediately mean that he deserves the death penalty.  There is no evidence that the burglar intended violence and I feel that the old man had a responsibility to attempt stop the conflict before using deadly force.  Yelling/shouting at the burglars would have in no way put the man at risk.

No, killing someone for a possible future crime is not OK, but as you said, we're not talking about a future crime here, we're talking about him kicking down an elderly man's door and attempting to terrorize him. He was killed for that, not for anything he might have done in the future, or had done in the past.

And you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

I did not read the article in depth, merely skimmed it.

If the old man had woken up and the burglars were already inside, i 100% feel a shooting is justified at this point.  Lives are at risk and a conflict is unavoidable.  All I am saying is that the old man had some responsibility to defuse the conflict and he neglected to do so.

Might want to go back and actually read it...


Dude was in the basement, and came up into his house proper by kicking the door down. How is that not "Lives are at risk and a conflict is unavoidable"?

He had time to wait with his gun before the man was inside.  Obviously if he sat and did nothing (like he did) a conflict would occur.  But prior to the man entering the house, the conflict was still avoidable.

The guy was already in his house. Unless you don't consider the basement part of his house?

Again, please read the entire article before arguing about it.

From one perspective he surely could have tried to diffuse the situation but only by taking a risk. I have seen way to many movies where somebody was killed because he has seen to much for example.
I mean srsly, consider you wake up at night and somebody is already in your house! What i would do is grab the best weapon and wait in a dark corner, but i would not give a noise, hell i dont even know if i would give a noise to call police, maybe dail the number and mumble the address xD.

no, the burglar was in the basement and the man in "the rest of the house", separated by a locked door.  They were not in "the same space".  But clearly you don't want to argue the ethics of this and only want to discuss red herrings and ad hominems which I would rather not.

Yes, to anyone who isn't being intentionally dense this is obvious.  The question is whether or not he is obligated to do this, that's really up in the air but personally I would say he is.

What red herrings and ad hominems? Saying you're arguing from ignorance is not an ad hominem, it's saying you're arguing from ignorance. As far as ethics go, it's clear. The guy kicked down the door. Let me repeat that: The guy kicked down the door. That makes his intentions very clear. He wanted a confrontation. He just picked the wrong old dude to try and terrorize.

This is just simply not true.  It is possible (and likely) that the burglar thought the house was empty

Anyways, I need to go eat.

Please stop showing your ignorance.


Enjoy your meal. Maybe read the article while you eat, so you'll be arguing from a position of knowledge when you come back.

and while we are at it: its probably a coincidence that this is one of the few articles that fails to mention he waited in that chair for 15 minutes for the burglars to come out of the basement and said he had hoped the other guys would climb up the stairs, too.

as far as ethics go: self-defense my ass...

Right... waiting until the intruder makes his intent clear certainly removes all question of it being self-defense.  ::)

Might want to look up "castle doctrine."

The fact that people prefer to kill someone when in doubt is just sick.

This kind of mentality leads to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

The 92 year old could have shot through the door, which would have given him an overwhelming advantage. Even if the burglar was stupid enough to continue his attempt after this first shot (assuming he was still able to) he would have been at least injured and entering a room blindly where someone was waiting for him gun in hand. The old man chose to kill although he didn't have to. People advocating that you shouldn't take any risk may consider the following :

• the old man couldn't know that the burglar was alone: the first one to enter had no chance but if the 2 other accomplices were behind him armed and willing to avenge the first one, he'd probably be dead. A warning shot from a safe place (behind a closed door in an open area while the intruders are stuck in narrow stairs) is far safer. A "military man" knows this.
• if suspicion of intent of harm is enough for you to kill without warning, don't complain if you live in a world where your neighbors kill you because you did look at them the wrong way

1) If his accomplices were behind him, he would have fallen into them. Probably dragged them down the stairs with him. A military man can also fire three shots just as fast as the assholes come in the door. Either way, he picked his firing position well.
2) If I kick in someone's door, I'm not going to be surprised if I get shot. That's not "suspicion of intent" that's "expression of intent." Again, look up castle doctrine. It's his house. It has nothing to do with looking at your neighbors funny.

yeah, i know that one.
it basically says if you have the option to
a) walk away
or
b) kill somebody
do whatever the fuck you want.

and thats exactly what old guy did. whatever the fuck he wanted. yay celebrations! our hero!

i think i am just missing the connection to both self-defense and ethics...

This isn't a movie. Usually people don't jump into others when shot in the heart...
So there was no need for him to have the element of surprise to defend himself. Glad you agree with me...
I know a guy that had a drink too many and mistook his neighbor's house for his own and kicked the front door open. Luckily he lives in a country where you only have to answer to your crimes not imaginary ones. He's even lucky that his neighbors were understanding and didn't end up in a court of law only paying for the damage and then some. By your standards this guy should be dead.
I don't care for the castle doctrine it's your laws, not mine. Look at my original link, I'm referring to the general attitude and its consequences. If you want to be considered a band of savages that kill each other at the earliest opportunity and must own a gun to feel safe that's your problem, not mine.

There's so much idiocy here, I almost don't know where to start. I guess the beginning is as good as anywhere else.

Read the article. It states he fell backwards, down the stairs. Ergo, if his accomplices were on the stairs, he would have fallen into them. Movie physics not required, real physics work just fine.

He didn't need the element of surprise, the assailant tried to get it by kicking down the door. He'd already failed, however, by being an idiot in the basement.

Your drunken friend is very lucky he lives in a criminal safety zone. I an glad to hear he repaid the damages to his neighbor's door. In my world, this is all that should happen, but his demise certainly can happen. Maybe don't get so drunk you don't know your own house? Personal responsibility.

The general attitude is that a person's property is theirs, and you shouldn't fuck with it. The consequences are that if you fuck with other people's property, you could end up hurt. Looking at someone funny is not fucking with their property. If you don't trust your neighbors to be armed, and need to take their guns away to feel safe, that's your problem, not mine.


No, I don't think you do.

Maybe you should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Though I am a supporter of gun ownership and the right to defend one's home, I do also believe this story is a bit stretched indeed.  This guy was probably in his own right to self defense, but I do not like the way people say he's a hero or something.

He should have shot a warning shot.  The japanese case mentionned above proves that honest mistakes can happen.

