Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[Keyser Soce]

Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural and legal rights

Keyword in that sentence: Some.
Key for content: Wikipedia? Really?   Almost any fool can add to that source of the inane information.

Some? That's your answer to unalienable rights? How about a majority of philosophers and political scientists make the distinction. That should suit your fancy. The point was that a right cannot have a caveat.

The wiki link was just to point you in the right direction. I'm sorry if you were insulted by the lack of documentation. Please read The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine and any work by John Locke, then get back to me. Until then, there's not much point in either one of us using the word "right" since we're talking about two completely different things.

Right, and therein lies the problem. Who gets to define unnecessary? There are plenty who would claim that eating an animal causes it unnecessary suffering. As for your laws, I don't really care how a bunch of old farts in Concord think unnecessary should be defined. On my property, I decide what is and is not necessary. Not you, not the old farts, not a majority of the voters.

Interestingly, since you label some animal suffering as unnecessary, there must by definition be some necessary animal suffering. Could you expound on this point?

You speak of the laws and unfairness of them all the time and yet do not know who defines them or decides them?

No, I know who does. It's the old farts and again you missed the point. Why does writing something in a book and calling it "law" give it magical powers that overrun my property rights?

The "old farts" probably also aren't worried about your personal thoughts either.

I don't need them to be. I only need them, and you, to leave me alone. That's not, leave me alone as long as I comply with your whims. That's leave me alone period! There are two kinds of people in this world, those of us that want to be left alone and those that just won't leave other people the f**k alone. Which one are you?

Eating an animal doesn't cause unnecessary suffering unless you're eating it while it's alive. Common sense 101.

Says you. And I happen to agree, but that's not the point. The point is, who gets to say. Your answer is "the majority". I disagree.

Do I seriously need to expound on the subject or are you just hoping for another round of "copy and paste rebuttal" games? Where you can pick apart any and every statement with odd sounding arguments.

The oddest argument I've made is that people should mind their own business and leave others (and their property) alone. I know, weird huh?

Do you really not know what the law considers necessary and unnecessary suffering? You don't know these things but yet still choose to argue the subject...an idea that makes little sense to me.

I already clearly stated that I'm not interested in "your laws". I'm discussing morality, the two are, apparently, irreconcilable.

Necessary suffering: The process of slaughter...

Why is it necessary? There are plenty of vegetarians in the world and you could choose to be one. Yet, you choose not to so it's not "necessary" suffering, it's discretionary suffering. It's ok as long as it's done the way you want. We already covered this with the overweight animals and how that makes them suffer but is also ok in your book.

 

Could you be more specific about where these non-functioning free market bastions are to be found?

p.s. If you tell my where they are, I'll tell you where they're not.

Since you've stated in the same area that you also know where they are,

Misty Blued the point. Again. What I was stating is that there is no such place.

seems to assume Wikipedia is a 100% correct source of information.

One quote is an assumption that "Wikipedia is a 100% correct source of information"? I think not and, I've provided new and improved sources for you. I promise that if I ever respond to you again, I will not provide Wiki links but will instead point you to books, entire volumes, that will make my point.

Will you read them?

No kidding? Are you aware of all the crimes that took place today that you didn't do anything about? By passively "allowing" them, you condone them? I hereby dub this "Batman Syndrome". Said philosophy the ultimate busybody makes.

I'm not sure the reasoning behind the obtuse comment...it's patently obvious I referred to observing a crime and allowing it to continue without remedy because of whatever reason.

When is the last time you were in NH? Have you visited the Travis residence? Did you see the horses gallivanting around loose?

If I do indeed observe a crime,

Or read about it on the internet...

I do something about it immediately.

I'll bet there's plenty of real crime in your area that you could do something about instead of super sleuthing / busy bodying some folks in another state who haven't harmed you at all.

Yesterday I saw a car clip another car in a parking lot. Took down the license plate number, waited for dented car owner to come out and gave them that info and my name and number. Busybody? Maybe, definitely according to you. If someone did it to my car and someone else walked away shrugging thinking, "Not my problem" then bully for them but I'd guess the vast majority of all folks if asked about this same scenerio would have wanted to know and have a busybody pass the info on to them.

