Where is Darren Wilson's Justice?

[Rob Roy]

In fairness Chesus, there are a lot of less-than-lethal weapons that could subdue someone like Brown with the effectiveness of a firearm...but no death involved (well, very rarely).

Armed cops arnt exactly what we should be applauding, however given the "shoot first, ask questions (if they survive) later" system in the US, Wilson is innocent in this case.

Murder begins, where self defense ends. Peace.

 

[londonfog]

Yes, not often, but sometimes you apply yourself to use critical thinking.

Now go fold some laundry.

If you pay... I will have someone to fold. We will not charge you with rape.

 

[Rob Roy]

If you pay... I will have someone to fold. We will not charge you with rape.

Rape is a form of violating a right. All people have the right to refuse an interaction, and have the right to be left alone. You seem to at one time agree with this principle and then at the same time, approve of violating it, when the violation is deemed by you to be acceptable. Your cognitive dissonance is right at the surface.



If a person made you fold their laundry under threat of force, you'd have experienced a violation of your right to not interact with them.

Of course, you might like the force and agree to it, which would make you a consenting pervert. Do you like to be forced to do things with laundry, if you do that is your right. It is also the right of others to chose another service provider.



Your principles can't be flexible or they cease to be principles and become rationalizations.


Consensual human interaction.....learn about them.

 

[londonfog]

Rape is a from of violating a right. All people have the right to refuse an interaction, that is, if the person forcing the interaction is not responding in a justified defense of self or their property. You seem to at one time to agree with this principle and then at the same time, approve of violating it, when the violation is deemed by you to be acceptable. Your cognitive dissonance is right at the surface.



If a person made you fold their laundry under threat of force, you'd have experienced a violation of your right to not interact with them.

Of course, you might like the force and agree to it, which would make you a consenting pervert. Do you like to be forced to do things with laundry, if you do that is your right. It is also the right of others to chose another service provider.



Your principles can't be flexible or they cease to be principles and become rationalizations.


Consensual human interaction.....learn about them.

At the location that offers wash&fold my employees hate that I still offer this service, but they still do it. I'm I forcing rape upon them ?

 

[Rob Roy]

At the location that offers wash&fold my employees hate that I still offer this service, but they still do it. I'm I forcing rape upon them ?

Not in the instance you describe. Presumably you and the employees have a consensual agreement and you don't keep them chained in the basement against their will, feeding them feces encrusted paper towels you've found in the bathroom at Wendys.

When two parties have no consensual agreement and one party applies or threatens force to an otherwise peaceful person, rape is one of the things that could occur in those circumstances. Although it could be an instance where a coercive person or entity, oh let's say the Imperial USA, has done something else like intervene onto property owned by somebody else and attempted to seize control of it. You approve of that kind of property right violative behavior, yet you are too dumbfounded, ignorant or inept to defend why you think that is okay.

Shouldn't you be running for Uncle Buck to rescue you now?

You see if you were raping somebody the relevant objectionable action is you are invading the person or their property, since everyone "owns" themself. If rape is objectionable to you, you are inconsistent and hypocritical if other kinds of property right violations are okay to you when they happen to a peaceful person.

 

[abandonconflict]

Not in the instance you describe. Presumably you and the employees have a consensual agreement and you don't keep them chained in the basement against their will, feeding them feces encrusted paper towels you've found in the bathroom at Wendys.

When two parties have no consensual agreement and one party applies or threatens force to an otherwise peaceful person, rape is one of the things that could occur in those circumstances. Although it could be an instance where a coercive person or entity, oh let's say the Imperial USA, has done something else like intervene onto property owned by somebody else and attempted to seize control of it. You approve of that kind of property right violative behavior, yet you are too dumbfounded, ignorant or inept to defend why you think that is okay.

Shouldn't you be running for Uncle Buck to rescue you now?

You see if you were raping somebody the relevant objectionable action is you are invading the person or their property, since everyone "owns" themself. If rape is objectionable to you, you are inconsistent and hypocritical if other kinds of property right violations are okay to you when they happen to a peaceful person.

 

[Rob Roy]

Well I'll take your word for it, because you both have that government check thing in common Herr Fake-O.

 

[UncleBuck]

claims the person who thinks a Honda Accord and a Tahoe are similar

he can't hear you anymore. el banno hammero!

 

[NLXSK1]

The grand jury made their decision based on a prosecutor who did not want to prosecute. A first year law student could even see this.

