I am reading you post and really enjoying it. there are a couple parts already I wanted to talk about or ask about. as im reading I will be adding my points and questions . xD
enjoying the read a lot so far!
"From an early age we are taught, “don't hit and don't steal.” These are moral absolutes that we all agree upon." -{parkerlutz39225}-
Most of us in the western world would agree upon that but Muslim nations actually promote those idea's with the teachings of Islam.
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Qur'an (8:69) - "So enjoy what you took as booty; the spoils are lawful and good."
"it is morally acceptable to use force to defend your life, the lives of others, and justly acquired property.” -{parkerlutz39225}-
Can you please explain to me how a person could morally acquired property by the use of force and how it is acceptable in the world of voluntaryism?
"The State can be very easily and briefly defined as that of a parasite. It creates nothing, and maintains a monopoly on violence and the use of force." -{parkerlutz39225}-
Amazing quote!
"Dallas police shooting a mentally ill man nonchalantly holding a screwdriver in his hands."-{parkerlutz39225}-
i am not aware of this situation but if you are pointing a gun at someone telling them not to advance at you while they hold a screwdriver (a weapon) and they keep advancing are you not justified to defend yourself? pointing a gun at someone and telling them to stay back is a defensive action. the person that is advancing with a weapon not staying at distance as the person asked is the aggressor.
"it is morally acceptable to use force to defend your life"-{parkerlutz39225}-
doesn't that fall into the same category? I also want to add most cops are just trying to do good, its the governments that make the laws that force cops to enforce unjust laws for revenue. Voluntarist would still have cops to protect them but it would be a beneficial contract that all the member's would benefit from. it would also make the Voluntarist police force more efficitive because they wouldn't be wasting there time collecting revenue but actually out stopping crime and protecting the people that the cop has a contact with. it would also lead to competition and that would add to lowering the cost and better outcome of the service that is provided.
"It is an absurd belief that government must violate your rights to protect your rights."-{parkerlutz39225}-
amazing quote!
Wow great read!
Thank you for the post.
gave an up vote! 8D
some great feed back!
i dont have an answer to your first point, but the call to freedom most assuradly does. you can listen to the call to freedom on LRN.FM.
any time one uses the immoral initaition of physical power to coerce compel or restrain a person it is a violation of said persons rights and is thus violence. it is always morally acceptable to defend yourself, the lives of others, and justly acquired property from any violations of natural rights, and you may use whatever force is sufficant in putting down that threat. the use of force is an acceptable means for reclaiming stolen property from a thief.
your second to last critasism is quite long and there is much to cover. it is entirly possible, likely even, that the person with a screw driver was mentally ill and needed help. the police would have been in the right for using force to put down a percieved threat, but the use of live rounds could be argued as excessive force, unnessisary in putting down the threat. if the mas was advancing despite the officers orders then he could be argued to be the violator. secondly if the man was not advancing towards the officers he posed no threat and as such no violence was initated by the man with the screwdriver. in such curcumstances that would make the cops the violators rather than the man with the screwdriver.
there are cirtainly some good cops that may want to help you in the same way that there are some mafia men that want to help people in society. the problem is that the nature of such a profession is to violate the right of 95% of the people while using force against the remaining 5%. cops in a voluntary society would be better described as peace keepers instead of law enforcers. cops always have the chance to say "no, i wont enforce that law" and be the better man. its when they know that a law in unjust and immoral and carry it out any way that they are then bad cops.
thanks for the feed back. let me know what you think
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you or the response.
I am watching the video now.
I had not thought about someone using force to re-aquire land that was stolen. good point.