Also, what's stopping us to think that the guy was kind of happy of the idea that a burgler entered his house, so that he could enjoyed the manhunt and the kill?  It's not as if the presence of a stranger in your house should give you a total license to kill.   I'm ok to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, considering his advanced age (he probably could not think as fast as a young man) and all...  But felicitations?  Honors?  I don't think so.  Though it's not a crime, it's not really a good example either, as it is not the wisest use of a gun, to say the least.


«  Hum, I haven't recently heard of this old man who lives nearby.  Maybe I should check he's ok.  Oh, the door is loose.  "Mr xXXX??"  Damned, Why am I shouting his name?  I recall the old man doesn't hear anything.  I think I hear some footsteps in the stairs.  Oh, here he is!  Hello.... hang on, what does he hold in his han....  BANG!! »

You know the other party can't use reason very well when they resort to personal attack to "prove" a point.
I'll make an honest attempt to answer with sound arguments one last time.
Like a man nearly dead on his knees falling down the stairs is the same as making two other men fall with him. Did you really think it through?
It seems you didn't follow me, so let's make it clear. If he didn't need the element of surprise, he didn't need to shoot to kill. In my book when you don't need to kill and you kill anyway it's wrong. Maybe it's just me...
Never said it was a friend, please try to follow what others say instead of pushing your point of view blindly.
Being drunk is not the smartest thing, but being killed for it seems a little over the top to me.
Sorry "fuck with it"? Doesn't seem to describe well what you can and can't do before being killed. I don't plan to have sex with any other person's property, am I safe? Seriously, using such language to describe the situation only shows inner violence and can't be used to have a serious discussion (we are speaking about people's lives, so I'm quite serious).
I don't have to, in my country my neighbors don't have the right to bear (usable) arms in their home (and in most places) unless they demonstrate a special need for it. If they like to shoot at things they go to a shooting range.

Sadly, you failed, starting right here. Learn to differentiate between a personal attack, "You're an idiot" and an attack on your arguments "They are idiotic." Not being able to do so makes you look like an idiot. ;)

Clearly you've never had to carry an unconscious person. Your average human being weighs ~160lb (72.5 kg). That's a lot of mass to catch coming down the stairs. Remember that I said: "he would have fallen into them. Probably dragged them down the stairs with him." Certainly, it would not have helped their ascent, would it?

Not needing the element of surprise and not needing to shoot to kill are two different things. Just because he had the drop on him does not mean that the invader would not have remained a deadly threat if simply wounded.

He (the drunken man you know who you stress is not your friend) would not have been killed for being drunk, but for entering someone else's property.

Would "mess with" or "interfere with" or "attempt to damage or steal" have been better? I thought you capable of understanding idiom. Apparently I was incorrect. My apologies, I will not make that mistake in the future.


I'm sorry, you're wrong. They do have that right, rights are not determined by words on paper. The right is not recognized, and therefore is being violated, but they still have it.

It's easy to judge the old man when the outcome is already known. While choosing his defense tactics he certainly didn't know whether he would survive the attack or not, nobody would know that. He chose the one he thought would give him a better chance and he won. So yes, there is something to celebrate here - the elderly home owner came out alive and the intruder is dead.

Now if you live in the society where violent crimes and home intrusions are unheard of then, yes, using deadly weapon wouldn't be the first thing you do, you probably wouldn't have a weapon in the first place.
But unfortunately we are not there yet, especially taking into account that the intrusion in question wasn't the first one, the old man's actions are justified.

Some awesomeness:


http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/zou1m/men_display_pictures_of_dead_cops_on_their/
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/photos-dead-police-officer-posted-outside-tennessee-farm-220517988.html



From the comments:

Fuck yeah 2nd Ammendment.

I stop short of calling this "awesome"....

But Ice-T and I agree,

http://silverunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/IceT.jpg

Yeah, sure is awesome to be pride of killing people.

It's awesome to be able to be able to defend your life in your land from even police officers with deadly force. It sure is.

yeah, awesome to live in country where you have to...

The story above is about a town were people live like savages. Police officers going on a rampage after decades of corruptions is not what I'd describe as a town where the law is enforced. Don't you have any government in the USA to take care of such things?
Of course if you want to live in the early ages of the conquest of the west, this kind of town and having a gun nearby at all times is OK, but please hang a sign warning civilized people that they are entering a death trap when entering such a town...

Mark the date. I agree with you.

It sucks that the police feel that they can get away with stuff like this.

Obviously not. But this is not a country-wide issue.

The story is about such a sign :D

I'm not American, however some things about the USA are awesome. Not in many places one can legally defend oneself from the police with deadly force and get away with it.

It is not "getting away with anything'.

It is noticing bad government, standing up against it, fighting it, then defending yourself against unlawful and tyrannical responses and repercussions.

Our founding documents NEVER gave us any rights.

The founding documents RECOGNIZED only SOME of what were, at the time, our most recognized and honored pre-existing rights by Birth/God/Creator... for being born onto this land.

The founding documents limit government.

Bad government will kill you to protect itself.

Good citizens stand up against it.

even if there were rights given by something or someone even before a society exists, people would never agree on what those rights are. there is no universal moral compass all humans share or rights that are recognized universally all over the world and through history. effectively, rights are given by societies to people. those rights differ and often the groups they are given to also differ. some societies grant rights to every human being, others dont even grant all of their own citizens the same rights.

usually some of those rights are protected by law, others only manifest in social pressure. sometimes societies are unified in their perception of rights, sometimes not. sometimes this perception changes over time and previously highly accept laws start to feel like coercion.

in my opinion, assuming too many absolute rights a priori is a sure way to never understand your fellow men, or live with them. if you have the oppurtunity to found your very own country, that might be ok. otherwise you might consider the possibility that rights are not right or wrong but just a consent, often a least common denominator of people with very different opinions.

Well, the agreement was brief.

A rational investigation can, and will, discover what rights are inherent in the human condition. Most are rights from. For instance, the right to be free from murder (usually called the right to life). Some rights "Hang off of" these deeper rights, for instance, the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms require and are required by, the right to life.

The rational test is whether or not a proposed "right" imposes a positive obligation on another person. For instance, let us say we wanted to enshrine the right to food in the constitution of our new nation, rationalizing that you need food to live, and the right to life therefore requires a right to food. "A right to food" imposes a positive obligation on others to feed you. Clearly, that doesn't work. If we were to put that right into our constitution, you would be required to feed anyone who asked, even to the detriment of your own family. So that's a no-go.

one of the best explanations I ever read.

Not even allowed to have replica guns here unless they are orange... (no criminal would ever paint their gun orange right?)