An honorable action on your part.

As for dubbing this...you're free to dub this whatever you'd like and it's quite obvious you were waiting and hoping for any comment you could twist into the ridiculous in order to attempt to make a point while insulting someone at the same time. But since you've dubbed it then at least you can now add it to Wikipedia and use it in your next rude reply to someone who's only trying to explain their point of view without insulting you. You can probably define it as a syndrome usually committed by people who do not agree with you and that hence opens the new Batman to insults and rudeness.

Rudeness of course is a matter of perspective, just take a trip to India.

Is it ok to aggress against someone as long as you do it politely?

[Keyser Soce]

PS:  Now that I think about it...  Brian initially started the whole Nazi reference in his very first seizure video.  I believe it was Auschwitz (sp?) to be exact.  He was talking about his skeletal horses being loaded onto trailers as if to be led to the concentration camp.  IMO, if we were to make a comparison to concentration camps, then yes, I would consider the horses to be the POWs and the Candia PD and SPCA to be the allied forces.  The horses were the ones overcrowded in their tiny "cells" without proper nourishment (at least the jews had shelter).  Dramatic?  Oh yeah.  Just keep in mind, I didn't start it.   

I don't think he was referring to the horses. He would have been referring to bureaucrats who "just follow orders" because they're "just doing their job" without any thought to the morality of the situation as if they somehow aren't personally responsible for their actions.

[MistyBlue]

How about a majority of philosophers and political scientists make the distinction.

Sorry, only repeated your first comment that said "some." I only picked it out as a key word. So now you say it's the majority and not some...then why post "some?"

No, I know who does.

Then why constantly ask questions you already know the answer to? Do you also hum the Jeopardy theme song in your head after you hit "post?" If you're only interested in talking to yourself and asking and answering your own questions...why do you keep addressing me?

Which one are you?

You already know...again asked and answered. Repeating for dramatic effect or ADD?

Why is it necessary? There are plenty of vegetarians in the world and you could choose to be one. Yet, you choose not to so it's not "necessary" suffering, it's discretionary suffering. It's ok as long as it's done the way you want. We already covered this with the overweight animals and how that makes them suffer but is also ok in your book.

How would you know if I'm a vegetarian or not? (I'm not BTW)
It's necessary because people have the freedom to choose to eat meat. Meat is a large product in this country. It comes from animals. Thus animals will be slaughtered. There are laws to help make that process as humane as possible. And no, it's not the way I personally want it and that's something I've been working on for 15 years. Some changes need to be made, we're working on them. I also never said I thought obese animals were okay. Never once. I've worked with 17 owners of seriously obese animals in the last 5 years. I'm one of the people who goes to their homes and helps them implement a healthier way to feed their animals. Obese animals are rarely seized...because owners of obese animals generally make them that way through caring too much and learning too little. Owners of emaciated ones tend to make them that way through not caring at all or cruelty. Quite a difference there. And please don't ask me what the difference is because I can't imagine that you do not know the answer.

When is the last time you were in NH? Have you visited the Travis residence? Did you see the horses gallivanting around loose?

5 months ago. Nope. Been talking personally to two of his neighbors. The loose horses have been reported by neighbors. Not hard to find that either. But I suppose the neighbors are lying and have damaged their own lawns for conspiracy reasons.  

Or read about it on the internet...

Observed plenty of crimes...did what I could each time. I do leave my computer and I do walk the walk instead of just typing the type.

Is it ok to aggress against someone as long as you do it politely?

Your rudeness is apparent to anyone with reading skills. Some may agree with you about it being me only thinking that...but those are also the ones who will aggree with you simply because it disagrees with me. Or maybe they're rude also.
The question...inane.

By Keyser:

I don't think he was referring to the horses. He would have been referring to bureaucrats who "just follow orders" because they're "just doing their job" without any thought to the morality of the situation as if they somehow aren't personally responsible for their actions.

