This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[kokjo]

You gonna answer a question today, or just dodge?

are you going to force me to? (yep, im dodging!)

No, I'm not going to force you to. I'm just going to repeat this:

I think the fellow is too dim-witted and brainwashed.

Have a nice day.

okay okay. im going to answer:
objectively: no, there is no difference between them. they are both dudes with guns.
subjectively: huge difference, one of them wants to kill me(to proof a point, of some kind), and the other is paid to protect me and the rest of society.

[myrkul]

objectively: no, there is no difference between them. they are both dudes with guns.
subjectively: huge difference, one of them wants to kill me(to proof a point, of some kind), and the other is paid to protect me and the rest of society.

Except your "subjective" difference isn't subjective at all. Perhaps you need a refresher on the definitions:

ob·jec·tive 
/əbˈjektiv/
Adjective
Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

sub·jec·tive 
/səbˈjektiv/
Adjective
Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

It's not your opinion that he wants to kill you, he actually wants to kill you.

[kokjo]

objectively: no, there is no difference between them. they are both dudes with guns.
subjectively: huge difference, one of them wants to kill me(to proof a point, of some kind), and the other is paid to protect me and the rest of society.

Except your "subjective" difference isn't subjective at all. Perhaps you need a refresher on the definitions:

ob·jec·tive 
/əbˈjektiv/
Adjective
Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

sub·jec·tive 
/səbˈjektiv/
Adjective
Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

It's not your opinion that he wants to kill you, he actually wants to kill you.

okay accepted. the one dude is good for me under the assumption i wants to survive, the other is not.

but they are both dudes with guns, and therefor a great deal of equality between them. 

[myrkul]

but they are both dudes with guns, and therefor a great deal of equality between them. 

Not really.

What about these two guys?

[kokjo]

but they are both dudes with guns, and therefor a great deal of equality between them. 

Not really.

What about these two guys?

dude in first pic is russian? do want me to say that he is a noob?


can you please begin to make your point soon? im tired of looking at images of people with or without cool radios...

[myrkul]

dude in first pic is russian? do want me to say that he is a noob?

Dude in first pic is Igor Suprunyuck. He used that hammer to kill people. The guy in the second is using his hammer to build a house.

Both just dudes with hammers, though, right?

What you use the tool for is more important than the tool itself.

[kokjo]

dude in first pic is russian? do want me to say that he is a noob?

Dude in first pic is Igor Suprunyuck. He used that hammer to kill a man. The guy in the second is using his hammer to build a house.

Both just dudes with hammers, though, right?

What you use the tool for is more important than the tool itself.

gun have no use for other then threatening people or killing people.

hammers on the other hand are useful to other things then killing people.

[myrkul]

gun have no use for other then threatening people or killing people.

hammers on the other hand are useful to other things then killing people.

But, wait:

... the other is paid to protect me and the rest of society.

So, the police officer, paid to protect you and the rest of society, is using a tool that has no use other than threatening or killing people. If he's being paid to protect people, he should be using a tool that can protect people, don't you think? Why, then, does he use a gun?

[kokjo]

gun have no use for other then threatening people or killing people.

hammers on the other hand are useful to other things then killing people.

But, wait:

... the other is paid to protect me and the rest of society.

So, the police officer, paid to protect you and the rest of society, is using a tool that has no use other than threatening or killing people. If he's being paid to protect people, he should be using a tool that can protect people, don't you think? Why, then, does he use a gun?

police officers(in Denmark at least) often don't use their guns, they have non-lethal means to protect people.

[myrkul]

police officers(in Denmark at least) often don't use their guns, they have non-lethal means to protect people.

Often?

So that means they have the option of using the guns, don't they? Then the question still stands. Why do they even have the option of using guns, if all guns are good for are threatening and killing people? Their job, after all, is to protect people.

[Rassah]

These stupid comparisons are going nowhere. I'm just going to get right out and tell you what the difference is: It's incentive. Specifically, what is the incentive for one dude with a gun to shoot people versus the other dude with a gun.

For a terrorist, the incentive is his religion. He doesn't care about money or quality of life. He just wants to kill anyone who doesn't think like him.

For a police officer, it's a paycheck and a sense of duty. The sense of duty is the only thing keeping him from doing bad thing (becoming a corrupt cop). There are plenty of officers who are only doing what they do for the money. And the money incentive will always be fulfilled, because the state will always take money from people in the form of taxes, and always pay officers to "keep the peace." Even if the police becomes corrupt, as long as they are protecting the government, the government will always  tax to get money, and pay police salary to keep itself safe.

For a security guard, the incentive is only money. And the money comes from a company who's ONLY incentive is to stay safe and secure, or to provide safety and security. The company employing the guard doesn't have the power to force someone to pay for their security, so their only option is to make sure that the security guards they hire actually do provide security, and anyone who becomes corrupt and resorts to extortion will likely get fired. Otherwise the bad security officers will reflect badly on the company.

