America's "Toughest Sheriff" caught enforcing laws he made-up

[thinkliberty]

No one was forced to do anything.  People have the choice to work...

If people choose to work they are forced to give up their money to YOUR government or go to prison like the Browns, It seems like they don't really have a "choice" in the matter.

If you knew I stole money from MainShark would you willingly accept it?

If  you were going to steal money from me or send me to prison if I don't take the money  I might.  That would give you less money to kill and threaten other people with.

It depends on the circumstances.

Government has fooled people into believing that money they hand out is "government" money so people do not realize it is first taken by force from others.  And politicians use this money to bribe people into giving them more and more power.

Lets get rid of the government then, That would solve the problem.

Anarchy would have this same flaw.  Leaders will rise up and promise things to people who help them.  And those who accept these "free" things will gladly line up their neighbors at gun point and march them into gas chambers.  Government vs anarchy wont matter... both will fail here.

Your government has this flaw. Leaders have risen up and promise things to people who help them. And you support them. You accept these "free" things and will gladly line up and vote to have your neighbors at gun point. Bad people will always exist, don't support them.

YOU currently fail this NOW.

So instead of being the shop keep who pays protection money, they figure its easier to simply collect the protection money from others since they get to keep their share and you don't blame them?  You think this is acceptable? You've just spend 2 pages in this thread telling me how wrong government is and now your saying the one part of it that actually is wrong is somehow acceptable... I don't even know what to say to that.

People that take money and support from the mafia are better than the people who give money and support to the mafia.   Again that would give the mafia less money to kill and threaten people with.

If you can get the mafia to pay you to work against them. Good for you! You are only against doing that because you support the mafia.

For the record:  I work fulltime and don't receive any money from the government. I worked full time through 3 years of chemo  and a bone marrow transplant to keep my health care benefits.

[MaineShark]

I have said many times that in smaller , more interdependent communities anarchy would be a great way to exist , but no one can tell me it would work in the cities of Chicago , New York . Los Angelos ?

Why?  Are the individuals there somehow defective?

As far as your mindset that the treat of force at the end of a gun will some how magically disappear in an anarchical state .. all I have to do is study history  .... I believe the end of the gun will get a lot more exposure .. and in most places the weak will be on the wrong side .

Has anyone said that force will disappear, under anarchy?  I certainly haven't, and I don't recall seeing anyone else do so, either.

In any case, your final sentence is the exact opposite of the truth.  That's the beauty of firearms: nearly anyone can be on a level playing field.  Some bad-tempered, 300-pound walking mountain with muscles on his muscles, and someone's sweet, 90-pound grandmother are equal, if both are armed.

Force becomes a matter of intellectual skill, not physical size/prowess.  It is open to as many individuals as is currently possible; only a tiny fraction of the population is unable to effectively wield a firearm.  The only way someone could concentrate power would be to appeal to others' intellects.  But what can he offer them, to encourage them to give him power over their lives?  What does he have, that they want to buy with such precious coin?

Joe

[CJS]

 To MaineShark , Jacobus and the res of those who responded to my questions without calling me a government thug because I disagree that anarchy is a viable option in the largest communities I want to say thanks for the open and reasonable dialogue .

But having people tell me I am responsible for the corruption of the Constitution by elected officials everywhere is a bit to much .. people telling me it's MY government is so childish I no longer want to partake in this .

I guess I will go back to being a lurker , hope no one minds .

[MaineShark]

To MaineShark , Jacobus and the res of those who responded to my questions without calling me a government thug because I disagree that anarchy is a viable option in the largest communities I want to say thanks for the open and reasonable dialogue .

But having people tell me I am responsible for the corruption of the Constitution by elected officials everywhere is a bit to much .. people telling me it's MY government is so childish I no longer want to partake in this .

I guess I will go back to being a lurker , hope no one minds .

I think it would be better if you explained yourself in greater detail.  It may be that you have good reasons for your beliefs, and those who have maligned you will come to understand them and accept them.  Or it may be that others may sway your beliefs, and you will come to accept their position, even if you disagree with the tone with which they expressed it.