He did seem to be referring to Nazis on the part of him and wife. A ridiculous comparison...having some horsies removed (luxuries BTW) for not caring for them is hardly even close to genocide of Jews. He (and others who think they can compare other small things to the Holocaust) seem to have very elevated opinions of their level of suffering to make such a ridiculous comparison.
xyz seemed to be making the point that while Brian's suffering was next to nothing (weren't his horses anyways, he stood outside for a short while in winter clothes/Jews had it a bit tougher than that) and Heidi's were ridiculously dramatized as she made sure the camera was on her before overacting (and the towel scene was worse than a grade school play) that horses in the entire issue were actually the closest similarity to the Holocaust than either Brian or Heidi were. The horses were underfed, unmedicated and had horrendous living conditions in too cramped quarters. (not that the horses compare directly to the Holocaust but between Brian/Heidi and the horses...the horses are a hella lot closer)

[Keyser Soce]

The thread found its way back to the Nazis because Misty declared that the outcome of democracy is always right.

No I didn't declare that, but nice try. maybe if you type it others will think I declared that. You tried the same thing by claiming I supported Brian being murdered and that I changed content of posts...yet still hasn't come up with any proof of that. What I said was that democracy is what we have and what we follow and that it's voted on by the majority. I didn;t say it was always right, I did say what parts I agree with.

"animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people. But then I'd guess they're all wrong too...their opinions are also considered wrong because they don't agree with your opinions? I happen to agree with a place where the majority rules by vote"

Sounds very supportive of the tyranny of the majority. What exactly do you not like about democracy? Are there any laws you don't believe are moral and do you follow them anyways?

NH has a population of about 1.31 million, and about 864,000 registered voters.  So, right off the bat, about 35% of folks aren't even able to vote.  Anyone have voter turnout numbers for New Hampshire?  Anyone think the total number of voters will be more than half of the population?  Further, of those who vote, only a portion vote for the candidate who wins.

So no, the winning candidate does not represent the majority.

65% is the majority. I stink at math yet even I can figure that out.

I doubt 65% of the people have ever showed up an election and even if they did, half of them voted for the loser so best case scenario is the winner of the election was supported by 30% of the population. Many of those were single issue voters so that in most cases, the candidate doesn't even represent the 30% that supported him.

If the majority wants a certain candidate and doesn't vote, sucks to be them I guess.

New release title "Sucks to be you: The True Story of Democracy".

Really?  Do a majority of people donate to the SPCA?

No, the majority doesn't. But the majority who did bother turning out voted for those to who have keeping up the SPCA as an agenda. As stated before, if the actual majority doesn't eant the SPCA and feels strongly enough about it, then get off the computer and go out and vote for those who don't like the SPCA either. And if you can't find a candidate who doesn't like them...then either all candidates realize not to piss off too many voters by professing hating an org that helps animals or find your own candidate and see if you can get the majority of people to agree with their (and by extension your) views on the SPCA. If all you want to do is complain about them online and aren;t out there actively trying to change things...then I can't see a basis for the argument.

OR Or or, I could not run, not campaign, not vote and people could just.... mind their own business and leave me alone! What a concept.

At least with the dramatics I can now understand one of those SPCA seizure videos with the towel needed as a neck wrap for the crying Heidi. Can't convince them with facts or baffle them with bullshite? Then use dramatics to try to garner support or sympathy. Kind of like the magician waving one arm dramatically while the other performs a trick.

You mean like how some bureaucrat writes words in a magic book and POOF, there go my property rights?

[Keyser Soce]

The FSP doesn't seem to have any answers to this issue (any issue for that matter, from what I can see). 

It's not the role of the FSP to provide answers.

wouldn't the role of laws and government be moot points?

Good point!

So, as long as we all do this it would be the perfect society.  There would be no hunger, no murder, no theft.  Just I do my thing and you do yours. Government could be abolished, because everyone is the quintessential perfect citizen. 

There is no utopia. Freedom isn't perfect, just better than what we have now.

Would you still feel it necessary to carry arms? 

Yes.

Would there even be police? 

If people want to pay for them.

Would they still be considered thugs with guns or would they be disarmed too? 