Illegal guns are common enough though. Seeing that is a lot of what made me change my mind on gun control. I know there are groups of hateful people out there collecting weapons, there are probably equal groups out there that would hate me, so I would much prefer if everyone here had guns rather than only those that plan on using them...

That said, If you break into someone else's home, You might as well be in a different country, If you go to Bali with drugs, you get the death penalty, If you break into a 92 year old WWII Vet's home, Then he is King of that land, and you will get judged by his standards, That is a risk he took breaking into houses in the first place...

for a rational investigation you still need some kind of axiom to start with. what should that universally accepted axiom be?


self-defense obviously is. the right to bear arms is not. a society could ban arms alltogether, or some kinds of it. or the society could just say it recognizes your right to life but its duty to protect your fellow citizens from you is considered more important than your improved capabilities of self-defense.


how is that rational? from what do you deduct the right to be free from any obligation?
btw: you realize that you disagree with pretty much all social rights from the universal declaration of human rights? just wondering why, if those absolute rights are so rational and easy to recognize, your set of rights is so very different from the most commonly accepted one...

Self-ownership (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership).

Except that by banning one type of weapon you - by definition - ensure that only criminals have that weapon. And self defense also includes that against those who set themselves as your protectors, as evinced by the second story posted in this thread.


Again, self-ownership. If I own myself, and you own yourself, By what rationale do you claim part of me (or the result of my labor) as yours, or I claim part of you or your labor as mine?


Do I? Until I hit Article 25, I found almost nothing to disagree with (except those things which assumed a State), and after, I found little to disagree with. In specific, Article 25, and 26. Read it yourself, and see which ones impose obligations not to restrict or compel behavior, rather than imposing obligations to do so:

https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

there a a lot of rights that cannot be deducted from self-ownership. for example, i cant really see how you can deduct property rights from self-ownership. specifically the right to own land and natural resources seems problematic, since both arent part of the result of your labor and are limited in supply, so that ownership might very well interfere with other peoples right to life.
one could very well argue that access to the means to sustain ones life through your own labor follows directly from the right to life, and therefore access to farmable land and water cannot be denied.


having no fire arms doesnt really stop you from defending yourself. its just less effective. still much more effective than planting crops without land btw  ;)


by what right did you claim the land and resources you worked with as your own? you saw that apple tree first?
unless you grow apples from your own body i dont see how you can fully claim anything except yourself as your own.


many of those rights require an institution that promotes them or obligates others to follow them. for example all rights that guarantee equal treatment arent worth much when everybody can choose freely what kind of people he doesnt employ, doesnt trade with or doesnt give access to his infrastructure, or at least charge more.

I see you didn't read the article, nor any of the sources.
While the land itself is not created by one's labor, by "mixing one's labor with it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle)," land can be claimed - homesteaded - for one's own use. And indeed, you are correct, that access to farm-able land and water cannot be denied, but that requirement goes both ways. You cannot deny someone their land, and since they have prior claim, their right to that land trumps yours. You're welcome to buy it from them, if you can offer a price they'll accept, but otherwise you'll have to find other land, or offer your labor to someone in order to get your food. I've cut out the "apple tree" response, below, since it's best answered here. I may have planted that apple tree, or merely cared for it. But yes, it boils down to "I saw it first," or rather, I labored on it first.

Defending oneself with a knife from someone with a gun is a notoriously poor decision... and there's a reason that firearms surpassed other ranged weaponry. The fact remains that if you make something illegal, by definition the only people with it will be criminals.


Re-read again the part that I've bolded. Maybe then you'll understand what I said.

I'd like to know, however, why you consider that a person's right to "equal treatment" trumps an individual's right to choose who he associates with.

Should hire him for the bitcoin community, shoot the scammers in the chest.

Bravo to this old man. This is a reason to own a rifle, pump the guts/lungs/vital organs out of em with it.

i did. i just dont agree.


yeah, except nothing of that can be deducted from self-ownership. its a very artificial, theoretically unsound construct on top of it. its unsound, because it effectively allows for those with farmland/water/etc to render the right to life of those without that meaningsless whenever they please. its also impractical, because there is no good definition of the whole work-mixing-thingy, making it an i-touch-i-own rule, allowing you to claim ridiculous amounts of land and resources with little to no effort.

a communistic approach is much more sound regarding self-ownership: no one can own land, society can give you land temporarily and demand that you share some part of the fruits of your labor on that land with the society. its a much more logical and practical solution to making self-ownership and right to life work together without any coercion.
of course, it doesnt fit liberitarian dogma, so it evil  ;D


that still doesnt effect your right to life. countries with stricter fire arm regulations have much less homicides with firearms, despite the all those better-armed criminals. your argument is purely theoretical.



i understand you well enough. you have no problem with rights on paper as long as you dont have to do jack shit to honor them.
personally, the right for a woman to walk a street without a burka is more important to me than the rights of the muslim that owns the street. freedom of speech is more important to me than the rights of the owners of schools or "public" places. the right to equal payment for equal work is more important than the right of a factory owner to exploit desparate people. free education is more important to me than your wish not to share anything ever with society.
theres really nothing absolutist about that. i just prefer to live in a totally different society than you.

Fornit, I really would appreciate it if you ceased to abuse the English language. Use the shift and apostrophe (') keys, if you please, it makes your writing that much more readable, and you look more intelligent than a 6th grader.

/sigh... You continue to argue patently false things, which if you had actually read the articles I linked, you would know were false. The definition of the "whole work-mixing-thingy" (Homesteading principle) was first stated by John Locke:

And property rights do not allow for someone to render one's right to life meaningless. What you must understand that your right to life is not actually a right to anything. Rather, it is a right to be free from being killed. A right to not be murdered. Nothing more, nothing less. You are not entitled to the property of another person. Ever.

Communism is not evil because it "doesn't fit libertarian dogma," but because it kills people. it requires coercion to force people to "share" their property and the results of their labor.

