Idiots

[Seth]

Calilassea

I never knew Seth looked that handsome!

I wish I was as buff as Sean Connery in that movie!

[surreptitious57]

non gun owners have recourse to the same civil law system as anybody else and are entitled to the same degree of compensation

Yes but do you not think that it is the moral and legal responsibility of every law abiding America citizen to take adequate measures to
protect themselves and their property as stated in the Second Amendment? Do you not also think that those who refuse to do this have
only themselves to blame if they become the victim of a crime like the gentleman in your avatar? Or do have some sympathy for them?

[surreptitious57]

non gun owners have recourse to the same civil law system as anybody else and are entitled to the same degree of compensation

Yes but do you not think that it is the moral and legal responsibility of every law abiding America citizen to take adequate measures to
protect themselves and their property as stated in the Second Amendment? Do you not also think that those who refuse to do this have
only themselves to blame if they become the victim of a crime like the gentleman in your avatar? Or do have some sympathy for them?

[Seth]

non gun owners have recourse to the same civil law system as anybody else and are entitled to the same degree of compensation

Yes but do you not think that it is the moral and legal responsibility of every law abiding America citizen to take adequate measures to
protect themselves and their property as stated in the Second Amendment? Do you not also think that those who refuse to do this have
only themselves to blame if they become the victim of a crime like the gentleman in your avatar? Or do have some sympathy for them?

You make good points here and raise some interesting questions. From a purely Libertarian perspective one is indeed responsible for one's own actions, or inactions, and therefore one is also obliged to both accept and suffer the natural consequences of making bad decisions, which in this context might well include the consequences of deciding not to be prepared to defend oneself. But there are of course those who cannot, or who cannot effectively defend themselves even if they are armed, either by virtue of their own inabilities or the force superiority of their assailant.

In Libertarian philosophy the distinction is, I think, that a person victimized by crime, no matter what the reason, is in fact a victim and is deserving of sympathy and "compensation" insofar as society's assistance in bringing his attacker to justice. This is not merely a matter of personal retribution but is also a matter of public safety in that a criminal willing to victimize one person is a danger to every person in the community and therefore it is in the rational best interests of the community to both assist in preventing criminal victimization and in providing succor and assistance to the victims of crimes, regardless of their self-defense capacity.

But on the other hand, no person should expect, as an entitlement, that someone else is obliged to provide for their safety or relief, as that fundamental burden always lies with the capable individual. Those who are incapable should be cared for by the community, again out of rational self interest, but the fundamental divide between socialism and Libertarianism is in who may command whom to perform acts on behalf of others without that person's freely-given consent? This fundamental principle applies to many areas of Libertarian thought including taxation and social convention and behavior, and the enforcement mechanisms are entirely different between socialism and Libertarianism.

What is immoral in Libertarianism is that any individual is involuntarily compelled to perform any labor or indeed any act at all that is not undertaken voluntarily and as the result of a contractual obligation between two or more parties. Thus, the notion of suing someone for NOT taking action to defend someone they have not accepted legal and financial responsibility for (like children and spouses) is anathema to Libertarians, as is the notion that any member of the community has any right or authority to lay claim to the labor or property of another absent a pre-existing contractual obligation.

So, when an individual chooses not to be armed for self defense that is absolutely his right and no one can gainsay or object to that decision, which is a sovereign one. On the other hand, should such an individual be victimized as a result of not being prepared for self defense that person has no claim upon anyone other than his attacker for compensation or assistance.

But this does NOT mean that members of the community will not, cannot or even should not come to the aid of anyone victimized by crime because crime, like wildfire and disease, is a common enemy of the entire community which must be prevented as a matter of rational self interest of each member of the community and the entire community collectively.

The prime distinction is whether or not the assistance rendered is given freely and voluntarily as a matter of rational self interest, charity, or altruism or whether the assistance is commanded by some authority against the will of those commanded to assist, whether it be physically, emotionally or financially.

The former is acceptable, the latter is not.

So yes, I have sympathy for this victim, and all crime victims, and I support giving them aid and assistance as acts of rational self interest, charity and altruism, just as I support individual and community efforts to bring the criminal to justice for the same reasons of rational self interest and public safety.

The proviso is that if this person was an advocate for or supported the involuntary disarming of others, rather than simply making a decision not to be armed that applies only to himself, then I would have zero sympathy for that individual and would deny that individual my aid, labor or property because such persons, by failing to respect the rights of others by supporting disarming them, seek to impose their version of social justice and necessity on others, without their consent, and to their detriment. In such a case the individual, in my opinion, should suffer the full consequences of his actions, inactions and political or social activities all on his own and without succor or assistance from anyone because he has removed himself from the community of rational individuals by presuming to tell them what they can and cannot do with respect to self defense.