Anyone who denies another their right to life, liberty or property (all the same thing) is a thug.

Who makes the "rules"?  What if someone steps out of line, how would they be "dealt with"?  Shunning?  Would there still be courts and torts? Where would the dregs and bottom feeders of society go?  Would they cease to exist in this model society by osmosis?  If there are no laws, then there could be no crime, right?

All excellent questions. There are numerous threads on this site and voluminous works elsewhere that deal with these and other issues. I can recommend some good reading if you'd like.

What about the 30% unemployment rate because there's no government, jails etc., etc.? 

Are you suggesting that we lock human beings in cages because it creates jobs and is good for the economy? What would prosecutors, defense attys, cops and prison guards do? Get jobs that actually produce something instead of sponging off the tax dollars of the productive minority. See broken window fallacy.

Dare I post a wiki link?

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

Misty, please read the original work by Frederick Bastiat.

Would all the firehouses and paramedics and first responders become privatized?  How would they get paid?  If you burn your house down, you pay a fee?

Many already are. Works just fine.

http://www.ruralmetro.com/

What about the rest of the services that government offers other than simply governing, would those branches stay in place?  How would they get money?  Would there still be food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, etc.?  What about the Army, Navy, Airforce, NASA, FBI, CIA, Foreign Affairs...  The list could go on and on and on and I think I was way too modest with the 30% unemployment rate if all that is gone!!

It's pretty simple, they'd all find something else to do. Something more productive. Our prosperity would soar as freeloaders switch to being producers. Do you have any idea how many carriage, wagon, harness, buggy whip makers etc. went out of business when the automobile caught on? What happened to them? They got new jobs making cars instead of saddles. I know it's easier to transition from making something to making something else than to transition from producing nothing to something but I have faith that they have real value as human beings and these folks will find a way to fit into a productive society.

Think of bureaucrats (and wellies) as lazy teenagers. They're never going to get motivated until you cut off their allowance. But mom, if I don't get an allowance, how will I afford those concert tickets? Get a job! Actually, today's officials are more like the 40 year old who never moved out of his mom's house.

How are all these people going to be absorbed into the private sector?  We don't even have jobs now and the unemployment rate isn't anywhere near this level.

Without ridiculous regulations enforced by the newly unemployed, business would flourish and prosperity would follow. I'll give you a personal example. I've got a few good business ideas that would employ at least two dozen people. Why haven't I opened them? First, I have to get license (permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal) which I won't do. In AZ they call it a transaction privilege license. God only knows what it's called here. The right to own property includes the right to dispose of said property by sale or trade so why do I need their permission? Then there's the building codes, zoning, I have to submit a floor plan to the fire dept, there's osha and the IRS plus two dozen other federal, state, county and city bureaucracies to deal with.

So guess what? It's not worth the headache. I sit at home, play online poker, make a few currency trades and sell some crap on Ebay all of which it's becoming harder to do by the day. I try to stay out of the way and even that's not good enough. Congress passes stupid laws making it difficult to transfer money for online "gambling" (cause the terrorist use them to launder money [bullshit]) and now Paypal must report all e transactions directly to the IRS. I mean to say, some people just won't leave you alone no matter what you do. Census worker came to the door last week. Did you know they're carrying GPS with them this year and recording the coordinates of your front door?

Believe thee me, I dislike large government, high taxes and wastefulness just as much as the next guy

You get plus one karma for that!

but truly, I just don't see how this could ever, even in a billion years, work.  I would be less surprised to see a T-Rex crashing through my back door right now

Please don't take this the wrong way but what do you know about molecular biology? Rocket science? Quantum physics? Not much? Me neither. You don't have to see how every detail would work out. Most people drive cars, use laptops, cell phones and more which they know little if anything about. I may not know what works but I know what doesn't work. Authoritarianism doesn't work.

Disclaimer: I do not speak on behalf of the FSP. The views presented are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Free State Project nor other members or the owners of this forum.

[xyz]

It's not the role of the FSP to provide answers.

Clearly...

Would you still feel it necessary to carry arms? 

Yes.