Joe

[Tom Sawyer]

Yeah CJS... why don't you break your beliefs in to carefully structured bullet point... I mean really put some time and your heart into it...



Then the forum masterdebators can tear it all down over the definition of one word... 

CJS hang out and have fun with the majority of us that gather for inspiration, entertainment and a sense of community,

[AntonLee]

you're a thug only if you believe I should be put in jail because I won't be wiling to pay for your fears.

[CJS]

you're a thug only if you believe I should be put in jail because I won't be wiling to pay for your fears.

Do you read what people post before you put your mouth in gear Anton .. I have never said anything of the sort , and as far as my fears .. I don't fear to much .. I would not starve if the government collapsed today .. I have prepared for that kind of thing ..my family would be safe  .... also I am certain I would prosper in a volunteer society

I will try one last time with you ..

  If you and a dozen other volunteerist's (sp?)( cool way of life in my opinion BTW ) started a co-op and after a years hard work started to enjoy the fruits of your labor had a group of people cross some imaginary border 50 miles away and decided they wanted to share in the fruits of your labor without committing to work in the benefit of that same co-op .. what would you do to protect what you worked so hard for ?  I already know your answer as IMO there is only one answer .. why don't other communities get to do the same ?

I personally would never live or maybe even travel through that part of Arizona .. seeing how the people there love a guy like him .. but is that not their choice ?  You seem to feel your way is the only option anyone has a right to . There are plenty of places I ruled out moving to before I ever heard of the liberty movement going on in NH .. but if that is how the local population decides they want to live .. who am I to tell them they are wrong . and how many minds will I sway getting in their faces over it ?

 

[littlehawk]

Go Get Em' Joe!

NO free rides.

[MaineShark]

If you and a dozen other volunteerist's (sp?)( cool way of life in my opinion BTW ) started a co-op and after a years hard work started to enjoy the fruits of your labor had a group of people cross some imaginary border 50 miles away and decided they wanted to share in the fruits of your labor without committing to work in the benefit of that same co-op .. what would you do to protect what you worked so hard for ?  I already know your answer as IMO there is only one answer .. why don't other communities get to do the same ?

There's a difference between expelling thieves, and telling both thieves and individuals who want to be productive members of society, that crossing some imaginary border is "illegal."

As a property owner, I have the right to determine who can enter my property.  If I want someone from anywhere to be on my property, I have the right to invite them to be here.  Some legislator in DC does not have the right to tell me otherwise.  He can prohibit "illegals" from his property; nowhere else.

The problem isn't the thieves; we all agree that they should not be thieving, and any decent person would certainly support your right to order them off your land.  The problem is the other individuals who are not thieves, and are welcome.  Their rights aren't voided just because some thief happens to come from the same general geographic location that they do.

Joe

[thinkliberty]

I just try to convince people that using violence on peaceful people is wrong.

I think that the people that supported the Spanish government at the time of the inquisition were responsible for the horrible things that they did. I think the people that support the US government are responsible for the things it does. I think the Constitution was a nice idea, but it's proven to be a failure, like socialism and communism.  The same thing that ruined communism and socialism ruined the Constitution. -- Statism.

Please stick around, we don't have to agree on everything to be friends. No hard feelings.

Hopefully you won't go back to being a lurker. You can point out problems in my reasoning and I can do the same to you.

you're a thug only if you believe I should be put in jail because I won't be wiling to pay for your fears.

I will try one last time with you ..

  If you and a dozen other volunteerist's (sp?)( cool way of life in my opinion BTW ) started a co-op and after a years hard work started to enjoy the fruits of your labor had a group of people cross some imaginary border 50 miles away and decided they wanted to share in the fruits of your labor without committing to work in the benefit of that same co-op .. what would you do to protect what you worked so hard for ?  I already know your answer as IMO there is only one answer .. why don't other communities get to do the same ?

