greatest police badge number ever

[greenleaves]

Can you be specific about when, where and who was doing this?

Or are we just assuming that primitive societies didn't have hierarchies or violent social orders?

I mean, it is possible the first two humans ran into each other and said, "hey, let's trade and be friends" and then it was all downhill into statism from there.

But I am not sure we can assume that as being more likely than that the first two humans met, one raped the other and made the victim their slave.

Barter isn't necessarily a free market.

Maybe statism did evolve from free markets. Being very ignorant about that idea, I can suppose for now that it is possible. But if that's the case, then are you saying that statism is inevitable and not subject to future evolution, or are you saying that it's pointless to get back to free markets because they will just turn into statism anyway?

So you are saying free markets imply no hierarchies withing the voluntarism social structures and have no violence?

I see a no true Scotsman logical fallacy.

Humans are violent. If there is going to be human markets, there will be violence. Get over it.

 

[guerilla]

Okay, so herein lies the issue. The fact of the matter is there is no "evidence" that would sway your opinion because by design you reject any evidence of the validity of laws.

It's not an opinion. I am asking for facts.

Look, facts are resilient. They aren't assertions. They are statements about objective reality which are testable, repeatable etc.

Where are the facts? This isn't about how I "feel". If there are facts, I would have to be mentally retarded not to accept them as truth.

So where is the evidence? No one has posted any, after at least two of us have asked for evidence multiple times.

It's a losing argument to try to convince you because there is no way of convincing you.

Just post the facts. And don't feel bad if you still believe in the validity of laws, but can't prove it.

Some judges and prosecutors surrender cases when they are confronted on the source of their authority. So the so-called experts don't have a good answer either, except the difference between them and you, is that they profit from the racket and when they surrender they don't lose.

You only lose to the racket and your losses increase exponentially when you surrender.

 

[guerilla]

So you are saying free markets imply no hierarchies withing the voluntarism social structures and have no violence?

If it's violent how can it be voluntary?

I see a no true Scotsman logical fallacy.

Not at all. I am simply being careful about which terms I use to describe what.

You're sort of mixing it all together and slapping random labels on it.

I don't like to argue like that, because your position will make it impossible for the discussion to advance. We'll be talking about two different things and getting nowhere.

A voluntary society/free market is one which has relationships that are not based on aggression. Aggression is the initiation of force.

I would be willing to allow for a free market where there was only a little aggression, because I am not trying to discuss a Utopia. But then I would ask you again

Where, when and with who was this free market? Can you be specific about it?

Humans are violent. If there is going to be human markets, there will be violence. Get over it.

Humans are also peaceful. And loving. And protective. And supportive. And intelligent. And stupid. And Hellblazer.

I'm not arguing for a Utopia, now you're applying a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Please answer my query about your earlier historical free market, and my follow up questions please.

 

[joconnor424]

Are we not talking about New Hampshire? That's okay. We can talk about whatever place you prefer. San Antonio, Cabo San Lucas, Krakow, wherever. The point I'm trying to make is that jurisdiction is often assumed, but can it be proven? Or is it more likely that a bunch of people with guns say so (without any empirical proof), therefore people comply?

I thought you were talking about the hypothetical the other poster posed...

So you're questioning how a police officer gets authority? They're hired by their city, take an oath to protect and serve, and are granted authority by the local governments to enforce the laws they've created. I'm not sure what more proof you need. Unless you're like guerilla and reject any and all "evidence" of governmental authority, that's usually how it works.

 

[guerilla]

Greenleaves, Hellblazer and anyone else except Unarmed Gunman, who I cannot read, do you have any facts that support the claim that the law is applicable to me?

If so, please share them.

If not, perhaps this means the laws are also not applicable to you?

 

[hellblazer]

The fact of the matter is there is no "evidence" that would sway your opinion because by design you reject any evidence of the validity of laws. It's a losing argument to try to convince you because there is no way of convincing you.

He's just a typical Canadian deconstructionist. I could deconstruct till the cows came home.

It's just a thin veneer for his hatred of the police.

 

[guerilla]

He's just a typical Canadian deconstructionist. I could deconstruct till the cows came home.

It's just a thin veneer for his hatred of the police.

Another post without facts on the topic or discussion.

SO EDGY

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

anyone else except Unarmed Gunman, who I cannot read, do you have any facts that support the claim that the law is applicable to me?