The thing is, unlike private companies that actually depend on customers, government, as a bureaucracy, really doesn't care all that much about its reputation. Individual politicians do, but the rest of the government not so much, for the simple fact that they can declare you to be a customer, and you can't do a thing about it. It's pretty much like your cell phone provider, internet provider, or grocery store declaring that you are their customer, making it illegal for you to buy anyone else's products, and giving you a sense of "choice" by allowing you to elect the cashiers at the cash register.

[kokjo]

These stupid comparisons are going nowhere. I'm just going to get right out and tell you what the difference is: It's incentive. Specifically, what is the incentive for one dude with a gun to shoot people versus the other dude with a gun.

For a terrorist, the incentive is his religion. He doesn't care about money or quality of life. He just wants to kill anyone who doesn't think like him.

For a police officer, it's a paycheck and a sense of duty. The sense of duty is the only thing keeping him from doing bad thing (becoming a corrupt cop). There are plenty of officers who are only doing what they do for the money. And the money incentive will always be fulfilled, because the state will always take money from people in the form of taxes, and always pay officers to "keep the peace." Even if the police becomes corrupt, as long as they are protecting the government, the government will always  tax to get money, and pay police salary to keep itself safe.

For a security guard, the incentive is only money. And the money comes from a company who's ONLY incentive is to stay safe and secure, or to provide safety and security. The company employing the guard doesn't have the power to force someone to pay for their security, so their only option is to make sure that the security guards they hire actually do provide security, and anyone who becomes corrupt and resorts to extortion will likely get fired. Otherwise the bad security officers will reflect badly on the company.

The thing is, unlike private companies that actually depend on customers, government, as a bureaucracy, really doesn't care all that much about its reputation. Individual politicians do, but the rest of the government not so much, for the simple fact that they can declare you to be a customer, and you can't do a thing about it. It's pretty much like your cell phone provider, internet provider, or grocery store declaring that you are their customer, making it illegal for you to buy anyone else's products, and giving you a sense of "choice" by allowing you to elect the cashiers at the cash register.

and yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

[myrkul]

and yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

Add a flag, and you get a government.

[kokjo]

and yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

Add a flag, and you get a government.

add some freedom nuts like you, and you get a de-facto governement.

[myrkul]

and yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

Add a flag, and you get a government.

add some freedom nuts like you, and you get a de-facto governement.

de fac·to 
/di ˈfaktō/
Adverb
In fact, whether by right or not.
Adjective
Denoting someone or something that is such in fact: "a de facto one-party system".

A private protection firm, unable to claim a monopoly, is neither a protection racket, nor a de facto government.

[kokjo]

A private protection firm, unable to claim a monopoly, is neither a protection racket, nor a de facto government.

by supporting a private security firm, will make them wipe out competition so that they can gain monopoly, and there by creating a government that does not call itself "government" because that would make you unhappy.

Pay or else...

[myrkul]

A private protection firm, unable to claim a monopoly, is neither a protection racket, nor a de facto government.

by supporting a private security firm, will make them wipe out competition so that they can gain monopoly, and there by creating a government that does not call itself "government" because that would make you unhappy.

Under the rule of free competition, war between the producers of security entirely loses its justification. Why would they make war? To conquer consumers? But the consumers would not allow themselves to be conquered. They would be careful not to allow themselves to be protected by men who would unscrupulously attack the persons and property of their rivals. If some audacious conqueror tried to become dictator, they would immediately call to their aid all the free consumers menaced by this aggression, and they would treat him as he deserved. Just as war is the natural consequence of monopoly, peace us the natural consequence of liberty.

[kokjo]

A private protection firm, unable to claim a monopoly, is neither a protection racket, nor a de facto government.

by supporting a private security firm, will make them wipe out competition so that they can gain monopoly, and there by creating a government that does not call itself "government" because that would make you unhappy.

Under the rule of free competition, war between the producers of security entirely loses its justification. Why would they make war? To conquer consumers? But the consumers would not allow themselves to be conquered. They would be careful not to allow themselves to be protected by men who would unscrupulously attack the persons and property of their rivals. If some audacious conqueror tried to become dictator, they would immediately call to their aid all the free consumers menaced by this aggression, and they would treat him as he deserved. Just as war is the natural consequence of monopoly, peace us the natural consequence of liberty.

the customers don't really care before its too late...

[myrkul]

the customers don't really care before its too late...

So, you're telling me that if your grocery store shot all the employees of a rival grocery store, and changed the sign to theirs, you would continue shopping there?

[kokjo]

let me ask you a very simple question:

why have the state of Denmark not yet collapsed? its democracy been around for 164 years, the illusion of safety and the corruption of the government should be very clear to the population now... would you think? why are people not rebelling against the wrongful and evil state of Denmark?

please enlighten me.