Oh but it does. If you remove or reduce the ability for someone to defend themselves, you are damaging their ability to protect their own right to life. I find it interesting that you both consider that one has a right to other's property, and that they should not be able to defend themselves or their property. That would rationally label you as a criminal. And my argument is not theoretical. It's backed up by hard facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime


Tsk... You didn't answer me. I'll ask again. Why do you consider that a person's right to "equal treatment" trumps an individual's right to choose who he associates with?

thank's for the advice.


still can't agree that there is any logic in that. it sure sounds nice though.


you state that as if it were some eternal law i just have to think about long enough to understand. it's not that i not understand, i just don't concur with it. i do not care if somebody dies by starvation or gunfire. i also do not care if you pushed somebody in the river or just didn't feel obligated to pull him out. dead is dead. i judge actions by their outcome and not by fact that you can say that, by some arbitrary code of conduct, you haven't done anything "wrong".


if all property belonged to society and can be rented by contract, where is the coercion? if it makes you feel better, imagine the government as an entity that was everywhere first, did the mixing and now offers you contracts just like any private person  ;)


well, you can report me to the thought police.
your standard for what you consider "hard facts" is pretty low. i can't imagine what kind of desperation caused you to link to that guy btw. i skimmed over hthis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Women.27s_suffrage_and_government_growth and had a hard time not to eat my cat out of sheer amusement.
forgive me if i can't subcribe to your reality. where i live you can send a naked teenage girl to get you a burger and pay with a gold bar at 3am. except you can't sell burgers at 3am and the girl probably had a hard time avoiding getting arrested for indecent behaviour by one of the many bored police officers idling between settling noise complaints and showing people the way  ;)
ok, a little over the top. but still, consider that societies can work differently from what you experience in your country.


because it works. as i said outcome > rules. in this case, a very diffuse freedom < protection against the very common reality of racism, sexism, religious fanatism, exploitation, de facto censorship and so forth.

no one has a right to life without doing the work required to survive. Historically this why the family unit was so important in our early days to spread out the workloads.

Which you promptly ignored. The proper way to write that, which will not set your reader's teeth on edge is: "Thanks for the advice."

Then you don't know what logic is. Not surprising, since you can't write above a kindergarten level.

Well, if you seek to prevent someone's death by gunfire, perhaps they should have the tools to defend themselves? And if you say you judge actions, why then are you judging failure to act? If a paralyzed man does not jump into the river to pull the drowning man out, does that make his lack of action evil? My code of conduct is not "arbitrary," it is logically constructed, internally consistent, and fair. If you would like an explanation of this code of conduct, You can find it here (http://fdrurl.com/UPBAudio). I've included the link to the audiobook rather than the pdf in case your reading comprehension is on par with your writing skills.

Except that it wasn't, didn't, and doesn't.

I don't even know what you're talking about here. Again, It's not surprising that you would come up with a poor example, considering how poorly you write.

Except it doesn't work. It forces people to deal with, employ, and work for, people they don't like.
The funny thing is, The right to freedom of association is explicitly spelled out (Article 20.1): "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." while this "right to equal treatment" is only implied (Article 23.1): "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." You'll note, also, that the lower numbered rights are more basic, and thus trump the higher numbered rights.

And if you think you mean Article 7, "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." you're mistaken, because that protects against people saying something like "you're black, so you don't have X right." Which is interesting, since that is essentially what you are saying. You are denying people their right to freedom of association simply because you think they should associate with the people they choose not to associate with.

no wonder you quote poe's law every 5 minutes. i have seen solid blocks of concrete that were better sarcasm detectors than you.


maybe you can help me with that. i am looking for a word, pretty long one. sounds a bit like "at homie, man?" 

dude, you just quote stuff, period. if you are able to build any rational argument for yourself, i have yet to witness that. fortunately it seems you ran out of text to quote.


and where is the coercion again?


maybe next time i quote one instead. i hope your german is good.


you serious?
a) article 20 doesnt say that. at all.
b) you play top trumps with ethics?  i play article 2. hand me your all your cards!


so let the blacks sit in the back of the bus again because the bus driver/owner doesnt want to associate with them?

And I have seen 1st graders with better writing skills than you. This isn't ad hominem, it's simple fact. If you would like to make a point, write it clearly, and cogently, and your readers will take it seriously. Scrawl it in crayon, and you will be laughed at.


Do you think that is making a point? It's not. I've given you a resource to educate yourself on the rationale behind my ethics. If you choose not to take that opportunity, don't be surprised when your ignorance runs you afoul.

I'll ask again, since you completely avoided answering me: If you seek to prevent someone's death by gunfire, perhaps they should have the tools to defend themselves? And if you say you judge actions, why then are you judging failure to act? If a paralyzed man does not jump into the river to pull the drowning man out, does that make his lack of action evil?


Coercion is the use of force to make someone do something against their will. Try not paying the tax man, and see if you don't find out first hand the definition of coercion.


Probably better than your English.


a) That's a direct quote of article 20.1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. You sure you read it?
b) Article 2 basically says the the same thing as article 7. You cannot say anyone does not get the rights laid out here by virtue of their skin color, religion, nationality, etc. Which includes the rights set forth in article 20, freedom of association. Which means that the black man and the white man both have the right to freedom of association. Who are you to take the white man's freedom of association?


No, let the blacks take another bus because the bus driver/owner doesn't want to associate with them. (If they want - remember, freedom of association - they can sit in the back, but it would be wrong to force them to sit up front.) Let the blacks make their own bus line, and allow anyone on. Let the blacks out compete the racist asshole in the other bus.

reading this makes me sad.. and makes me wonder why the USA has one of the highest crime rates in the world and has the highest prison population in the world. and has the highest % of its population imprisioned. Incase you havent noticed already something is fundamentally wrong. something isnt working and it needs to be fixed. i dont think the answer is killing more people/ imprisioning more people. its not the people that are neccarily broken. its the society itself. wake up and realize what isnt working and maby you can start finding out what will work. the world needs to change.

Ok, so according to you in the particular case which is discussed in this thread, the old man should just have let the burglar help himself and get away (I don't see any other alternative if you don't want to kill nor imprison anymore).

Yes, there might be something wrong in the american society (I don't know, I'm european).  But until society is fixed, people should have the right to protect themselves from the consequences of this wrong society.  Don't you think?

I doubt people who favors gun ownership think this would improve society.  They just think it can help prevent people from undergoing the fact of living in a wrong society.  This is quite different.

Enough "protecting" and the society will fix itself. Honestly, I think that's what fornit is afraid of.

i dont think we will ever agree on anything. at some point when talking to a moral absolutist, you just have to recognize there is not enough common ground for a discussion to take place.

I've taken the liberty of correcting your post for you:


And already you're wrong.

Remember this post?

There's plenty of common ground. You don't like getting murdered, raped, or robbed, I assume? Neither do I. We both agree that that's wrong behavior. Now we just need to discuss what to do about it.

i think we are already pretty clear on that. i like to build a society where crime is prevented by reducing poverty, social isolation and lack of access to education and culture. you like to build a castle and outfit it with a moat and catapults.