Translation: UG already killed my whole argument so I put him on ignore so as not to have to lose the argument.

He's like a petulant fucking child with his hands over his ears.

 

[TheRedBaron]

 

[kingofsp]

So you're questioning how a police officer gets authority? They're hired by their city, take an oath to protect and serve, and are granted authority by the local governments to enforce the laws they've created. I'm not sure what more proof you need. Unless you're like guerilla and reject any and all "evidence" of governmental authority, that's usually how it works.

I don't think either of us are rejecting any evidence. We are still waiting for it.

Why do the laws the local governments created apply to me? I understand that the laws were written down by some people at some point, and I understand that they claim you/we can or cannot do certain things. How is that any different from me writing down something like:

kingofsp rules section 4.34v
joconnor424 has to buy me ice cream every day for the rest of my life.

And then I'm like "dude, where is my ice cream?" And you're like, "what makes you think your rules apply to me?" And I'm like "Duh, it says right there in section 4.34v. Now you have to give me $25 plus ice cream. I explained penalties in section 7.45c."

Lots of people are of the opinion that the laws created by their local politicians apply to everyone. Opinions are not facts. I'm not sure how else to articulate this point.

 

[hellblazer]

Translation: UG already killed my whole argument so I put him on ignore so as not to have to lose the argument.

He's like a petulant fucking child with his hands over his ears.

I gotta say, it is rather amusing that you're on ignore and I, the supposed biggest troll on WF, am not.

I don't use the Ignore function for the only reason that it seems like cutting an eye out because you don't like the scenery. You ony end up limiting your sphere of vision.

do you have any facts that support the claim that the law is applicable to me?

I've never made that claim, not because I do or don't believe it, but because that's not the issue.

You're trying to argue that citizens don't want police. That's absurd.

We have this thing called a social contract where we pay taxes and receive services in return.

It's not always perfect, but generally we want an army, a police force, and some basic roads, etc...

And we're cool with that. That's how citizens interact with their government. The government is the structure they've created to protect themselves and provide some basic services.

I'm arguing that that's a good thing. You're saying that not only is it not a good thing, but that the government(which the citizens erected) has no right to its existence.

Of course it does. It has the citizens' implicit consent to function. When it doesn't, the citizens should rise up and change it, as happened in 1776.

But you seem obsessed with asking people to prove that you have to follow the law of any given country.

I don't care. I don't really give a fuck.

Go ahead and break as many laws as you want. I could give two shits less. See what happens.

Law enforcement exists because, at least for the most part, there is a implicit understanding between the citizens of that country and the government to provide something to each other.

That's not to say that there aren't a million ways things can go wrong, or government can get corrupted or totalitarian, or not provide its' services, etc...

But that's how the basic idea works. Follow the law, don't follow it, I really couldn't care less. Me and the millions of other people in this country pay our taxes and don't have a problem with the police, and we're just fine with that.

 

[joconnor424]

I don't think either of us are rejecting any evidence. We are still waiting for it.

Why do the laws the local governments created apply to me? I understand that the laws were written down by some people at some point, and I understand that they claim you/we can or cannot do certain things. How is that any different from me writing down something like:

kingofsp rules section 4.34v
joconnor424 has to buy me ice cream every day for the rest of my life.

And then I'm like "dude, where is my ice cream?" And you're like, "what makes you think your rules apply to me?" And I'm like "Duh, it says right there in section 4.34v. Now you have to give me $25 plus ice cream. I explained penalties in section 7.45c."

Lots of people are of the opinion that the laws created by their local politicians apply to everyone. Opinions are not facts. I'm not sure how else to articulate this point.

But writing a law in a notebook compared to a law agreed upon by representation of a community is two different things.

If you truly wanted to live alone in a wilderness broken away from everything, then you could truly rule your own domain. But because you receive the benefits of a community, you have to adhere to the agreed upon laws of the community.

Are you constantly breaking laws in your current community? In plain view of the public and law enforcement?

 

[p0ck3taces]

How can you enforce any rule without an underlying threat of violence?

 

[joconnor424]

How can you enforce any rule without an underlying threat of violence?

I don't think you can.

 

[hellblazer]

How can you enforce any rule without an underlying threat of violence?

It's more than just a threat of violence. It's also what you're getting in return.

Citizens deem what they are receiving in return equal to what they are providing, and so they all agree to comply.

 

[greenleaves]

If it's violent how can it be voluntary?