Does the coop jail anyone that does not give their money to them? Do they kill people that try to escape from the coop's prison for not paying extortion fees? Does the coop have a CIA that assassinates influential people that live across the border? Does the coop give money to people that oppress and commit violent acts on the people that live across the border?

I personally would never live or maybe even travel through that part of Arizona .. seeing how the people there love a guy like him .. but is that not their choice ? 

Do you feel it was wrong for people to try to free the slaves in the south? Seeing how people in the north did not live there?

You seem to feel your way is the only option anyone has a right to . There are plenty of places I ruled out moving to before I ever heard of the liberty movement going on in NH .. but if that is how the local population decides they want to live .. who am I to tell them they are wrong . and how many minds will I sway getting in their faces over it ?

If anyone has rights then why force them to give away their rights to a State? I feel that you and your government should be able to do anything you want as long as you are not hurting someone else. People and governments don't have a right to hurt other people.

How many minds did gay people in San Fransisco, sway by getting in people's faces about it? How many gay people moved to San Francisco to live near other gay people? How many liberty lovers will move to NH because we are in your face about it? -- You seem interested.

[AntonLee]

I read everything you said.  If what I wrote doesn't apply to you perhaps I wasn't directing it at you in the first place.  Don't be so paranoid.

[lildog]

The problem isn't the thieves; we all agree that they should not be thieving, and any decent person would certainly support your right to order them off your land.  The problem is the other individuals who are not thieves, and are welcome.  Their rights aren't voided just because some thief happens to come from the same general geographic location that they do.

Joe, I have to disagree.  I think the problem is 100% the thieves.

If people weren't taking from the tables of hard working Americans and handing their earnings out to others there wouldn't be a problem.  Those hardworking Americans wouldn't care who came here (assuming they came here on peaceful terms) because the influx of new people wouldn't cost them anything.

I also believe we'd see far fewer people actually trying to come here in the first place if they weren't entitled to massive handouts as soon as they set foot in the door.

Take away the thievery and you take away the problem.

[MaineShark]

The problem isn't the thieves; we all agree that they should not be thieving, and any decent person would certainly support your right to order them off your land.  The problem is the other individuals who are not thieves, and are welcome.  Their rights aren't voided just because some thief happens to come from the same general geographic location that they do.

Joe, I have to disagree.  I think the problem is 100% the thieves.

If people weren't taking from the tables of hard working Americans and handing their earnings out to others there wouldn't be a problem.  Those hardworking Americans wouldn't care who came here (assuming they came here on peaceful terms) because the influx of new people wouldn't cost them anything.

I also believe we'd see far fewer people actually trying to come here in the first place if they weren't entitled to massive handouts as soon as they set foot in the door.

Take away the thievery and you take away the problem.

And...?

How does that void some innocent individual's rights?

The problem is that Statists think they can justify attacking innocents.  That's the basis for the whole issue.  Without that, there would be no taxpayer-funded handouts to be acquired by "illegals."  It's like saying that a strangulation victim died due to "a lack of air in his lungs," rather than admitting that the actual cause was the murderer holding the garrote.

Joe

[lildog]

Your reading to far into what I'm saying.  It doesn't justify the attacking of innocents but it explains it.  The root of the problem is the thievery.  That's all I'm saying.

[MaineShark]

Your reading to far into what I'm saying.  It doesn't justify the attacking of innocents but it explains it.  The root of the problem is the thievery.  That's all I'm saying.

No, the root is the idea that it's okay to attack innocents.

The thievery is just the excuse of the moment.  Many other excuses have been used, over time, and there are others in use, right now, in addition to the thievery.

If you eliminated the thievery, there would still be support for immigration restrictions.  Businesses would demand protection against competition.  Jackboots would whimper about terrorists.  Et cetera.  So thievery cannot be the root, because eliminating that issue would not kill the notion of restricted immigration.

Eliminating the idea that it's okay to restrict immigration, would.

One (by the very definition of the term) is obviously out of the running to be the root of the problem.

Joe