What would be the purpose and intent?

Are you suggesting that we lock human beings in cages because it creates jobs and is good for the economy? What would prosecutors, defense attys, cops and prison guards do? Get jobs that actually produce something instead of sponging off the tax dollars of the productive minority.

No, jails are necessary because people are freaks.  Maybe they could all go to Detroit and make automobiles - not....

Broken Window:  The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.

Brian and Heidi are the little boy.  They starve and neglect their horses and everybody sympathizes with them because they have their horses taken away, which in turn makes work for me to care for the horses since they don't/won't.  When I buy feed for them it benefits the feed store, I get their feet trimmed benefitting the farrier.  I draw blood for coggins tests benefitting the lab.  I get them vaccinated benefitting the vet and pharmaceutical companies.  So not guilty of theft - guilty of being a public benefactor??  (My role is to care for animals that are "dropped in my lap", I was not even at the rescue so don't even go there).

All excellent questions. There are numerous threads on this site and voluminous works elsewhere that deal with these and other issues. I can recommend some good reading if you'd like.

I live in NH and, as the FSP has decided that this is their state of choice, I feel that it behooves me to know what's going on up here.  I have been intrigued and as such, reading, trying to broaden my perspective.  I see there are many questions and few, if any, answers.  How can one effect change when there is not a common basis for what the change should be?  I would never expect one group to have all answers, but a couple would be nice.  You hang your hat on freedom and don't even agree on what qualifies - both ends are fighting the middle.  I've seen more organization and fewer tantrums in the sandbox at a preschool.

Many already are. Works just fine.

Holy mackeral - did you check out the stats?  There's some pretty expensive ambulance transports going on there.  Did I read correctly that they are getting some pretty hefty $$ from gov't contracts???  Hmmmmmm.

Without ridiculous regulations enforced by the newly unemployed, business would flourish and prosperity would follow.

I disagree, I think corruption would flourish and prosperity would go overseas with the rest of our economy.

So guess what? It's not worth the headache.

Now there's a productive thought.   

You get plus one karma for that!

Yeah!!

You don't have to see how every detail would work out.

How about one or two??

I do not speak on behalf of the FSP. The views presented are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Free State Project nor other members or the owners of this forum.

Isn't that the entire premise?  To have only your own views and freedom to present them?  I'm on the dock but the boat is gone, long gone.

[MaineShark]

Notice how that includes crimes that folks have been accused of, not convicted of, let alone actually did?  The "murderer," for example, drove an acquaintance to an address.   Despite having no knowledge of what that acquaintance intended to do there, he was charged and convicted as an accessory by your beloved thugs.  Logsdon is in the middle of a messy divorce, and has been accused of pretty much everything shy of treason by his wife.  Actually, I retract that statement: I haven't been keeping up on things, and it's quite possible that she has accused him of treason by now.

makes it accessory to murder. Did he then turn that person in?

Really?  Guilt by being there?  With no knowledge that a murder was going to take place?  You imagine that is "just" behavior?

And please dispense with the extensive dramatics..."beloved thugs?" Where did I say that? Or do you require the insults and dramatic exaggerations in order to make a point?

No exaggeration.  You've stated how great the cops are, and how much you support them, on numerous occasions...  You just now noted that you would turn in anyone you saw committing a crime, didn't you?

And I also noticed how that included people who have admitted these crimes personally.

Yup.  There are many who have admitted to crimes, personally.  One of the owners of this forum, for example, committed the heinous crime of refusing to pay for a war that he finds unconscionable.  Your beloved thugs showed up and dragged him out of his house in chains, at gunpoint.  I think they also pointed a gun at his daughter while they were doing it.  Have I mentioned that they are pacifists, and the thugs who attacked them knew that, so they were just enjoying themselves, threatening people they knew would not fight back?

Yeah, I'll take "admitted criminals" like that, over your beloved thugs, any day of the week.

The thread found its way back to the Nazis because Misty declared that the outcome of democracy is always right.