Not at all. I am simply being careful about which terms I use to describe what.

You're sort of mixing it all together and slapping random labels on it.

I don't like to argue like that, because your position will make it impossible for the discussion to advance. We'll be talking about two different things and getting nowhere.

A voluntary society/free market is one which has relationships that are not based on aggression. Aggression is the initiation of force.

I would be willing to allow for a free market where there was only a little aggression, because I am not trying to discuss a Utopia. But then I would ask you again

Where, when and with who was this free market? Can you be specific about it?


Humans are also peaceful. And loving. And protective. And supportive. And intelligent. And stupid. And Hellblazer.

I'm not arguing for a Utopia, now you're applying a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Please answer my query about your earlier historical free market, and my follow up questions please.

No true scotsman re: violence.

A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government policy intervenes in the setting of prices. An economy composed entirely of free markets is referred to as a free-market economy.


In a free market, you might want to trade with another tribe that has more men and more man power and who could crush you, to ensure your survival. Free market is not FAIR market as you imply. Fairness is a subjective term and one that doesn't have any bearing on reality (it isn't even something real, it is a term to describe a biological human emotion to help control social interaction)


If you use a made up definition, you can win any argument. Using common definitions for words is the basis of communication.

 

[JakeStratham]

Why do the laws the local governments created apply to me? I understand that the laws were written down by some people at some point, and I understand that they claim you/we can or cannot do certain things. How is that any different from me writing down something like:

kingofsp rules section 4.34v
joconnor424 has to buy me ice cream every day for the rest of my life.

And then I'm like "dude, where is my ice cream?" And you're like, "what makes you think your rules apply to me?" And I'm like "Duh, it says right there in section 4.34v. Now you have to give me $25 plus ice cream. I explained penalties in section 7.45c."

Lots of people are of the opinion that the laws created by their local politicians apply to everyone. Opinions are not facts. I'm not sure how else to articulate this point.

I didn't think this thread could make me laugh (besides hellblazer's stuff, of course).

I'm delighted to see I was wrong. That's pretty good. lol

 

[p0ck3taces]

Greenleaves, Hellblazer and anyone else except Unarmed Gunman, who I cannot read, do you have any facts that support the claim that the law is applicable to me?

If so, please share them.

If not, perhaps this means the laws are also not applicable to you?

What do you mean by "applicable to you"? It's certainly being 'applied' to you, by people who list x, y and z actions that will be taken if you do not comply.

Do you mean what "rights" do they have to apply these laws to you?

And if this is what you mean, how do you define "rights"? Because I could say they own the property you're on, but then does owning the property you live on give them "rights" to apply laws to you? Are these the "rights" you're looking for? And how do we even determine this property ownership if it is?

 

[Jimmy Clayton]

Is this thread even real life?

ITT:

Video posted of guys/overgrown trolls who can't get laid trying to act tough around a police officer trying to do his job. (O snap, don't open that door! He mad, bro - we win!)

Statements like...
"Do you have any facts that support the law applies to me?"
"Prove to me how police officers get their authority"

I mean, i'm all for open discussion on important issues, but this Guerilla guy sounds like a Mongoloid who spent too much time masturbating in his parents basement.

I don't know why Hellblazer et al. are even humoring this stuff. You're not going to win an argument with someone who has this mentality.

But, carry on with this mental masturbation...

 

[greenleaves]

What do you mean by "applicable to you"? It's certainly being 'applied' to you, by people who list x, y and z actions that will be taken if you do not comply.

Do you mean what "rights" do they have to apply these laws to you?

And if this is what you mean, how do you define "rights"? Because I could say they own the property you're on, but then does owning the property you live on give them "rights" to apply laws to you? Are these the "rights" you're looking for? And how do we even determine this property ownership if it is?

Let me clarify the points of the intransigents:

Guerilla/other anarchists:
None of what you say applies because I have special definitions for everything. Anarcho capitalism is what will save the world. If can achieve it, no one will ever be intimidated and things will, for the most part, be hunky dory. Individualism is everything and real and a fact. Society is an illusion and a lie.

Hellblazer:
Republicans and flag waving is what will save us. We should go back to the good old days when we hung and burnt blacks and browns and got away with it. We should have limited government but many wars, and we should also prosecute people who consume certain things which can't be patented in the privacy of their houses. Again, definition of limited government is something that isn't what the dictionary would implicate.