>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

So blankie, a hypothetical.
In an alternate volunteerist universe, you own a farm in Nebraska. Because of some nearby drilling for natural gas, your well water becomes completely contaminated and unusable. You raise your concerns with the owner of the drilling company, P. Toone Bickins, but he tells you 'tough, I'm drilling on my own land and minding my own business'.
Upon going to town you discover that P. Toone Bickins has also bought up the water supply for a 200 mile radius and all of the land surrounding the town, including all of the roads. The voluntary fee for water is $4.39 a gallon. The voluntary toll for the roads is $40 for residents, $300 for non-residents. All competing water suppliers stop servicing the town because the tolls are too expensive. P. Toone tells you that if you are unhappy, that he will generously buy your property from you at half the price you paid for it.
Some of your neighbors have sold their farms to Bickins. Some are staying put and talking about armed rebellion, but there are concerns about Bickins' large, highly trained, highly armed security squad. You contact your local minarchist magistrate, Pon Raul, to see if any legal action can be taken, but he lectures you for an hour about the evils of regulation, and how wrong it would be to coerce P. Toone Bickins into doing something he against his will.
You need water for your family, crops and farm animals, but with these new expenses, you are not sure you will have enough income to pay the bills.
What do you do?


That scenario is needlessly specific and extreme. Every argument a statist makes against a voluntary society seems to be some extreme work of fiction involving a rogue and crazy Bill Gates doing terrible things to a defenseless group of people.

The answer to your question, I don't know what I'd do. Who could plan for that? You want a system that guarantees something that's unlikely, and that's looking at it the wrong way. There's also no known protections against an alien invasion.

Pretty words, but it's still not an answer. You paint a picture of people walking hand in hand in peace, but that is not human nature. I have all of history to support my assertion, and you can't seem to give me one shred of logic as to how abandoning government would be of any benefit.

Please understand that when I say fear is a good thing that I don't mean everybody should live in fear all the time. I sure don't. What I mean is that anybody who wishes to promote their own self interests at the expense of somebody else should be in fear of reprisal. That is the only way some people will think of others before themselves.

And as dramatic as the example of the incident in Arizona is, I don't believe it would happen any less often if people carried weapons around like in the old west. There is a reason cities started banning openly carrying. Simple arguments would escalate to murder. If you feel defenseless in public, try pepper-spray. Somebody with a gun would not have stopped that nutjob in Arizona. Instead of being tackled by people in the crowd, he probably would have been shot to death. And then we might never have the opportunity to find out what the hell was going on in his head, and consequently what we might do to prevent it from happening again somewhere else.

It is easy to spout platitudes about government doing more harm than good, but aside from vague statements about a free and voluntary society, you don't seem capable of explaining how such a society would work. Let me use one of your examples: fresh water is a precious resource, yet manufacturers of our sanitary facilities used to frequently design their products in ways that would waste that fresh water for no purpose. If your free and voluntary society was viable, then there would be no reason to regulate how much water was used per flush, because all the manufacturers would design their products to be efficient. They didn't, so they got regulated.

That's how the real world works. That's why laws are passed and regulations are enacted. Because people are selfish, and they don't care about the best interests of others. That's why your system would dissolve into chaos.

I'm still open to an explanation as to how I'm wrong. You've responded several times but never with anything of substance. That makes me inclined to believe you have no argument, and are living in a fantasy. Prove me wrong.

Also, I heard a rumor that Officer Bubbles rapes kittens... yeah, think about that. Poor defenseless kittens. Some say Officer Bubbles killed and raped a girl in 1990, but I won't comment on that... some just say it.

This has been a Fox News presentation.

Next up, Chris Hansen confronts Officer Bubbles on charges... see which ones after the break.

So you may breathe easier, I do not endorse the murder of this woman, but recognize her sociopathy will exist as long as she does. Most of the peeps furious at the idiot would not kill her, even if the State gave us permission to pull the trigger, but do not doubt their rage is real.

Humans are barely rational. To some people, cats and dogs are their "children". If the pet owners had caught the idiot in the act and beaten the crap out of her, I would be hard-pressed to convict what could be considered a "crime of passion". If they actually killed her...I dunno.