No I didn't declare that, but nice try. maybe if you type it others will think I declared that. You tried the same thing by claiming I supported Brian being murdered and that I changed content of posts...yet still hasn't come up with any proof of that. What I said was that democracy is what we have and what we follow and that it's voted on by the majority. I didn;t say it was always right, I did say what parts I agree with.

See, this is why the "quote" button is useful...

Neglecting of course to mention that animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people. But then I'd guess they're all wrong too...their opinions are also considered wrong because they don't agree with your opinions? I happen to agree with a place where the majority rules by vote...

[emphasis added]

So yes, you did express your support for the Nazis.

NH has a population of about 1.31 million, and about 864,000 registered voters.  So, right off the bat, about 35% of folks aren't even able to vote.  Anyone have voter turnout numbers for New Hampshire?  Anyone think the total number of voters will be more than half of the population?  Further, of those who vote, only a portion vote for the candidate who wins.

So no, the winning candidate does not represent the majority.

65% is the majority. I stink at math yet even I can figure that out. Turnout is up to the people, if they decide not to turnout, it's their own fault. Nobody is stopping them from doing so. If the majority wants a certain candidate and doesn't vote, sucks to be them I guess.

65% is not the number of voters.  Even if there were 100% turnout, a candidate could win with only about one-third of the population in support.  To even get a simple majority, if there were 100% turnout, the candidate would need to win 76% of the vote.

Really?  Do a majority of people donate to the SPCA?

No, the majority doesn't. But the majority who did bother turning out voted for those to who have keeping up the SPCA as an agenda. As stated before, if the actual majority doesn't eant the SPCA and feels strongly enough about it, then get off the computer and go out and vote for those who don't like the SPCA either. And if you can't find a candidate who doesn't like them...then either all candidates realize not to piss off too many voters by professing hating an org that helps animals or find your own candidate and see if you can get the majority of people to agree with their (and by extension your) views on the SPCA. If all you want to do is complain about them online and aren;t out there actively trying to change things...then I can't see a basis for the argument.

So, now, you're suggesting that folks should be one-issue voters, and not concern themselves with anything else a candidate might stand for, as long as they agree on one particular issue?

Here's a notion, since you believe that folks should "vote with their feet" and move to places that match their ideals: America is a republic, not a democracy.  Folks are supposed to be guaranteed certain rights, which are never, under any circumstances, to be subject to vote.  That's what those pesky old documents like the Constitution say.  Granted, it's an imperfect document, but it's quite clear on that matter.  So, since you obviously don't believe in that system, doesn't the standard that you have asserted for others, if applied to you, demand that you leave and find someplace that is run based upon pure democracy?

Let me guess... that standard only applies to those who disagree with you.  You and your buddies don't have to live by the standard you demand others live by.  Just like how Beth and some of her supporters can neglect or abuse animals, but that doesn't matter, because she's on your side, so you don't care what she does, right?

Would you still feel it necessary to carry arms?  Would there even be police?  Would they still be considered thugs with guns or would they be disarmed too?

I find it quite telling that your notion of what would happen can imagine them becoming thugs without guns, but can't imagine them becoming non-thugs, with guns.  It's rather telling that, subconsciously, you can imagine the police disarming, but apparently can't imagine them not being thugs.

But that's the answer.  Security would be provided by peace officers, not thugs.  If some deranged nutcase starts attacking innocent people, I or someone like me would step up to stop him.  If grandma wants to smoke a joint to deal with her arthritis, we won't bust down her door at 3AM and trample her cat to death just for sadistic pleasure.

What about the 30% unemployment rate because there's no government, jails etc., etc.?

That one is just too insane to ignore.  "No government" is going to somehow cause 30% unemployment?

Here's a clue for you: unemployment is caused by the government.  It's a key part of Keynesian economics.  There are folks whose job it is to calculate the proper ratios of employed workers to under-employed workers, and how many of those under-employed workers should be completely unemployed versus how many should be just scraping by.  That's your system's "planned economy."

As a firearms instructor...

Really?  Who are you certified by?  How often do you teach classes?

Makes me thrilled we have concealed carry for folks who've passed a "I'm not a dangerous fool" permit test.