I do not know about the shooting with the screwdriver guy and I do fully agree that in this day and age we live in that use of a fire arm when the option to use a taser or other tools is excessive force. I would like to add that there is no way to tell if someone is mental or not when all you have to go off of is your first encounter with that person. I am in no way trying to defend the actions of police. I see the police as revenue collectors more then protecters in the fact that they are busy enforcing victimless crimes to generate money for the government to make more laws. I do not think they went into that profession or continue that profession because they want to enforce crap laws. I honestly think they became cops because they want to help or because they want to be a bad cop and abuse there power. I would say a majority are there to do good. I feel it is the system that forces them (the cops)to enforce crimes they disagree with that creates the problem. I don't think, if all victim realated crimes were removed from the legal system that cops would still be the problem they are now.
when I was talking about the idea of volunteer police I was just using police and cop as generic terms. peacekeepers is the correct term. thank you again for the response. I was busy typing so didn't get to pay full attention to the vid. about to stat it over so I can give full attention.
great post!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
great respons skeptic.
i think you are correct in that most cops mean well. the police today are like the Waffen SS back in the 1940's. anyone you did not carry out orders, no mater how horrifying they were would face serious repercaussions. a cop that refuses to enforce unjust laws may lose his job, be sued for neglegence, or even be sued for criminal aiding and abetting or other related crimes. thats partly the problem. good cops are scared to do whats right. then you have the bad cops that get off on abusing their power. the bad cops rise through the ranks while the good cops remain at the lower levels. even though the good cops may want to expose the bad cops they often times done because of the blue code of silence. cops will haze bully and harass anyone who exposes police misconduct. thats why this is so prevelent. lastly, many of these cops dont realize that they are violating the rights of individuals. thats what i think at least
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
indeed. in the end, the cops are the enemy of humanity and we have the right to use whatever force is nesisary to put down the threat to our freedoms. i beleive that if someone were to write a manefesto giving clear and consise reasons on a declared war on cops and give current cops an out by quitting the force things would change. a declared war on cops would be a war on tyranny itself. those who did not quit the force would be apprehended, charged, tried, and in all liklihood convicted by a libritarian tribunal board. those that did not surrender would be killed. society would be better off. people engaging in not violent illegal behavior would be left alone and if successful the scourge of police villany would be erradicated compleatly. it would be risky and people would die, but to quote jefferson "the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
i too wish that i didnt have to be that way, but thats the way it is and we have to deal with it. the BLM has been corrupted by the SJW douche bags. until we have the numbers on our side it wont matter because people will oppose the liberators rather than fighting along side them. now a a war on cops would by its nature be a gurilla war. the advantage would be on the side of the rebles, but the fight would still be hard and we still need vehimate opposition to cops before things happen
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree fully and you can tell the cops (Waffen SS) know they are/were in the wrong when they say "I'm only doing my job". They are doing "double think" to push the moral responsibility on to someone else. If someone tells you to kill someone you have moral responsibility for the actions you take. The fact that it is your job does not change that. If they would stop the mental gymnastics and actually think about it, they would realize they were in the wrong then do something about it. We can only hope that one day it will happen.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I cant agree that the cops in a whole are the problem. if anything I would say the small % of crooked cops that are the problem (with the cops), I see the police as a tool for the government. if you take their hammer (cops) away they will go get an ax(the military) and cut you down. that will not fix the problem, but only make it worse.
I feel strongly about the right to defend one's self but constantly struggle with the conundrum of the point when it is acceptable for a person to use force on a cop that is trying to forcefully take you into custody. if you are to comply with the cop and pretend you respect them the chance of getting killed by them is really low but knowing someone is going to use force to lock you in a cage against ones will is wrong. if it was not a cop doing that to you, it would be perfectly moral to forcefully defend ones self. but the moment you use force in any way it gives the cop the right to use more force. its fucked up and I don't get it.
I think that in order for the manifesto/war on cops to work I think you will have to first get a majority of the people to back it. It would have happened if the race baiting crap wasent going on. divide and conquer. if black lives matter made the movement about police brutality on every one no matter of skin color it would have actually gotten something done. the beginning of the movment was good and was gitting some reform done, now its just dividing us more. when the black lives matter vs. all lives matter thing started, blm shoulda taken over all lives matter and owned it. then when the people yelled all lives matter they could yell it back and point to all the picts of people they lost. would have shut it down. then if they would do there protests any time someone of any color got killed by the cops the movement would have been huge. would have completely changed the game. I don't get it, with a movement of all races standing up against any and all police brutality no matter of color or race it would would have been so powerful. we are to busy fighting each other to actually get anything done.
I fully agree with jeffersons statement, I just wish it didn't have to be that way.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit