How liberty ends?

[Billtx49]

You are protecting yourself against criminals, who don't care about our laws.

Yep, I live in a southern border state. Long ago I had lost my two magazines for my .45 Colt and didn’t think much of it.
With the current escalation at the border, I now have three new mags purchased and currently in shipment. Bought with reason and logic…

 

[EyeBRollin]

Yes, you need protection, wrong on the reason. You are protecting yourself against criminals, who don't care about our laws.

No, I have a gun to protect my property for the reason @Billtx49 stated few posts up.

Some redneck with an assault rifle will statistically never come to rob you. Do you think they will or something? I'm genuinely curious.

No. Can’t say I have ever thought about being robbed by a “redneck” because I don’t venture to areas with “rednecks.” Being struck by lightning is a bigger concern of mine, statistically.

If you had to draw a picture of the type of criminal who commits a random assault or violent crime (which is all you and I need to worry about)......yeeeeah I don't think the picture would be exactly what you think it would be (or WANT it to be).

This is the problem. Crime isn’t “random assault.” There is motive. As I said earlier, middle/upper class white dudes don’t occupy the same area as gangbangers from Chicago’s Southside. You quite literally have to go out of your way to end up in that situation. My friend you have a vivid imagination.

 

[Kotaix]

Gun culture is preventing accountability for people that need to act better or face a good ass whooping.

Rooftop Koreans beg to differ. Gun culture keeps people accountable for their actions.

Also, an armed populace keeps the government accountable.

If I could Thanos snap them out of existence altogether it would be ideal. If you act out of line it comes down to hands and makeshift weapons around you.

This argument is pure fantasy. Humans got to where they are because they were able to use something other than rocks and sticks, otherwise we'd just be dumb monkeys picking lice off of each other.

Also, in this scenario, the biggest and meanest person is the one who comes out on top because he always wins the fight. Guns are force equalizers.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Rooftop Koreans beg to differ. Gun culture keeps people accountable for their actions.

Also, an armed populace keeps the government accountable.

That is a laughable argument. The government doesn’t give a fvck about your guns. They have drones, a military, and can screw you via cyberspace or financially if they so choose.

This argument is pure fantasy. Humans got to where they are because they were able to use something other than rocks and sticks, otherwise we'd just be dumb monkeys picking lice off of each other.

Also, in this scenario, the biggest and meanest person is the one who comes out on top because he always wins the fight. Guns are force equalizers.

Humans aren’t meant to be equal. That is socialism. We are a tournament species. The strongest and smartest prevail.

 

[HaleyBaron]

That is a laughable argument. The government doesn’t give a fvck about your guns. They have drones, a military, and can screw you via cyberspace or financially if they do choose.

The same government that lost vietnam and afghanistan? The same government along with Russia and others who can't even get Syria tied down? Those governments?

lol

 

[AureliusMaximus]

A quote without context backed up with appeal to an arbitrary authority figure...

I think Benjamin Franklin is spot on and its even more relevant what he said back then than ever.
People are so scared there days of the virus that they now gladly give up their freedom in exchange for little security instead.

It is a very dangerous path that we in the western world are walking on right now...

 

[AttackFormation]

I think Benjamin Franklin is spot on and its even more relevant what he said back then than ever.
People are so scared there days of the virus that they now gladly give up their freedom in exchange for little security instead.

It is a very dangerous path that we in the western world are walking on right now...

What freedom are people in which location giving up?

 

[Zimbabwe]

Libertarianism works very well provided that it's not taken to an extreme. The U.S. was founded as a libertarian nation and by all accounts it did very well for the first 200 years of its existence. Incidentally, things are now getting worse as the U.S is becoming less libertarian. Libertarianism does not mean anarchy and no government. It means limited and responsible government. It also means that individual freedoms cannot be too easily discarded in favour of the common good.


Meanwhile in China, someone is probably saying "it's a simple concentration camp for christ sake, you guys act like we are being stuffed in gas chambers." The bottom line is that the loss of freedom is always a slippery slope.

