[J m HofMarN]

Where's that guy who thought black people would attack him if he went into the inner city without being heavily armed? Come back, Shane, come back!

[Gobbler]

Coby would be perfect for that, I think... somebody probably should post a shout-out for him on 4chan or something...

[Otal Nimrodi]

Just what we need, more 4chan.

[Gobbler]

Damn, lost a bet there, thought it would end with Burma Shave.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Damnit, you know what, I'd be down with trying to lure Cobnat back. Even if we needed to go to 4Chan. Its so dead around here.

[Deucaon]

It's the only way to keep the buggers in line. Shame on all of you for putting the lives of elected officials ahead of the everyman.

[J m HofMarN]

No, I dont believe "shooting people whose policies we dont agree with" is an example of a system of checks and balances.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 02:09 PM, said:

No, I dont believe "shooting people whose policies we dont agree with" is an example of a system of checks and balances.

People? Oh, you mean government officials. I'd like to remind you that officials are always at odds with people who aren't officials since the government serves itself first. The only way to keep them in line is to keep them scared. "If the people are afraid of the government, that's tyranny, if the government is afraid of the people, that's liberty," and all that.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 04 April 2010 - 11:29 PM

[J m HofMarN]

Ok that statement is true in context, but when applied to the suggestion that people murder public servants whose choices they disagree with it is crazy. How... Why... I mean... Ok, I know you're against functioning governments so I wont make that argument, but doesnt the idea of settling all disputes with violence trouble you in the slightest? I mean, wouldn't that make society fall apart?

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 06:52 PM, said:

Ok that statement is true in context, but when applied to the suggestion that people murder public servants whose choices they disagree with it is crazy. How... Why... I mean... Ok, I know you're against functioning governments so I wont make that argument, but doesnt the idea of settling all disputes with violence trouble you in the slightest? I mean, wouldn't that make society fall apart?

People would consider the taking of life, even the life of officials, carefully. If no other reason than because that official has family and friends who, if you died in your attempt, would hunt down your family and friends and kill them.
But I'm not against ad hoc courts for settling contracts and such. I'm against people who wish to impose their vision of the perfect world unto the general population and to establish an economic stranglehold on said general population. Governments only exist because they're involuntary. Even in "representational" governments the public turnout for systematic voting is always low unless it's compulsory. People only care about getting by. That's why I'm a capitalist, because capitalism is sustainable. People work, they are able to feed their families and take care of their land. They can grow anything on their land and sell it or feed themselves. Under socialism they'd work for everybody which means they'll probably slack off which means only a small, determined few would be left to pick up everybody else's tab. They'd have no land to speak of, everything that they grow will be confiscated by the government to give to everybody, whether they've worked for it or not. Seriously, socialism is just a more refined, though much more inefficient, form of feudalism.

[J m HofMarN]

Socialism does not imply government control of everything including small farms. And if you havent noticed just about every capitalist nation, even the US, employs some form of socialism and regulation on large industries. That does not mean gulags and collective farms and political komissars. We've been over this slippery slope argument.

As for this political assassination nonsensem you're backing down, but still dodging the basic question brought up by your statement:

Do you propose that assassination of elected leaders is an acceptable tactic for any society and that it is, indeed, the only way to prevent tyranny (keep them in line)?

[Zatoichi]

Deucaon, on 05 April 2010 - 09:41 PM, said:

People would consider the taking of life, even the life of officials, carefully. If no other reason than because that official has family and friends who, if you died in your attempt, would hunt down your family and friends and kill them.

You're kidding right. I'm very sure that many people who take the lives of others don't carefully consider what the consequences might be. I believe they hope to get away scott free, and statistically most do.

Also socialism is just refined feudalism ... what? I didn't think that in socialism peasents were just tied to the land and happened to be the playthings/practically free work force of the nobility. Where nobles could just kinda kill or rape most of the people they wanted to. I don't know too much about socialism, but I think I understand how the feudal system worked and the kinds of things that went on under it.

[J m HofMarN]

Zato - Deuacon is going to argue that the leaders in socialism will still tie people to the land and kill or rape them. Then you'll say something about how they don't, mentioning other countries in the process, and then Deuacon will say that the government forms in those other countries, and all governments, kill and rape their people all the time. Then you will cry.

[Zatoichi]

Well if that's the process, then I'm just going to skip to the end.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 06 April 2010 - 04:35 PM, said:

Socialism does not imply government control of everything including small farms. And if you havent noticed just about every capitalist nation, even the US, employs some form of socialism and regulation on large industries. That does not mean gulags and collective farms and political komissars. We've been over this slippery slope argument.

As for this political assassination nonsensem you're backing down, but still dodging the basic question brought up by your statement:

Do you propose that assassination of elected leaders is an acceptable tactic for any society and that it is, indeed, the only way to prevent tyranny (keep them in line)?

Economic socialism isn't regulation, it's outright control. What you're thinking of is state capitalism or, in modern speak, economic fascism.

Zatoichi, on 31 December 2010 - 07:39 AM, said:

You're kidding right. I'm very sure that many people who take the lives of others don't carefully consider what the consequences might be. I believe they hope to get away scott free, and statistically most do.

Also socialism is just refined feudalism ... what? I didn't think that in socialism peasents were just tied to the land and happened to be the playthings/practically free work force of the nobility. Where nobles could just kinda kill or rape most of the people they wanted to. I don't know too much about socialism, but I think I understand how the feudal system worked and the kinds of things that went on under it.

In every socialist system people needed permits to travel from one place to another. And in feudalism nobles weren't allowed to kill or rape peasants under their command. Mainly because peasants outnumbered them, because they relied on peasants being happy, because it was illegal and because it made them look like assholes to all the other counts/dukes. Reputation was important to a count/duke since their sovereignty depended on it. There's examples throughout history of counts and countesses being overthrown or losing titles as a result of being assholes to peasants.