The prosecutor knew he didnt have enough for a conviction. Prosecutors do not usually try to pursue cases they have no chance of winning.

How do you PROVE that Darren Wilson was not in fear of his life? By all metrics he was justified in shooting Michael Brown given the forensic evidence.

What would a not guilty conviction serve the prosecutor or the community? The riots would have happened in a year instead of now??

 

[Rob Roy]

The prosecutor knew he didnt have enough for a conviction. Prosecutors do not usually try to pursue cases they have no chance of winning.

How do you PROVE that Darren Wilson was not in fear of his life? By all metrics he was justified in shooting Michael Brown given the forensic evidence.

What would a not guilty conviction serve the prosecutor or the community? The riots would have happened in a year instead of now??

Maybe, maybe not in this instance, but as a general pattern, the prosecutor is on the same team as the cop. That is the real reason why in most instances where cops are investigating cops, the finding is usually in favor of the cop.

Prosecutors and cops are on the same team and it is rare that they cross the blue line.

 

[NLXSK1]

Maybe, maybe not in this instance, but as a general pattern, the prosecutor is on the same team as the cop. That is the real reason why in most instances where cops are investigating cops, the finding is usually in favor of the cop.

Prosecutors and cops are on the same team and it is rare that they cross the blue line.

Rob,

Nobody is saying that there isnt problems with cops and lawyers. What we are going around and around about is that it isnt the case here.

I heard from several lawyers that say that it isnt the prosecutors job to prosecute the case when presenting to the grand jury. It isnt the first trial. The prosecutor is supposed to provide the evidence and let the jurists decide whether to proceed to trial. During the trial the proscutor prosecutes.

Could you explain to me how your societal design would have prevented Michael Brown from assaulting a shopkeeper and taking his goods?

Could you explain to me how your society in which the cops didnt even exist would have taken care of the issue?

This is a great time for you to convince me how having no government would work given specific cases.

 

[Rob Roy]

Rob,

Nobody is saying that there isnt problems with cops and lawyers. What we are going around and around about is that it isnt the case here.

I heard from several lawyers that say that it isnt the prosecutors job to prosecute the case when presenting to the grand jury. It isnt the first trial. The prosecutor is supposed to provide the evidence and let the jurists decide whether to proceed to trial. During the trial the proscutor prosecutes.

Could you explain to me how your societal design would have prevented Michael Brown from assaulting a shopkeeper and taking his goods?

Could you explain to me how your society in which the cops didnt even exist would have taken care of the issue?

This is a great time for you to convince me how having no government would work given specific cases.

No societal design will prevent a thug from being a thug.

However, in the present design, wherein coercive monopolistic governments are the norm, thugs still exist on a large scale don't they? Many of the thugs, are WITHIN the present system and have legal cover...can you see anything wrong with that picture? I can.

Having no coercive government is different than having no government, so let's make sure we are not putting words in each others mouths first.

 

[NLXSK1]

No societal design will prevent a thug from being a thug.

However, in the present design, wherein coercive monopolistic governments are the norm, thugs still exist on a large scale don't they? Many of the thugs, are WITHIN the present system and have legal cover...can you see anything wrong with that picture? I can.

Having no coercive government is different than having no government, so let's make sure we are not putting words in each others mouths first.

Sure, could you provide an example of how your non-coercive society would have dealt with the thug and the theft of property??

You keep not answering the question.

 

[Rob Roy]

Sure, could you provide an example of how your non-coercive society would have dealt with the thug and the theft of property??

You keep not answering the question.

Non coercive is not the same as pacifism. Defensive force is an acceptable thing, offensive force is not.

The chip stealing thug could have been dealt with a number of ways. He could have been stopped by the shop owner, if the shop owner were allowed to use defensive force. He could have been barred admission to the store, if his past indicated he was a thug or the store owner was permitted to engage in commerce on a consensual rather than forced basis.

He could have been apprehended by private security that has a history of providing a valued service or the market wouldn't have allowed it to exist and "convicted", then forced to restitute the aggrieved person.

You might like to read the Market for Liberty, the authors go into greater depth and provide good answers to your question.


From the Mises Institute regarding their take on the book -

This book is very radical in the true sense of that term: it gets to the root of the problem of government and provides a rethinking of the whole organization of society. They start at the beginning with the idea of the individual and his rights, work their way through exchange and the market, expose government as the great enemy of mankind, and then—and here is the great surprise—they offer a dramatic expansion of market logic into areas of security and defense provision.