Again, I'm going to take the liberty of increasing the readability of your post.

You would be wrong. I would also like to build a society where crime is prevented by reducing poverty, social isolation and lack of access to education and culture. What we disagree on is how that should be achieved.

I have an idea. Why don't you suggest a few things? Like, say, specifically how you intend to reduce poverty? Or increase access to education?

Oh, and any time you feel like, feel free to answer these questions: If you seek to prevent someone's death by gunfire, perhaps they should have the tools to defend themselves? And if you say you judge actions, why then are you judging failure to act? If a paralyzed man does not jump into the river to pull the drowning man out, does that make his lack of action evil?

ok, a few things.
get the money from:

- flat, low, simple, unavoidable taxation. no write-offs, exceptions, subsidies, total economic isolation from all governments supporting tax evasion
- high inheritance tax for big inheritances and reduction of possibilities to avoid that tax
- decriminalization of drug usage and instead high taxation similar to alcohol or tobacco
- massive decrease in military spending (thats mostly for the us)
- massive decrease in financial support for the state churches (thats germany...)

spend it on:
- flat basic free income for everybody, zero requirements attached. on the other hand, no special treatment or extras for anyone
- all education including university is free
- basic healthcare is free
- access to the first sports club or similar institution known to improve health and social integration is free
- find a way to make all digital products available to everybody without depriving artists, programmers etc of their income (culture flat rate?)



obviously not. he has no chance to act without harming himself. i assumed that goes without question. regarding the first question: if those tools were not equally suited for aggression than for defense, i would agree with you. but overall fire arms just do more harm than good. i know you disagree, but i won't change my opinion on that.

Communism, in other words. That's been tried, and every time, it kills people, or reduces them to poverty. I'll explain why:
Your funding(note that these are corresponding, ie the first response is for the first statement, and so on):
- either taxes the poor disproportionately (flat tax) or encourages the rich to leave (scaling tax). And this ignores the fact that taxation is theft, even slavery if looked at from the right perspective.
- removes the incentive to save, since your family will not benefit.
- encourages a black market to avoid the tax.

The other two I agree with. (Imagine that, an anarchist agreeing with reducing gov't spending.)

Your social programs:
- removes the incentive to work, since even if you do nothing, you'll still be fine.
- denies the fact that education is not free, someone has to pay the teachers. And if it's not the students, the teachers have no incentive to perform well.
- Second verse, same as the first, just replace teacher with doctor.
- I actually don't disagree with this one - in principle. One catch: Who pays for the space and equipment? It's likely to be the poorest quality available, if it's on the state budget.
- I have a suggestion for this one: Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/). And that's only one option. Lots of people are doing pretty good by giving the product away (http://www.noagendashow.com/) and asking for donations, or selling the item cheap directly to the fans (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/). Piracy is less likely when you're stealing from the artist instead of some company. There's also the option of giving away the music and selling merchandise and, of course, the experience of a live concert. (Can you tell I've thought about this one?)

When you combine the bad ideas in the first list, with the bad ideas in the second list, you get a listless, barely subsistent populace with crappy clothes, crappy food, and no hope for the future. I would have thought a German would know better than to think socialist plans would work... Maybe you're simply too young to remember, but it wasn't that long ago that East Germany collapsed. Oh, and don't just take my word for it, here is a fellow German warning you from the past: https://mises.org/document/4994 That is an English translation, perhaps you can find it in the original German in a local library.


But any moral code, to be fair, must apply to everyone. If you start applying exceptions, where do you stop? And yes, firearms are suited for aggression as well as defense. However, until you find a better defense for a firearm than having one of your own, it's the best we have.

Now, lest I be accused of tearing you down without offering any better suggestions, let me provide a counterpoint:
To reduce poverty, I suggest we remove the minimum wage and reduce or remove the licensing requirements for many industries. That allows people to work for whatever they can get, rather than being excluded by low skills from the workforce. Open up the market, allowing, say, a poor mother to apply the skills that she's gained raising her children to care for the children of others. Now she can feed herself, and her children, by offering those skills to her friends and neighbors.

But myrkul, your forgetting we have legal access to books. I'm sure students who go through ALICE training will be just fine. See link below.  ::)

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/students_fight_gunmen.html

- right now the taxation system favors the rich because it is so complex that only those benefit that have the money to pay advisors and don't have to spend most of their money on necessities so.
- i don't need anyone to save millions and millions. leave your family one house instead of ten.
- drugs are way way overpriced and low quality right now. illegal production and transportation is costly. just make the taxes high enough so that you end up with comparable prices and a regularly controlled, quality product. in the end you have extra tax income, less criminalized drug users, less rich drug lords and police officers that can focus on actual crimes


- i am not talking thousands of dollars here. just enough to buy food and shared living space. thats 300-600$ in most western countries. in nothern europe we spent that money for welfare anyway. except right now we spent half of it on the needy and half it on the bureaucrats determining need. rather give that money away equally. not only do you save lots of bureaucracy, the low, flat amount also encourages to look for work and spend your money more efficiently.
- of course education costs money. for a society though, uneducated workers are practically useless nowadays. giving people no chance to realize their potential because their parents are poor places a huge burden on a high tech society. putting money into education always pays off.
- in the end, people have to vote with their feed. you dont have to go to a bad doctor. or school.
- regarding sport you might want to take a look at the german model. for membership in a sports club you pay roughly 100-300$ per year. those are charitable clubs with a lot of volunteers. the state usually supports those with the open slots in school sports halls and others existing facilities and sometimes help for bigger investments.


i also think that kickstarter is, in the current system, a very welcome innovation. its a huge improvement over conventional funding methods. i am not sure it is enough to challenge the status quo though.


i am not at all in favor of communism. its more of an improvement upon social market economy. you might have noticed i did not propose any kind of planned economy. unlike communism, social market economy is working pretty well. you might want to travel to europe and take a look at that barely subsistent populance. free income is not a degeneration into an already tried and failed experiment. it is an adjustment to get rid of bureaucracy and unjust distribution of funds we spent anyway.



once you have free income you can easily remove minimum wage  ;).
seriously, the problem with your proposal is that it's a solution for yesterday. automation is an ongoing process and full employment is a dead concept. for example, in the next few decades, jobs like truck driver, pilot, ship captain, pizza delivery or mail man won't exist anymore. the whole transportation system and many other things will be automatic. most machines will be built and maintained by other machines.
poperty will produce property. work as a mechanism to distribute wealth will cease to function and we better get rid of the dependency on that mechanism before it fails completely.

indeed. And your proposed system will drive out the rich, the intelligent, and the ambitious. Leaving only the poor, stupid, and lazy.

