A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre

[justusranvier]

That is a good thing.

How do you know? What is your standard of deciding what is a "good thing" and what is a "bad thing" and on what basis should that standard be considered universal instead of your mere personal opinion?

Really, you need to think things through before posting them.

It's been my experience that people who throw around statements like this are generally putting up a smoke screen because they themselves have not really thought through their own positions but are merely parroting back the accumulated opinions of others. I hope to be disappointed in this case but so far it's looking like a long shot.

[Hawker]

That is a good thing.

How do you know? What is your standard of deciding what is a "good thing" and what is a "bad thing" and on what basis should that standard be considered universal instead of your mere personal opinion?

Really, you need to think things through before posting them.

It's been my experience that people who throw around statements like this are generally putting up a smoke screen because they themselves have not really thought through their own positions but are merely parroting back the accumulated opinions of others. I hope to be disappointed in this case but so far it's looking like a long shot.

In the Dugard case, I'm going to disappoint you.  I think it was a bad thing to kidnap and rape her and a good thing the guy who did it is locked up.  Its clear why you think police and a defense force isn't needed.  I have to say I am glad I don't live in the type of society you espouse.

[justusranvier]

In the Dugard case, I'm going to disappoint you.  I think it was a bad thing to kidnap and rape her and a good thing the guy who did it is locked up.  Its clear why you think police and a defense force isn't needed.  I have to say I am glad I don't live in the type of society you espouse.

I understand that you have an opinion; you already told me that.

What I'm asking for is why I your opinion should be universally accepted, especially when we're talking about the justification for inflicting the power of the state on millions of people. Even if your opinion is in fact the best possible way to organize society don't you think everyone who is forced to go along with it deserves a better explanation for why they should than "This is what Hawker thinks is best"?

[hazek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

It was wrong to abduct her.  When she was returned to her family, the Garridos were arrested/abducted and they remain abducted/imprisoned.  That is a good thing.

Really? Says who? Why is it a good thing? If I disagree why am I forced to pay for it anyway?

Really, you need to think things through before posting them.

No, it's you who needs to think things through a bit more.

Abduction/imprisonment is wrong no matter who does it and I reject your mere statement that this is how we can protect ourselves from dangerous people. Besides it's just stupid and way too costly and inefficient.

I have a better idea: deal with people like that through ostracization where you simply refuse to do any kind of business with those who ignore certain rules or principles and if they can't buy food, clothing or shelter and if private property is protected by private security then the problem is fixed and they can live their barbaric lives in the wilderness where they wont bother anyone. Of course cognitive dissonance prevents such a thought even crossing your know it all mind let alone it being thoroughly considered by you.

[Hawker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

It was wrong to abduct her.  When she was returned to her family, the Garridos were arrested/abducted and they remain abducted/imprisoned.  That is a good thing.

Really? Says who? Why is it a good thing? If I disagree why am I forced to pay for it anyway?

...snip...

If you feel its wrong to arrest the kidnappers and rapist of Jaycee Dugard, then your objection to a police force makes perfect sense.  I know you admire LeFevre and he believed it was wrong to even damage the ropes of your kidnapper if you were abducted.

[hazek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

It was wrong to abduct her.  When she was returned to her family, the Garridos were arrested/abducted and they remain abducted/imprisoned.  That is a good thing.

Really? Says who? Why is it a good thing? If I disagree why am I forced to pay for it anyway?

Really, you need to think things through before posting them.

No, it's you who needs to think things through a bit more.

Abduction/imprisonment is wrong no matter who does it and I reject your mere statement that this is how we can protect ourselves from dangerous people. Besides it's just stupid and way too costly and inefficient.

I have a better idea: deal with people like that through ostracization where you simply refuse to do any kind of business with those who ignore certain rules or principles and if they can't buy food, clothing or shelter and if private property is protected by private security then the problem is fixed and they can live their barbaric lives in the wilderness where they wont bother anyone. Of course cognitive dissonance prevents such a thought even crossing your know it all mind let alone it being thoroughly considered by you.

If you feel its wrong to arrest the kidnappers and rapist of Jaycee Dugard, then your objection to a police force makes perfect sense.  I know you admire LeFevre and he believed it was wrong to even damage the ropes of your kidnapper if you were abducted.

Stop assuming stuff about me. I don't agree with everything LeFevre believed, just what I posted in my OP. I believe self defense is not only good it is absolutely necessary if one wants a society that is free to maximize it's potential. To put in a way you'll understand, if I were to be kidnapped I wouldn't only cut the ropes but I'd do what ever it took to escape and defend my freedom.

[Hawker]

In the Dugard case, I'm going to disappoint you.  I think it was a bad thing to kidnap and rape her and a good thing the guy who did it is locked up.  Its clear why you think police and a defense force isn't needed.  I have to say I am glad I don't live in the type of society you espouse.

