|
em3rgentOrdr
|
 |
May 15, 2011, 07:09:52 AM |
|
My point here is that people like this exist. And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists. To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies.
I cannot accept the arguement, however rational, that a society of entirely self-governed people can exist peacefully or sustainablely until there is a solution for this kind of person.
You are concerned that ordinary people won't able to use violence against such kinds of sociopaths. But this is a non-sequentior against an argument against anarchy. Anarchists aren't necessarily against violence. But rather we (I should say "I") are against institutionalized violence by a single organization with a monopoly on coercion. |
"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what." -- Greg Maxwell
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
goatpig
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3668
Merit: 1345
Armory Developer
|
|
May 15, 2011, 07:42:56 AM |
|
A sociopath can't care for people, but he can care for a person (difference between public/private relationships)
A psychopath can't care for either.
I don't know in which anarchist "guidebook" you read that the life of a child is considered the property of its parents. The life of a being is its own. If the child makes a case of being poorly treated by its parents and tries to break free, it is the child's right, and if the parents oppose it by force, then there is coercion and concept of defending one's life and protecting a person in danger apply perfectly.
|
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014
Strength in numbers
|
|
May 15, 2011, 09:46:29 AM |
|
Government claims responsibility for keeping us safe, fails, therefore we need government.
|
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone. |
|
|
caveden
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
|
|
May 15, 2011, 11:30:55 AM |
|
My point here is that people like this exist. And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists. To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies.
Of course legitimate use of force exists. What doesn't follow is that you have to use illegitimate force (steal from innocents, from ex.) in order to keep legitimate uses of force. A very basic video for better understanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o |
|
|
|
|
caveden
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
|
|
May 15, 2011, 11:40:51 AM |
|
I still consider private security/defense and 'phyles' to be sort of government in it's own right.
To be a government it has to do one of the following at least: - Coercively maintain a monopoly, particularly a monopoly on ultimate decision concerning conflicts (Justice).
- Coercively finance themselves (taxation/theft)
If they're not initiating force or threat either to tax or to keep their geographical monopoly, they can't be considered governments. At a minimum, the parents would have to be compensated for the children taken from them, because in that imaginary system children are legally and economicly the property of their parents.
Children are not slaves of their parents, who told you that? |
|
|
|
|
|
JohnDoe
|
|
May 15, 2011, 02:14:57 PM |
|
I cannot accept the arguement, however rational, that a society of entirely self-governed people can exist peacefully or sustainablely until there is a solution for this kind of person.
You just whack them and be done with it. Not sure what's the difference between that and using police to arrest them and put them in jail. |
|
|
|
|
|
tomcollins
|
|
May 15, 2011, 02:18:01 PM |
|
And I don't eat apples because penguins huddle together for warmth. What're you getting at?
My point here is that people like this exist. And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists. To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies. I cannot accept the arguement, however rational, that a society of entirely self-governed people can exist peacefully or sustainablely until there is a solution for this kind of person. No monopoly of force does not mean no legitimate uses of force ever. Using force to help protect someone from someone else (or doing it yourself) is perfectly valid. |
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Beckenham
|
|
May 15, 2011, 02:56:10 PM |
|
"He was really a nice guy," Brian Gore's ex-girlfriend, Sandy, told WTKR 3 News in Norfolk. "He went to church and everything." Does going to church really make people seem more trustworthy, or only among other church-goers? |
|
|
|
|
mewantsbitcoins
|
|
May 15, 2011, 03:15:23 PM |
|
"He was really a nice guy," Brian Gore's ex-girlfriend, Sandy, told WTKR 3 News in Norfolk. "He went to church and everything." Does going to church really make people seem more trustworthy, or only among other church-goers? People with a common imaginary friend tend to trust each other |
|
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
May 15, 2011, 05:29:03 PM |
|
You just whack them and be done with it. Not sure what's the difference between that and using police to arrest them and put them in jail.