If i want to discuss countries that did well I would bring up Absolute Monarchs like the British,French,Spanish,Ottoman and Russian Empires. Giving people too much freedom is what led to their downfall.

You guys think limitation of the national government to a few specific enumerated powers reflects libertarian belief. But this limitation has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has everything to do with federalism.

If America used to be a libertarian utopia and the civil war did not destroy the existing government completely, then why is there no other libertarian country on Earth except for Somalia

 

[Plinco]

What freedom are people in which location giving up?

Usually when someone says "there should be a law..."

On rare occasions there is a legitimate reason for "there should be a law..." when it involves protecting someone's individual. Most of the time it's a person's desire to use force

 

[Bokanovsky]

If i want to discuss countries that did well I would bring up Absolute Monarchs like the British,French,Spanish,Ottoman and Russian Empires. Giving people too much freedom is what led to their downfall.

The problem with the above statement is that you made it up on the spot. Those empires collapsed for reasons completely unrelated to giving people rights.

 

[Plinco]

If i want to discuss countries that did well I would bring up Absolute Monarchs like the British,French,Spanish,Ottoman and Russian Empires. Giving people too much freedom is what led to their downfall.

You guys think limitation of the national government to a few specific enumerated powers reflects libertarian belief. But this limitation has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has everything to do with federalism.

If America used to be a libertarian utopia and the civil war did not destroy the existing government completely, then why is there no other libertarian country on Earth except for Somalia

View attachment 7232

You bring up a very interesting point that I spent time thinking about.

That said, government is in a sense monopoly of force. Whoever has a monopoly of force functions as a government. So Somalia has plenty of government tyranny, just not as organized as elsewhere.

 

[AttackFormation]

Usually when someone says "there should be a law..."

On rare occasions there is a legitimate reason for "there should be a law..." when it involves protecting someone's individual. Most of the time it's a person's desire to use force

All right... that's too nebulous for me to say anything about though either in general or in specific.

 

[Plinco]

All right... that's too nebulous for me to say anything about though either in general or in specific.

There was a video I saw months ago of people in NYC chasing someone out of a grocery store because the person was not wearing a mask. I can't find the video because youtube sensors everything political and the search function on bitchute is horrible.

 

[Plinco]

All right... that's too nebulous for me to say anything about though either in general or in specific.

Another example is during the height of the Floyd protests in some of the major cities where there were some in that crowd that demanded to defund the police. Granted big city police can have corrupt administrations here in the USA, but to undermine policing to a high degree is an attack on enforcing both individual rights and possibly tyranny to some extent as well

 

[AttackFormation]

There was a video I saw months ago of people in NYC chasing someone out of a grocery store because the person was not wearing a mask. I can't find the video because youtube sensors everything political and the search function on bitchute is horrible.

I have personally not worn a mask this entire time, ironically despite that i support mask wearing if it restricts the spread of illness. I just didnt bother to get one. But from the perspective of the mob, you could say that person was endangering or disrespecting the others, kind of like bringing a sick child to daycare. Whether that justifies chasing them out of the store or not is another question, but that's the motivation.

The police question in your new post is unfortunately too complex for me to get into, i dont know if "defund the police" represents a centralised group or if the same slogan is used by different groups to mean different things. But considering that you think taxes to fund police is positive, i assume you are not a right libertarian, as you are here recognising that promoting the common welfare can also result in more individual welfare (or "liberty"); and that the use of taxation - or "illegitimate force" as a right libertarian would say - is here legitimate.

 

[Plinco]

But from the perspective of the mob, you could say that person was endangering or disrespecting the others, kind of like bringing a sick child to daycare. Whether that justifies chasing them out of the store or not is another question, but that's the motivation.