As for providing a 'conservative counterpoint' to the sift, I say what needs to be said with no concern for the outcome. People don't comment on the internet to challenge their own ideas, even if it happens from time to time.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Every day we are subjected to story after story of vile scum getting away with all manner of crimes. Too often it's actually worse for society when they are captured alive and carted off to be treated like kings, defended by an army of parasitic lawyers as a reward for breaking in to someone's house or business or physically assaulting the elderly or children, and that's just local news, ignoring the usual cadre of dick-tators/Illuminati or whomever stands in for "the forces of evil" on a global scale.
There is no moral confusion about this vid. This a crime people understand on a fundamental level, a cruel act towards a defenseless animal. There are billions of instances like this, most perhaps far worse. The cat represents ALL those abused animals and unfortunately for this idiot, she now represents ALL those human vermin that abuse animals and get away with it, except she got caught.
As for my own words:
Let us consider that we are all partially insane. It will explain us to each other; it will unriddle many riddles; it will make clear and simple many things which are involved in haunting and harassing difficulties and obscurities now.
- Mark Twain
A world where a human would get euthanized for putting a cat in a bin would be a special kind of hell. Any act that causes suffering to another being, whether its human or cat (or a cow?, or a rat? Where do you draw the line?) could fit your criteria. And what about emotional trauma? Plenty of suffering and damage is inflicted without ever laying a finger on another. Furthermore, you can't just neat and tidily remove a person from existence. What about all the people who love and depend on that person?
While it's vastly different than the policies of Hitler and Stalin, any practical attempt at applying your ideology would make you a greater tyrant and a greater enemy of freedom than all the Hitler and Stalins of the world combined. Like most of your posts, you're not providing a conservative counter balance to the liberal bias of the Sift. Your ideas are just so ridiculous that it only alienates your position.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Every day we are subjected to story after story of vile scum getting away with all manner of crimes. Too often it's actually worse for society when they are captured alive and carted off to be treated like kings, defended by an army of parasitic lawyers as a reward for breaking in to someone's house or business or physically assaulting the elderly or children, and that's just local news, ignoring the usual cadre of dick-tators/Illuminati or whomever stands in for "the forces of evil" on a global scale.
There is no moral confusion about this vid. This a crime people understand on a fundamental level, a cruel act towards a defenseless animal. There are billions of instances like this, most perhaps far worse. The cat represents ALL those abused animals and unfortunately for this idiot, she now represents ALL those human vermin that abuse animals and get away with it, except she got caught.
As for my own words:
Let us consider that we are all partially insane. It will explain us to each other; it will unriddle many riddles; it will make clear and simple many things which are involved in haunting and harassing difficulties and obscurities now.
- Mark Twain

A world where a human would get euthanized for putting a cat in a bin would be a special kind of hell. Any act that causes suffering to another being, whether its human or cat (or a cow?, or a rat? Where do you draw the line?) could fit your criteria. And what about emotional trauma? Plenty of suffering and damage is inflicted without ever laying a finger on another. Furthermore, you can't just neat and tidily remove a person from existence. What about all the people who love and depend on that person?

While it's vastly different than the policies of Hitler and Stalin, any practical attempt at applying your ideology would make you a greater tyrant and a greater enemy of freedom than all the Hitler and Stalins of the world combined. Like most of your posts, you're not providing a conservative counter balance to the liberal bias of the Sift. Your ideas are just so ridiculous that it only alienates your position.

Every day we are subjected to story after story of vile scum getting away with all manner of crimes. Too often it's actually worse for society when they are captured alive and carted off to be treated like kings, defended by an army of parasitic lawyers as a reward for breaking in to someone's house or business or physically assaulting the elderly or children, and that's just local news, ignoring the usual cadre of dick-tators/Illuminati or whomever stands in for "the forces of evil" on a global scale.

There is no moral confusion about this vid. This a crime people understand on a fundamental level, a cruel act towards a defenseless animal. There are billions of instances like this, most perhaps far worse. The cat represents ALL those abused animals and unfortunately for this idiot, she now represents ALL those human vermin that abuse animals and get away with it, except she got caught.

As for my own words:

Let us consider that we are all partially insane. It will explain us to each other; it will unriddle many riddles; it will make clear and simple many things which are involved in haunting and harassing difficulties and obscurities now.