I'm sure you can see the difference between murder and inprisonment. At least I hope so. Otherwise you should seek help. |
|
|
|
|
JohnDoe
|
|
May 15, 2011, 05:57:22 PM |
|
I'm sure you can see the difference between murder and inprisonment. At least I hope so. Otherwise you should seek help.
The point is getting rid of a threat to society right? Both methods achieve the same effect, the first one being the most efficient. |
|
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
May 15, 2011, 09:49:33 PM |
|
The point is getting rid of a threat to society right? Both methods achieve the same effect, the first one being the most efficient.
The couple in question doesn't seem to be a threat to society, just to their own offspring. Should we kill them anyway, just to be on the safe side? Who else should we go after while we're at it? |
|
|
|
|
JohnDoe
|
|
May 15, 2011, 10:04:18 PM |
|
The couple in question doesn't seem to be a threat to society, just to their own offspring. Should we kill them anyway, just to be on the safe side? Who else should we go after while we're at it?
You are right, not a threat to society but maybe only to their neighborhood. If I was their neighbor I would kill them anyway to be on the safe side since they are clearly very mentally unstable and because I'd feel good about rescuing the kid. |
|
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
May 15, 2011, 10:07:48 PM |
|
You are right, not a threat to society but maybe only to their neighborhood. If I was their neighbor I would kill them anyway to be on the safe side since they are clearly very mentally unstable and because I'd feel good about rescuing the kid.
Ah, maybe. There are lots of people who may be a threat. You have a lot of people to kill. |
|
|
|
|
rezin777
|
|
May 15, 2011, 10:12:25 PM |
|
Ah, maybe. There are lots of people who may be a threat. You have a lot of people to kill.
This isn't a case of may be a threat, if the story in the OP is factual, these people are a threat and there is evidence to prove it. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
May 16, 2011, 01:03:11 AM |
|
The couple in question doesn't seem to be a threat to society, just to their own offspring. Should we kill them anyway, just to be on the safe side? Who else should we go after while we're at it?
You are right, not a threat to society but maybe only to their neighborhood. If I was their neighbor I would kill them anyway to be on the safe side since they are clearly very mentally unstable and because I'd feel good about rescuing the kid. what if another neighbor considers you a threat because they don't see it the same way as yourself. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
JohnDoe
|
|
May 16, 2011, 01:58:09 AM |
|
what if another neighbor considers you a threat because they don't see it the same way as yourself.
Then I have a big problem obviously. In reality though I would never have acted in the first place if I wasn't sure I'd have the support of the rest. If the rest instead supported the caging of children then it means I'm in hostile territory and should get the hell outta there. |
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Beckenham
|
|
May 16, 2011, 02:17:44 AM |
|
what if another neighbor considers you a threat because they don't see it the same way as yourself.
Then I have a big problem obviously. In reality though I would never have acted in the first place if I wasn't sure I'd have the support of the rest. If the rest instead supported the caging of children then it means I'm in hostile territory and should get the hell outta there. I'm not in support of caging children, or murdering the parents. |
|
|
|
|
rezin777
|
|
May 16, 2011, 02:41:54 AM |
|
I'm not in support of caging children, or murdering the parents.
Putting a child in a cage long enough to result in the child eating it's own skin in an attempt to survive is enough criminal negligence to require complete removal from society, imo. At this point the parents have clearly expressed their ability to initiate force against others and should have no expectation of gentle treatment at the hands of others. |
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Beckenham
|
|
May 16, 2011, 02:56:22 AM |
|
I'm not in support of caging children, or murdering the parents.
Putting a child in a cage long enough to result in the child eating it's own skin in an attempt to survive is enough criminal negligence to require complete removal from society, imo. At this point the parents have clearly expressed their ability to initiate force against others and should have no expectation of gentle treatment at the hands of others. I agree, I wouldn't handle them gently if they came anywhere near me or my family. But I wouldn't go out of my way to have them whacked either. |
|
|
|
|