Masks do not prevent the transmission of the disease, despite what the legacy institutions say. Objectively the person without the mask did not pose a threat to the mob. However there is something to be said about the fact that one cannot expect people to be omniscient; they trusted these institutions for information because they can't be bothered to research or think for themselves. Because of their ignorance and the ongoing perceived threat, they felt the need to enforce a measure that they thought would protect them.

The police question in your new post is unfortunately too complex for me to get into, i dont know if "defund the police" represents a centralised group or if the same slogan is used by different groups to mean different things. But considering that you think taxes to fund police is positive, i assume you are not a right libertarian, as you are here recognising that promoting the common welfare can also result in more individual welfare (or "liberty"); and that the use of taxation - or "illegitimate force" as a right libertarian would say - is here legitimate.

This is where I would get into political philosophy. The first point I make here is that politics, in its correct form is an application of ethics. This is the legislative function. The executive branch, such as the police, exist to enforce the law. There are situations where I have observed police professionally enforcing the law as it is written, however the law is not ethical in the objective sense; it was not a policing problem but a legislative one.

As far as taxation; this is a good point to bring up. The government in its proper form protects individual rights. That requires a police force, military, courts, etc. This is not cheap. To collect taxes by force is a violation of individual rights. The solution that is often proposed is levying indirect taxes, such as tariffs and sales taxes. Will that be enough? I would hope so.

 

[Who Dares Win]

Liberty ends if the US gets rid of the second amendment.

The only reason for which is not mandatory to dress in pink and share our own resources in all the western block its cause there are enough armed americans to prevent the american government to do so and demands the same to the european colonies.

The most democratic and free country in Europe where citizens rule and the government simply do their will is switzerland which is the most armed country in Europe....has to be a fvcking coincidence I guess.

 

[Bokanovsky]

I have personally not worn a mask this entire time, ironically despite that i support mask wearing if it restricts the spread of illness. I just didnt bother to get one. But from the perspective of the mob, you could say that person was endangering or disrespecting the others, kind of like bringing a sick child to daycare. Whether that justifies chasing them out of the store or not is another question, but that's the motivation.

The police question in your new post is unfortunately too complex for me to get into, i dont know if "defund the police" represents a centralised group or if the same slogan is used by different groups to mean different things. But considering that you think taxes to fund police is positive, i assume you are not a right libertarian, as you are here recognising that promoting the common welfare can also result in more individual welfare (or "liberty"); and that the use of taxation - or "illegitimate force" as a right libertarian would say - is here legitimate.

Libertarians do not believe in no taxation and no police. That's anarchism.

The difference between believing in a responsible, limited government vs. the nanny state is akin to the difference between sitting on your porch and enjoying a beer on a hot day vs. being a full-blown alcoholic.

Did you know that there was no income tax in countries like U.S.A., Canada and Australia until the the 1910's? Let that sink in: no income tax on business or personal income. And yet, the military, police, postal service and other things that governments provide all existed back in those days. It could all be afforded without massive taxes and deficits. Granted, you did not have 19 intelligence agencies, 79 means-tested government programs, over 430 government departments, agencies and sub-agencies (this is solely for the federal government),
and a federal workforce that is now in excess of ten million people (over 3% of the entire U.S. population).

 

[BillyPilgrim]

That is a laughable argument. The government doesn’t give a fvck about your guns. They have drones, a military, and can screw you via cyberspace or financially if they so choose.



Humans aren’t meant to be equal. That is socialism. We are a tournament species. The strongest and smartest prevail.

Bad news for you lol

 

[AureliusMaximus]

Exclusive: Government Secretly Orders Google To Identify Anyone Who Searched A Sexual Assault Victim’s Name, Address Or Telephone Number

In 2019, federal investigators in Wisconsin were hunting men they believed had participated in the trafficking and sexual abuse of a minor.

www.forbes.com

So much for privacy and individual rights. (Not that this a new thing in itself. We all know that google is shiete.) The governments seize more and more control and surveils the ordinary citizen which is the historical pattern towards tyranny and the end of liberty.