Alone, no. but don't forget the other options I suggested.

Really? Are you that blind? Maybe it's just because you're in Germany, and not, say, Greece. The top of the food chain always feels the drought last.


... You're... you're actually serious about that, aren't you? You really think that robots will do everything, including build, program, maintain and repair the other robots. Well, if that's true, then we don't need to worry at all, since all our needs will be met by the robots. Until they overthrow us anyway. ;)

Automation doesn't reduce employment - not long-term, anyway - it just changes the industry. And it's especially funny considering the industry I used as an example is one not subject to automation... Unless you'd trust Robo-nanny 9000?

Here we go with this again.  Reminds me of the thread about venus project and Zeitgest movement.

Let me explain you that what you describe is not much different than the current way capitalism works.  A robot is a mean of production, just as is a share of a company/firm/factory (I don't know exactlly how you call that in english).  And those means of production have to belong to someone.

From the point of view of the owner (i.e. the capitalist), it does not matter much if the worker is made of flesh or steel.  What matters is that it behaves as such:  it accepts to work, to give away its production and to receive a predetermined money amount in exchange.  The robot does not demand much wage, basically it only requires maintenance costs which is equivalent.  But otherwise, to the capitalist the robot and the human are not much different.  One is just much cheaper than the other.

So the situation you describe is just a fancy, science-fiction way to describe what currently exists already.  I do own shares of companies and most of my income come from that.  I don't care much about what kind of workers work in these companies.  Hell, I guess there is a fair amount of robots already.

Now, I guess you're going to tell me that we should give shares of companies to everyone, on an equal basis.  Ok so that means first that you have to steal mine.  Ok I'll try to ignore that and do as if it was moral.  Now, everybody has the same amount of shares.  Great.  I'll go see someone and I'll tell him:  « dude, you have 10 shares of company X and they give you 1 bitcoin a year.  I'll give you 10 bitcoins now if you give me those shares. »  The guy does accept because he thinks it would be cool to have 10 bitcoins now, and not to have to wait ten years.  So he gives me his shares and go buy some now legalized drugs with the money.  I, on the contrary, will keep on underconsumming or working harder in order to keep saving capital.

Eventually, people who tend to work and save will tend to have much more shares than people who tend to consume and be lazy.  And you'll end up with a situation which will be no different than the current one, except that you would haved passed through a phase where you expropriated people (remember the part when you to steal my shares to give them to everyone?).

Is that your plan?

drive them out to where exactly? the country where all the poor people are armed and starving? not likely  ;)
a country that takes care of its poor people is massively favorable for the rich. unless you like to live in said castle with a moat.
in my sports club like we got a guy that is the owner of his own insurance company and one with a software company. both are likely filthy rich. i think they like to be part of a prospering society instead of a protected enclave inside an ocean of misery.



greece failed because the EU managed to create a financial system along with the euro that basically encouraged and rewarded taking more debts than you need. they lived at a level way above what their own economy could sustain. basically they were the top of the food chain, consuming products produced by others. it's not a problem of social market economy as a whole. we could sustain those punks forever. we just don't want to  :)
plus, when greece, italy and spain go broke, holidays at the sea are cheap again  ;D



not everything. child and health care, education and most creative jobs are pretty safe. but you dont need 100% unemployment rate for civil unrest.

just look at ATMs and online banking. i still remember a time when you actually had to talk to people to transfer money. shops selling media like books or dvds are already on death row. fully automated supermarkets are likely a thing for this decade.

for a practical example, take a look at this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HHLA_Container_Terminal_Altenwerder_(CTA)_in_Hamburg_-_Winter_2010_-_04.jpg
what you see there is the container terminal altenwerder. look at the full size picture too. all vehicles, the storage cranes and the whole storage organization are fully automated.
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_Terminal_Altenwerder
and a boring video without sound: http://hhla.de/de/foto-film/filme/der-weg-der-box.html

so you really wrote that long a text trying to tell me that, after all those changes, the company owner is still good?
lol yeah, thanks for the info  ;)



no, its not.

Well, he has been robbed at the beginning of the process.

If I burn your house and see that ten years later you bought a new, prettier house, are you going to tell me that you have no hard feelings against me?


Well, what is it, then?  Because the way I see it, even in your SF world where robots do all the work and produce all the wealth, this wealth will have to be shared.  And even if you initially give everyone an equal number of shares, at some point people will start buying and selling them, so that eventually you'll end up with a world being like a big corporation whose shares will be pretty much as unevenly distributed as any company nowadays is.

Since I am curious, is it normal for people in the USA to have a weapon that easily available?

If the answer is yes, why would people take the chance of breaking in? are they that desperate for drugs? only explanation I can think off.
(People get free food if they need in the USA right? food stamps or something)

I'm not a US citizen, but from what I know of american people, not all of them support gun ownership and therefore not all of them actually have weapons at home or know how to use it.  My guess is that burglars think the risk is acceptable.


I very much doubt a burglar is motivated by hunger.  Otherwise when someone robs a grocery store, he would go after the food, not the cashier.

I can see that you have a massively distorted view of capitalism, and of economics in general.

Let's say we have two countries, We'll call them Fornitland and Myrkultopia.

Fornitland has a progressive (the rich pay a higher rate) income tax, massively taxes inheritances, especially for the rich, provides everyone a basic living allowance, state-run schooling and healthcare, and basically runs things very socialistically.

Myrkultopia, on the other hand, has little to no taxes, for anyone, provides no living allowance, lets the market provide schooling and healthcare, and basically runs things very capitalistically.

In Fornitland the poor have very little incentive to become rich, for if they do, they'll only be taxed harder, and have most of their hard-earned gains stripped from them when they die. Since they will have their basic needs taken care of regardless, there is very little need for ambition, since no work will get a person little less than working, and hard work will mostly get stripped away. Schools and hospitals, and, indeed any industry which the state deems "necessary for the public good" and nationalizes, are monopolies, with their pay coming not from the customer, but from the state. Since the customer sees no cost, they will use the service at every opportunity (good for schools, if they have the capacity, not so good for hospitals). This leads to supply shortages - overcrowding in schools, long waiting lists and overworked doctors in hospitals. In both of those industries especially, but also in others, supply shortages lead to poor quality service, as teachers struggle to take care of 40+ students at a time, and doctors rush from one patient to the next. Since the service provider sees no loss from poor service - after all, if it's paid for by the state, he gets paid the same for poor service as for good - there's no incentive to improve service, and little incentive for new service providers to enter the field.