"We" don't require any testing.  We also don't have a minimum age - my kids can carry guns concealed, if I give them permission.  No fingerprints or photographs, or any other violations of basic human rights.

Funny... what's the rate of negligent shootings where you are, versus here?  Sounds like personal responsibility wins, yet again...

Joe

[xyz]

It's rather telling that, subconsciously, you can imagine the police disarming, but apparently can't imagine them not being thugs.

Just using your own terminology.  I happen to not hate the police or even think of them as thugs...  Is twisting what people print and putting words in their mouths your only claim to fame?

That one is just too insane to ignore.  "No government" is going to somehow cause 30% unemployment?

Where are all the people who comprise the gov't. going to work?  Would they not be unemployed if the gov't. was abolished?  I admit that I have not a clue how many people are employed federally, but I'd imagine that if they all lost their jobs in one fell swoop, the unemployment rate would rise.

Sounds like personal responsibility wins, yet again...

How did "personal responsiblity" help the animals?  Answer:  There was none, so not at all.

[littlehawk]

There are two phrases that make me cringe:

"Thats the law"

"I am just doing my job"


And most people believe these are justifiable statements to harass, beat, jail and kill people. It's quite sad.

[MaineShark]

It's rather telling that, subconsciously, you can imagine the police disarming, but apparently can't imagine them not being thugs.

Just using your own terminology.  I happen to not hate the police or even think of them as thugs...  Is twisting what people print and putting words in their mouths your only claim to fame?

You chose the words you used.  I think the choices you made are rather telling about what you understand, subconsciously, but refuse to face up to.

That one is just too insane to ignore.  "No government" is going to somehow cause 30% unemployment?

Where are all the people who comprise the gov't. going to work?  Would they not be unemployed if the gov't. was abolished?  I admit that I have not a clue how many people are employed federally, but I'd imagine that if they all lost their jobs in one fell swoop, the unemployment rate would rise.

Without the government keeping the economy depressed, companies would be competing for workers to fill all the jobs they would be creating.  Economics 101, here.

And, of course, "the government" isn't going to evaporate overnight.  It will take decades to wither away.  Plenty of time for folks to find new ways to live.

Sounds like personal responsibility wins, yet again...

How did "personal responsiblity" help the animals?  Answer:  There was none, so not at all.

"Personal responsibility"... responsibility for persons.  Animals are not people, no matter how much you might want them to be.

Joe

[xyz]

I've seen a bunch of statements here that make me cringe...

[MaineShark]

I've seen a bunch of statements here that make me cringe...

No doubt.  Reality can be a tough pill to swallow, when you've been living in Oz for so long.

Joe

[xyz]

I do not wish animals were people.  I love animals just the way they are.  I wish people would simply care for them or not have them.

I'm trying to learn, why attack me?  Is your best defense always a good offense?

Have a blast, twist away!  I must go to work, enjoy your day, it's a beauty!!  

[MaineShark]

I do not wish animals were people.  I love animals just the way they are.  I wish people would simply care for them or not have them.

You don't just "wish" that people would care for them.  You support using violence to force people to care for them.

The only time violence is acceptable is to defend the rights of a person.  If you believe in using violence to defend animals, then you believe they are persons, with rights that need defending.

I "wish" that people would treat animals well.  I will even speak up against those who abuse or neglect their animals (provided such abuse or neglect is proven, not just an accusation by someone with a history of making false accusations of animal abuse against those who she takes a disliking to - I don't support or participate in witch-hunts).  Because animals don't have rights, I will never use violence to support my wishes for how animals be treated.

I'm trying to learn, why attack me?  Is your best defense always a good offense?

"I'm right and you're wrong and I won't listen to anything you say" doesn't exactly strike me as demonstrating much interest in learning.  Maybe that's just me...

If you truly do want to learn, you might want to start asking questions and actually looking at the answers, rather than ignoring or deriding anything which does not agree with your existing prejudices.

Joe

[xyz]

None of your verbatim has any basis in fact.  Suffice it to say.  Now I must really be going, maybe I'll head over to the Taproom tonight and get some real information.