- Mark Twain



>> ^mentality:

>> ^quantumushroom:
All beings suffer, but only humans go out of their way to cause more suffering without reason. A quick, relatively painless elimination of this woman would reduce her suffering to zero and make the world safer for innocent beings.

In most of your posts, I can't tell if you're trolling or if you're actually being serious and just completely insane.

I bet I could drop kick that baby right out the window!
I mean, seriously .. babies are pretty stupid and defenseless.

Except for Kung-Fu baby. He's scary.



KaPaow! Take that baby.

That is fucking awesome. They actually went to break with that? Holy shit.

'Will Obama leave the US defenseless?' <mushroom cloud>

wow.

@blankfist:

Not gonna happen, Kubric. Way past that point.

Fleeting outrage? Our fleeting outrage about bombing the fuck out of a defenseless country is equivalent to your outrage regarding the HCR (Medical Insurance Reform) bill?

Fleeting?

Kubric, don't mistake my outrage, and my people's outrage, for what you don't see on TV.

I might be ignorant about military strategy, but it seems like a heavy use of snipers in an urban setting would pretty much nullify our military advantage in invading poor, defenseless countries.

Rougy is right. A lot of Israelis are embarrassed by this shit. In the same way that a lot of Americans were/are embarrassed by Bush/Cheney. But the world sees these despicable acts as the will of the nation because of the supposed democracy....in both cases. As a Canadian, I would be embarrassed and mortified if I saw my countrymen do such things to a defenseless people. *quality

>> ^2pornot2p:
Don't excuse me for saying this, but Fuck Israel. This is not tolerable.

Seems like both the Walmart employee and the officers projected their own sexually perverted perspectives onto this situation. If you look at pictures of kids innocently playing in the bathtub, in the nude (not naked; that implies a sense of defenselessness) and think that is wrong, then you really need to consider what sort of mindset your own thoughts originate from.

It's usually the case that the only people who think this kinda stuff is child abuse/pornography are the ones who are aroused by it.

I feel terribly sorry that the parents had to go through this, not to mention the kids. I'm just glad they weren't old enough to fully grasp what was going on. Shame on both the employee and the officers for going through with this. This is a sign of the times, no doubt. People watch too much TV and think that Mr. RapeYourChildren is lurking around every corner.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I have been wanting to type the following for a long time. I just hope that I can compose the next few lines properly.
Shooting some one who stands no chance, no proper chance, in being given the option to defend themselves is the most base definition of cowardly. This goes for all things, most especially unmanned drones, and suicide bombings.
The days of a killer seeing what they have wrought are over. They have no understanding of how a persons dies. To actually see the wounding, the subsequent expulsion of vital fluids, the dilation of the victims pupils, and the contortions of pain, should be enough to know that killing any one is a complete waste.
If you cant get along in the collective then keep it to yourself. The sentence before this was typed by an individualist, secular humanist, and a Libertarian.
Violence does not solve any thing. Compromise, Education, and understanding is what the Republic was founded on. So that the "Crazies" could be heard. To the murderer, Fuck you for stifling free speech.


Well spoken, NordlichReiter.

As to the defensive ability of the victim, Jim Pouillon was elderly, overweight, and connected to an oxygen tank constantly, including at the time of his death. If anyone was helpless against an assailant, it was Jim Pouillon. However, Jim Pouillon would disagree. Jim believed that there was a group who was more defenseless, who was more worthy to be loved and defended: Babies.

The attitude of the friends and of Jim has been consistent towards James Drake. They wish to speak to him, to share with him the same world view and belief system held by Jim. They wish him all the Love and hope for his repentance, for truly, James Drake did no damage to Jim. (Jim was more than his flesh and his blood, and Jim knew this.) James Drake has damaged himself and the world for removing such a man from our presence.

Yeah, I agree with the overly-dramatic sentiments, particularly in the end with the "human sacrifice" bit. I'm willing to bet that didn't even cross the archeologist's minds. I can tell you for a fact that the basements of New England are full of buried babies. It must be a human impulse to not place a defenseless baby, even a deceased one, outdoors but instead to intern it in a protected location, in your home.

Great find, Fisky.

>> ^TangledThorns:
Hmmm, why isn't Rachel exposing the union thugs attacking the defenseless protesters?


Not what happened. Nor was Obama born in Kenya, FYI.