Now, let's flee to Myrkultopia - as most of the populace of Fornitland would, eventually. In Myrkultopia there is every incentive for the poor to become rich, since the rich can afford nicer things, and those nicer things don't get taken away. Nor does their hard-earned money get stripped away to feed the unambitious poor. The poor have every incentive to apply themselves profitably to society, and to get the best rate that they can for their services, because if they do not, they will starve, unless they can rely on the charity of friends and family. Schools and hospitals are run on a for-profit basis, and like other service industries, lose money if they do not get customers. Since the poor need schooling and healthcare too, there would be service providers willing to provide for them, but the service may not be as good as that provided to the rich. Still better than the service provided by the state-run hospitals and schools in Fornitland, though. Poor service is rewarded with less money, and good service gets more. If there is a shortage, then the providers can demand more pay, and the high pay rates drive an increase in service providers. Lack of barriers to entry into those - and indeed as many as possible -  industries ensure rapid response to increased demand, and provide opportunities for ambitious poor to get a head start on becoming rich.

So, no, people would not flee to "where all the poor people are armed and starving," but to where the poor have opportunity and incentive to become the rich.


I think books, at least, will remain a luxury item, and not disappear. DVDs will probably go away as digital media becomes more prevalent. But a book is an entirely different experience on paper than it is on a screen. People in the future, instead of saying "Oh, wow, look at that bigscreen TV!" will say, "Oh, wow, look at that library!" It will be, once again, a sign of wealth and taste to have a lot of paper books. Many menial jobs will likely be automated. An automated supermarket is a huge capital outlay, though, so it's likely they will be relatively rare. Physical banks will probably go the way of the Dinosaurs, especially if Bitcoin or it's successors catch on. My point being, that automation will take care of a great many things, and shift the workforce, but I doubt robots will ever take care of everything.

i hope you don't expect me to respond in detail to that paraphrase of a terry goodkind propaganda novel.

looooolwuuut?

"Terry Goodkind propaganda novel"?

Please explain.

Edit: turns out Goodkind is an objectivist. I had no idea. I assure you, though, that my post above is not a paraphrase of one of his novels, it is a logical examination of the incentives in each society. And yes, I do expect you to respond to it.

Suggestion as to how: take Fornitland and Myrkultopia, and run through your interpretation of the incentives in those societies.

fornitland is depicted in the novel faith of the fallen, pretty much by the letter. i guess ayn rand disciples just aren't that original.
its no surprise fornitland has a progressive tax even though i explicitly promoted a flat tax. overall you twist whatever i stated to fit your distopia of a state, where you get little to nothing for your work.  i never promoted any of that. that happens when you don't listen but just expect things to fit into your dogma.

regarding your prognosis for both countries: you might want to try and watch actual human behavior. the bright and productive don't just suddenly stop working because they got bread and water for free. and the stupid and lazy don't just turn into ambitious, inventive people because you starve them.
when people get desperate, they resort to crime. in the end, that will prove to be way more expensive than a little food and a place to sleep.

your prognosis on economics is equally flawed. when you you have several doctors, each getting the exact same amount for a service, all patients will flock to those doctors that provide the best service for that price. the bad doctor doesnt earn anything because nobody is forced to go to him. except when there are too few doctors, in which case there is a high incentive to become a doctor, because its easy to outperform the bad doctors and get a lot of patients without being excellent. you just have to be better than the worst doctors that are still good enough to have enough patients.
you somehow always get this mixed up with a planned economy, with a fixed amount of doctors and other restrictions. you really need to step out of your black/white capitalism/communism template.

My apologies. I assumed you would prefer to tax the rich more, rather than taxing the poor disproportionately with a flat tax. FYI: I am not a Rand advocate. I'm an anarchist. Rand got many things wrong.

Indeed... because here's where the armed part comes in. Not the poor, but those they would steal from. Read the article on page 1 of this thread for info on what happens when someone decides to steal instead of working for a living. And no, the bright and productive do not stop working when they get a basic sustenance. Instead, they get upset about paying for those who did stop working. And no, the stupid and lazy don't turn into ambitious, inventive people just because you starve them. Those that don't, however, will starve. And I apologize if I offend your European sensibilities with what I am about to say, but those who are not willing to output the energy to keep themselves alive are a drain, not a resource. When they starve, it will be their own doing.


"the bad doctor doesnt earn anything because nobody is forced to go to him."

Except he is paid by the state, is he not? That's what "free healthcare" means, you know. State-run hospitals. There are two options for state-run healthcare, from the doctor's point of view: Either he gets paid a set salary, or he gets paid per patient. If he gets paid a set salary, then he has no incentive to hurry, and can take his time with each patient. Of course, he also has no real incentive to do well, since even if his patients leave him, he still gets paid the same amount. If he gets paid per patient, he now has incentive to get as many patients through as possible. As you point out, he doesn't have to be a great doctor, just a fast, mediocre one. And since all the doctors have the same incentives, all will be fast, and mediocre.

Again, I suggest that if I have mischaracterized your ideal society, why don't you correct me, and run through your interpretation of the incentives in those societies. I'd honestly like to see how you predict your society unfolding. In short, I am asking you to state your case. You may even be able to convince me.

a flat tax is flat. there is nothing disporportionate about it. you already get your free income and above that, for every dollar you earn you are left with, say, 0.80$. when you look at how many exceptions and loopholes current progressive taxes have, this is a far better system. you always and instantly know much money the state will take from you. you don't have to take into account the progression, varying exempt amounts, write-offs etc.
and you know all the exceptions always work for the people who have the time, money and expertise to work the system. they never work for the poor.


its not about sensibilities. you create a convoluted, expensive and potentially live-endangering solution to avoid a simple and actually not that expensive solution because you consider it unjust. you rather buy guns, build prisons and accept whatever collateral damage crimes cause just to avoid giving some morons the free food and shelter they will eventually get in prison anyway.


yay, you get it. fast and mediocre, exactly. thats why its called basic healthcare. if you want better service, go to the best doctors, they will charge you extra on top. thats how those systems work. the doctor gets the fixed amount for the service and if he thinks he is so good he can charge extra, he is free to do so.


i am not proposing an entirely new state. i just propose improvements on existing ones. while i believe having a vision what a society should be like is important, in the end, you can never start from scratch. pretending you could won't result in anything that could ever be applied to any real world situation.
for the united states, i wouldn't dare to claim i could propose an allround solution to all its problems. i believe the united states are already past the point of no return, surviving because other nations still buy dollars. so i would focus on infrastrucure and education. because that is stuff no one can just buy and carry away from you when the shit finally hits the fan.