Each individual has the sovereign right to decide how they will live their lives, what political ideals they will follow, and how they will treat others. But at the same time everyone else has the sovereign right to shun and reject association with those persons who engage in acts that the individuals of the community find unacceptable.

This is how Libertarians modify antisocial behavior. Not by demanding that the individual behave socially appropriately but by excluding and removing him from the enjoyment of social interaction and the use of common community property unless and until the person amends their behavior to bring it within acceptable community social norms.

Only when force or fraud are initiated by an antisocial individual is any other individual, or the community as a whole, entitled to use force to defend against such actions or use force to compel the individual to abide by his contractual obligations.

Otherwise, Libertarians simply ignore, shun and exclude antisocial elements from the significant benefits of community participation and trade.

[surreptitious57]

What is immoral in Libertarianism is that any individual is involuntarily compelled to perform any labor or indeed any
act at all that is not undertaken voluntarily and as the result of a contractual obligation between two or more parties

Now what happens when a libertarian is compelled by law to do something that they do not agree with? Do they comply with the law or do they
break it and accept the consequences of doing so? I shall give a specific example. You recently said no American citizen should have to pay any
more than fifteen per cent income tax. So do you think that it is perfectly justifiable in withholding any tax beyond that amount from the IRS?
And do you also not accept that in doing so the police would be less capable in fighting crime for they are directly funded by public taxation?

[laklak]

That was well said, Seth.

[Seth]

What is immoral in Libertarianism is that any individual is involuntarily compelled to perform any labor or indeed any
act at all that is not undertaken voluntarily and as the result of a contractual obligation between two or more parties

Now what happens when a libertarian is compelled by law to do something that they do not agree with? Do they comply with the law or do they
break it and accept the consequences of doing so? I shall give a specific example. You recently said no American citizen should have to pay any
more than fifteen per cent income tax. So do you think that it is perfectly justifiable in withholding any tax beyond that amount from the IRS?

In a Libertarian society there would be no income tax and no IRS and no law compelling anyone to give their money to the government against their will, period.

Government's only legitimate role in gathering funds for its operation is as a persuader. Government's duty is to propose projects that it would like funded by the community and persuade members of the community to voluntarily obligate themselves to paying for that project. If the community thinks that the project is worthwhile and worthy of the fruits of their labor, they will voluntarily agree to provide funds to make it happen. If they (or any of them) are not convinced of the benefits of the project or program, they are free to withhold their money as a way of directly approving or disapproving the plans government has for their money.

If the government is incapable of convincing enough people of the value of the plans it has to get it voluntarily funded, then government shouldn't be undertaking that plan at all.

And do you also not accept that in doing so the police would be less capable in fighting crime for they are directly funded by public taxation?

"A society will have precisely as much crime as it is willing to tolerate." My Father

Rational self interest adequately deals with things like police, fire and rescue functions of government. Libertarians are free to voluntarily contract with society to fund the necessary public safety functions of government. And they are free to decline to do so and provide for their own personal safety. However, if they do not voluntarily contribute to the operations of the police, then they are not entitled to utilize the services of the police. Pretty simple really.

If the community does not think that a full-time police force is warranted and economically sound, then the community can do its own policing, on an individual basis, without being dunned to support public employees. Or, as a matter of rational self interest members may choose to contractually obligate themselves to paying a fee each month or year to fund a police force, and they will then be bound by that contractual obligation.

But NO ONE can be forced to pay for any government function that they neither make use of nor enjoy benefits from against their will. The worst that happens is that they are denied access to the government programs and facilities paid for voluntarily by others. You don't want to contribute to the library or public pool, you don't get to enter the library or swim in the pool.

[Tero]

Multiple idiots had the "right to bear arms" as we have less control of this than driving a car or other dangerous activities

GROVE, OK, 11/14/15: A teenage girl is recovering in a hospital after she was shot by a 7-year-old boy playing "deer hunter" on Saturday, according to the Delaware County Sheriff's Office. Deputies were alerted to a shooting at a residence on East 310 Road near South 685 Road about 7:30 PM and found a 14-year-old girl wounded in the upper back. The shooter, who was visiting the family living at the home, had taken a .22-caliber rifle from a bedroom and said he was going to play "deer hunter," the Sheriff's Office reported. While playing, the gun accidentally discharged, striking the victim, according to a new release. The girl was taken to a hospital in Joplin, Missouri, and late Saturday underwent successful surgery, Capt. Gayle Wells said. "She is conscious, alert and doing well," he said. Adults were at home at the time of the shooting, the news release said. No charges were expected to be filed, the release said.