Their discussion of this controversial topic is integrated into their libertarian theoretical apparatus. It deals with private arbitration agencies in managing with disputes and criminality, the role of insurers in providing profitable incentives for security, and private agencies in their capacity as protection services. It is for this reason that Hans Hoppe calls this book an "outstanding yet much neglected analysis of the operation of competing security producers."

The section on war and the state is particularly poignant. "The more government 'defends' its citizens, the more it provokes tensions and wars, as unnecessary armies wallow carelessly about in distant lands and government functionaries, from the highest to the lowest, throw their weight around in endless, provocating power grabs. The war machine established by government is dangerous to both foreigners and its own citizens, and this machine can operate indefinitely without any effective check other than the attack of a foreign nation."

Also overlooked is the Tannehill's challenging plan for desocialization or transition to a full free society. They argue against privatization as it is usually understood, on grounds that government is not the owner of public property and so it cannot sell it. Public property should be seized or homesteaded by the workers or by people with the strongest interest it in, and then put on the open market. If that sounds crazy or chaotic, you might change your mind after reading their case.
This book is very radical in the true sense of that term: it gets to the root of the problem of government and provides a rethinking of the whole organization of society. They start at the beginning with the idea of the individual and his rights, work their way through exchange and the market, expose government as the great enemy of mankind, and then—and here is the great surprise—they offer a dramatic expansion of market logic into areas of security and defense provision.

Their discussion of this controversial topic is integrated into their libertarian theoretical apparatus. It deals with private arbitration agencies in managing with disputes and criminality, the role of insurers in providing profitable incentives for security, and private agencies in their capacity as protection services. It is for this reason that Hans Hoppe calls this book an "outstanding yet much neglected analysis of the operation of competing security producers."

The section on war and the state is particularly poignant. "The more government 'defends' its citizens, the more it provokes tensions and wars, as unnecessary armies wallow carelessly about in distant lands and government functionaries, from the highest to the lowest, throw their weight around in endless, provocating power grabs. The war machine established by government is dangerous to both foreigners and its own citizens, and this machine can operate indefinitely without any effective check other than the attack of a foreign nation."

Also overlooked is the Tannehill's challenging plan for desocialization or transition to a full free society. They argue against privatization as it is usually understood, on grounds that government is not the owner of public property and so it cannot sell it. Public property should be seized or homesteaded by the workers or by people with the strongest interest it in, and then put on the open market. If that sounds crazy or chaotic, you might change your mind after reading their case.

 

[Wilksey]

No societal design will prevent a thug from being a thug.

However, in the present design, wherein coercive monopolistic governments are the norm, thugs still exist on a large scale don't they? Many of the thugs, are WITHIN the present system and have legal cover...can you see anything wrong with that picture? I can.

Having no coercive government is different than having no government, so let's make sure we are not putting words in each others mouths first.

A "non-coercive government" is the same as NO government. Period.

There's always going to be folks that say "fuck you, I do what I want!", which is WHY governments are coercive.

 

[Rob Roy]

From the Mises

A "non-coercive government" is the same as NO government. Period.

There's always going to be folks that say "fuck you, I do what I want!", which is WHY governments are coercive.

You just proved my point.

Government and the people that say fuck you are using the exact same tactic aren't they?

Do you remember at the end of the book Animal Farm, when it was hard to tell the pigs from the humans? It was hard because they were the same thing and used the same lies.

 

[Rob Roy]

A "non-coercive government" is the same as NO government. Period.

There's always going to be folks that say "fuck you, I do what I want!", which is WHY governments are coercive.

Also a non coercive government is not the same as no government. It is quite possible to have a government where the participants agree to the rules on a voluntary basis. It is not possible however to have a coercive government holding on a monopoly on force and to have freedom of choice.

 

[UncleBuck]

it's cute watching three racist retards debate each other like this. i almost don't want to interrupt them.

 

[ChesusRice]

Also a non coercive government is not the same as no government. It is quite possible to have a government where the participants agree to the rules on a voluntary basis. It is not possible however to have a coercive government holding on a monopoly on force and to have freedom of choice.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Gov. wouldn't exist if everyone just agreed to things voluntarily..

Gov. exists because people won't agree to things voluntarily..