Forcing people to ask for a same price for a same service IS planned economy.  It's called price control (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls).  And it brings nothing good.  Do you think a bureaucrat is better suited than the market to determine what is the appropriate price for a given service?

Here's the thing: If you take 20% of $1000, you're left with $800. If you take 20% from $1 000 000, you're left with $800 000. $200 is a lot more to a poor man than $200 000 is to a rich one. The disproportion comes in not in the tax itself, but in the relative value of what you're taking.

Tsk, tsk.... What makes you think an anarchist would be in favor of caging people? Do you think it is possible that I know more about what you propose than you know of what I propose?

Wait, you have both doctors who get paid a small, set amount per patient, and doctors who can charge more? You have free healthcare and market healthcare? What doctor would work in the free healthcare system? Clearly, only those who would not be able to compete in the market. In other words, not mediocre, but poor. So the free healthcare is not basic, it's the worst available.


Clearly, you have an end goal, yes? A society that you would consider "done"? If it's not my Fornitland, then what is it? What would your Fornitland look like?

you are making it a theoretical problem. there is no way to exactly determine how much money is worth for a specific person. the practical problem is that people with $1 000 000 income usually don't pay taxes at all. the ones paying the bills for everyone are usually those with $50 000 - $150 000 per year, enough to be be paying significant taxes but still so little that you don't have real flexibility in investments. someone with say $800 000 to spare each year has way way more options, plus he can afford to pay $10 000 to someone evaluating those options.



of course. thats because you don't propose much of anything. you just claim the market will take care of everything.


there are no two systems. most doctors will do both basic treatments and those requiring extra payment. simply because it's not that easy to find so many wealthy customers. plus sometimes there isn't a better treatment then the basic one, recommending anything else will just be ripping of your patients.


why would i have a society in mind i consider "done"? you might have noticed we live in a time of rapid technological advancement. any society i propose based on current technology would be outdated by the time 10% of what i proposed could be realized. in fact, proposing any static utopia in a time in which several decades or centuries of rapid technological changes are ahead of us is a purely theoretical excercise.
and its not just technology. the fact that we will run into resource shortages pretty soon will make the situation even more unstable and unpredictable.
in my opinion, right now you can only realistically think about mitigating the growth pains. i have no idea how a society could look like in a century. we might have fought over resources most of the century and all live in poverty or found a way to digitalize consciousness and live in clones adapted to life on mars  ;)
just think about some guy fantasizing in 1912 about an ideal society for today. they had radios and horses ffs  ;D.
and that doesn't even account for the fact that technological advancement is still accelerating. a lot more happened from 1962-2012 than from 1912-1962.

You're looking at the problems of the current system, and assuming that any other system will also have those problems. You're probably at least partly right, but the fact remains that if you steal the same percentage of a poor person's productivity as you do a rich person, you're taking a larger relative value from the poor person. Here's a thought: Maybe don't steal anyone's productivity?

I have a very good vision of what it will probably look like. It's hard to predict details, however, because the market is comprised of a large number of individuals, and each individual makes different choices. It's clear, however, that if there is a market need for a good or service, it will be provided, and the laws of economics dictate that it will be provided at the lowest rate profitable.

Wait, now it's not the skill of the doctor, but the procedure that determines the cost? I don't think you've thought this through very far, since what you describe really isn't far off the market system, with the exception that you're subsidizing the worst doctors by paying them government funding to perform the "basic" procedures that even they can't screw up. (And thus stealing business from RNs and other lower-trained medical workers.)


How can you deride me for saying "You just think the market will take care of everything," and then in the same post, write that? It's amazing the amount of verbiage you can spout without saying a damn thing. Have you considered a career in politics? You seem perfectly suited, in both skillset and mentality to be an elected official. And FYI, Edward Bellamy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward) did indeed fantasize about an ideal society for today, well before 1912 (He was wrong, but that's beside the point). It's called science fiction, you should think about maybe reading some.

maybe that attitude flies at your local gun owners and pig wrestlers meetings. i however dont need to read your bs. goodbye.

quoted before he deletes/changes it

and this is how ideological discussions like this almost always end up.

The Utopian dream shattered by the reality of who and what Man truly is.

This Great Society proponent can not even remain rational in discussing it theoretically, and when finally backed into his corner, he disappears, becasuse he ran out of compromised data and talking points.

why should i delete that?
some guy tells me to try and read a book and i tell him he can go fuck himself. seems to be a pretty coherent continuation of the "discussion".

You are being intellectually dishonest and over-simplifying.

I suggest a genre of fiction. Not a specific book. Based on your vision of the future, you may enjoy that genre.

Also, as a suggestion, rather than getting butthurt over a fiction recommendation, you may wish to attempt to use logic and reason to refute my position.

So if criminals still want to rob houses, and they know being shot at is a real risk, why don't all intrusions now simply begin with the intruder quietly moving through, and executing everyone in the house before they are discovered? Then they can peacefully proceed to rob the place at will.

Do they have some stupid belief (beyond the existing requirement of stupidity to rob someone) that what they are doing is not going to end up with them being shot to death? By the way some people are talking, why on earth would they think this in the US?

I suppose the most stupid will eventually be killed off and the less retarded ones that pre-execute will thrive, so it is naturally correcting either way.

My home security system is not designed to keep people out, rather to limit their choices once they have made the wrong decision to enter. I can track their movements around the house while I control lighting and locks. Maybe it's because my Dad was a cop that I learned not to fearfully avoid bad guys. We go get them and make them afraid.   8)

I haven't managed to read the entire thread, but saw this post, which I agree with.

I support the right to own and bear firearms. But, retaliation must be proportional. Killing so quickly does seem too much to me. He should have given some type of warning before shooting (warning shot is the best since that leaves evidence), or at least assuring himself the burglar was armed and represented a lethal threat.

I don't support what this man has done (if it really happened as described by OP's link)