I understand that you have an opinion; you already told me that.

What I'm asking for is why I your opinion should be universally accepted, especially when we're talking about the justification for inflicting the power of the state on millions of people. Even if your opinion is in fact the best possible way to organize society don't you think everyone who is forced to go along with it deserves a better explanation for why they should than "This is what Hawker thinks is best"?

We already have societies that are rich and where we live in comfort and security.  If you want to take that away, I'm afraid the burden is on you to justify the change.  Saying that you think its wrong to arrest criminals is sort of silly - the alternative is to kill people without trial.  Arrest and trial is better.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Stop assuming stuff about me. I don't agree with everything LeFevre believed, just what I posted in my OP. I believe self defense is not only good it is absolutely necessary if one wants a society that is free to maximize it's potential. To put in a way you'll understand, if I were to be kidnapped I wouldn't only cut the ropes but I'd do what ever it took to escape and defend my freedom.

Great we have common ground.

What if you knew in advance that you were going to be kidnapped?  Would you feel it OK to physically prevent that abduction?

[hazek]

Absolutely.

[hazek]

We already have societies that are rich and where we live in comfort and security.

Really? You must be joking.

[memvola]

Saying that you think its wrong to arrest criminals is sort of silly - the alternative is to kill people without trial.  Arrest and trial is better.

You lock them in, he locks them out, I don't see a huge difference. It's a community decision either way. I think not giving explicit authority of violence to a single entity is healthier for the community though. There would be more confrontation within the community, hence more progress. There may be more violence between peers but overall violence would be reduced. How do we prove this? No idea.

[Hawker]

Absolutely.

We agree again.  I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

My experience has been that if we don't have law, police, courts and an army, we will be kidnapped and our property taken from us.  We may be killed just because we have the wrong religion or skin colour.

That's why we need the rule of law and a sound defence.

[hazek]

Absolutely.

We agree again.  I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

My experience has been that if we don't have law, police, courts and an army, we will be kidnapped and our property taken from us.  We may be killed just because we have the wrong religion or skin colour.

That's why we need the rule of law and a sound defence.

I don't disagree except in my case the rule of law is the law between two consenting parties via contract and sound defense is the personal use of best weapons available for personal protection or a private company offering the service of protection with the best weapons available.

[Hawker]

We already have societies that are rich and where we live in comfort and security.

Really? You must be joking.

Not joking.  I go to China for business.  Now thats a country where you see families eating out of dustbins in the "rich" cities like Shenzhen.

I grew up in Ireland and have lived in the UK and the US.  Rich comfortable countries where most people live in security.

[hazek]

We already have societies that are rich and where we live in comfort and security.

Really? You must be joking.

Not joking.  I go to China for business.  Now thats a country where you see families eating out of dustbins in the "rich" cities like Shenzhen.

I grew up in Ireland and have lived in the UK and the US.  Rich comfortable countries where most people live in security.

Ooooohh you meant relatively rich and secure, like not so poor to be forced to eat out of a trashcan or not so insecure that a walk in the street would get you instantly shot or blown up, I get it. I guess my standards for those terms are simply way way higher than yours.

Oh and I reject your mere statement the really poor in the countries you cites are any better of than the poor in the other countries or secure for that matter.

[Hawker]

We already have societies that are rich and where we live in comfort and security.

Really? You must be joking.

Not joking.  I go to China for business.  Now thats a country where you see families eating out of dustbins in the "rich" cities like Shenzhen.

I grew up in Ireland and have lived in the UK and the US.  Rich comfortable countries where most people live in security.

Ooooohh you meant relatively rich and secure, like not so poor to be forced to eat out of a trashcan or not so insecure that a walk in the street would get you instantly shot or blown up, I get it. I guess my standards for those terms are simply way way higher than yours.

Oh and I reject your mere statement the really poor in the countries you cites are any better of than the poor in the other countries or secure for that matter.

All things are relative.  Our societies are rich and secure compared to China.  China is rich and secure compared to the Congo. 

Part of the reason our societies are rich and secure is that we have government institutions that facilitate the free market.

There is a good book on this if you have time to spare: http://whynationsfail.com/summary/

[hazek]

Bwahahahaha listen to yourself.. 

Sir, I know you think you do but you don't know how to think logically correctly and you'll have to excuse me but I'm going to stop wasting my time with you.

[Hawker]

Bwahahahaha listen to yourself.. 

Sir, I know you think you do but you don't know how to think logically correctly and you'll have to excuse me but I'm going to stop wasting my time with you.

Odd that you you can't point to a logical error.  Almost like your whole "no state needed" thing falls apart under examination isn't it?

Best stop wasting your time.

[ribuck]

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

[Hawker]

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power