SEVIER CO., AR, 11/14/15: A 16-year-old boy died after he was accidentally shot by his 12-year-old brother Saturday in Sevier County, authorities said Monday. About noon Saturday, the two boys were shooting at crows near the Cossatot River, northwest of Lockesburg, when the younger brother accidentally shot his older sibling, Sevier County deputy Brian Hankins said. The teen was airlifted to Arkansas Children's Hospital in Little Rock where he died, Hankins said. Hankins said the shooting was "clearly an accident" and that the investigation is closed. No criminal charges have been filed. The DeQueen superintendent's office said the 16-year-old boy was a DeQueen High School student.
JOHNSTOWN, PA, 11/14/15: There was another shooting in Johnstown early Saturday morning and this one happened in the Hornerstown neighborhood. The Johnstown Police Detectives say that the shooting is "not" connected to the one in Franklin Borough. They say that one person shot himself in the leg outside the Elk's Club on Horners Street. The Police are saying that man is Rudolph Davis. They also say they arrested him because when they searched the apartment he was living in they found heroin, a gun, and cash. The Police say that apartment was Davis' cousin's, Tresean Wiggins, who the Police say admitted the heroin belonged to him and that he was selling it. Both men remain in the Cambria County Jail on one hundred thousand dollars bond.

YANKTON, SD, 11/14/15: A Yankton man who died while hunting on the Yankton Sioux Reservation is believed to have accidentally shot himself. Yankton Sioux Law Enforcement Police Chief Chris Saunsoci says the 54-year-old man was found unresponsive behind his truck Saturday morning by other hunters passing through. Those hunters attempted first aid but were unsuccessful, and the man was pronounced dead at the scene. Saunsoci says authorities believe the man accidentally fired his gun, and his death does not appear to be suspicious. He was not immediately identified.

thee is a bail bondsman story there too
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/0 ... AIL-CLXVII

[Seth]

Multiple idiots had the "right to bear arms" as we have less control of this than driving a car or other dangerous activities

A fine example of the classic fallacy of composition. Couldn't be more apt.

[Tero]

Not everything is Constitution. Thoughts outside constitutional rights are allowed.

It is proper to think of guns as dangerous.

[Jason]

I appreciated Obama calling for gun control in the face of this latest tragedy in his address an hour and a half ago.

[Seth]

Not everything is Constitution. Thoughts outside constitutional rights are allowed.

It is proper to think of guns as dangerous.

Of course it is, but the corollary question of greatest importance is "dangerous to whom?" And the answer is, for the vast majority of the 300 million guns in the US, "Dangerous to no one other than violent criminals, terrorists and despotic tyrants." And that is as it should be.

Your paranoid fear of guns doesn't get to affect my right to peaceably and prudently keep and bear arms to the least degree.

[Seth]

I appreciated Obama calling for gun control in the face of this latest tragedy in his address an hour and a half ago.

Me too, because every time he does he sells hundreds of thousands more guns in the US. Obama is the greatest firearms salesman that has ever existed, bar none!

[JimC]

Not everything is Constitution. Thoughts outside constitutional rights are allowed.

It is proper to think of guns as dangerous.

Of course it is, but the corollary question of greatest importance is "dangerous to whom?" And the answer is, for the vast majority of the 300 million guns in the US, "Dangerous to no one other than violent criminals, terrorists and despotic tyrants." And that is as it should be.

Your paranoid fear of guns doesn't get to affect my right to peaceably and prudently keep and bear arms to the least degree.

In Oz, they are mostly dangerous to rabbits...

[Hermit]

Not everything is Constitution. Thoughts outside constitutional rights are allowed.

It is proper to think of guns as dangerous.

Of course it is, but the corollary question of greatest importance is "dangerous to whom?" And the answer is, for the vast majority of the 300 million guns in the US, "Dangerous to no one other than violent criminals, terrorists and despotic tyrants." And that is as it should be.

Your paranoid fear of guns doesn't get to affect my right to peaceably and prudently keep and bear arms to the least degree.

In Oz, they are mostly dangerous to rabbits...

And empty beer cans. Don't forget the empty beer cans.