It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
scumbags get their comeuppance.

By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.

Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
Let people self-police.

http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj

Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
responsbility
A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred Goodwin,
the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.

By Aislinn Simpson
Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009

In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank bosses
to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".

The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's upmarket
Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a dark-coloured
Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.

Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed to have
been reported to police by a member of his household staff at 4.35am
on Wednesday morning.

Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name Moira
McLeod and the address bankbossesarecriminals@mail.com.

The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked this
morning.

"We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge
amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made
unemployed, destitute and homeless.

"This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.

"This is just the beginning."

Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give up any
of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped down
following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN Amro which
saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.

The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs and
"unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon Brown but
Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not warranted".

A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard outside
his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the stone villa were
clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and nearside rear passenger
window of the Mercedes.

There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.

A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.

“Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are appealing
for witnesses.”

It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal security
for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV monitoring of his
home.

An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
matter for police.

"There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is normal
practice for departing executives."

A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware of the
damage until she walked past the house.

"I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has been so
much publicity," she said.

"I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are running
very high in today's environment.

"Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always looking for
someone to blame."

Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally unnecessary -
absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."

On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
wrote:

> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> Let people self-police.

Thank God you're oppressed!

You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
wouldn't know what to do with it.

On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
>
> > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > Let people self-police.
>
> Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> wouldn't know what to do with it.

Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.

In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
(only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
that "protect the stupid".

Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.

On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
>
> > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > Let people self-police.
>
> Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> wouldn't know what to do with it.

Exactly, good luck to Freddy for screwing labour, he deserves his
pension for that alone.

Nkosi

On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > wrote:
>
> > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone> > > Let people self-police.
>
> > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.

He's not on his own I'm sure!

On 25 Mar, 13:41, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > wrote:
>
> > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone> > > Let people self-police.
>
> > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
> that "protect the stupid".
>
> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.

I notice you don't want mental health hospitals funded!

He says abolish laws but then he wants to fund the judiciary!

This guy thinks he has all the answers because he does too little
thinking.

"Nkosi"  wrote in message
news:f82b1efc-31ca-4fe8-b7e4-7d4c1e93a7b9@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
>
> > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > Let people self-police.
>
> Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> wouldn't know what to do with it.

> Exactly, good luck to Freddy for screwing labour, he deserves his
> pension for that alone.

Yeah, maybe the protesters could target those even more responsible for the
curent mess. Trouble is their security is better...

--
Andy

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
>>> Let people self-police.
>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>>
>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
> 
> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
> 
> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
> that "protect the stupid".
> 
> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.

Sounds like heaven.

On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> He's not on his own I'm sure!

No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
groups (just to name a few):
1) Tax collectors and dispensers
2) Police
3) Politicians
4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
5) Parasites
6) Idiots
7) Criminals
8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.

The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
you're #4 too.

On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> groups (just to name a few):
> 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> 2) Police
> 3) Politicians
> 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> 5) Parasites
> 6) Idiots
> 7) Criminals
> 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>
> The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> you're #4 too.

Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
resort to insults.

Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?

On Mar 25, 1:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:

> I notice you don't want mental health hospitals funded!

What's the matter? Unable to provide a cogent rebuttal so you resort
to implying I am crazy?

In any case you should be more polite if we are to do business
together. You are clearly making some attempt to follow me around
Usenet to attract my custom.

Of course, I would like to meet you to enquire about your services
available given that you are such an eager beaver. I presume this is
where you work/live?

http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=helpfulaccountant.jpg

> He says abolish laws but then he wants to fund the judiciary!

Obviously there needs to be some kind of peer review when one citizen
takes the law into his own hands. The review would be much more
streamlined than todays as the two key questions would be whether the
deed was morally justified and proportionate. There would be no legal
wrangling to go over.

> This guy thinks he has all the answers because he does too little
> thinking.

Well in that case it should be a simple matter to provide a cogent
rebuttal. Let's hear it, Mr. Accountant. Your ilk have always been
known for their towering intellect and imagination.

On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject  > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > > > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > > He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> > No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> > maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> > groups (just to name a few):
> > 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> > 2) Police
> > 3) Politicians
> > 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> > 5) Parasites
> > 6) Idiots
> > 7) Criminals
> > 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>
> > The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> > done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> > any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> > territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> > government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> > you're #4 too.
>
> Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> resort to insults.

I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
monolegalism to my little friend Mel.

> Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?

There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
appropriate and in proportion.

I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
(unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.

On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > > > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > > > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > > > > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > > > He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> > > No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> > > maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> > > groups (just to name a few):
> > > 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> > > 2) Police
> > > 3) Politicians
> > > 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> > > 5) Parasites
> > > 6) Idiots
> > > 7) Criminals
> > > 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>
> > > The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> > > done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> > > any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> > > territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> > > government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> > > you're #4 too.
>
> > Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> > resort to insults.
>
> I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> > Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> appropriate and in proportion.
>
> I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.

But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
other peoples property.

Why not condone lynching and have done with it.

On 25 Mar, 14:22, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > I notice you don't want mental health hospitals funded!
>
> What's the matter? Unable to provide a cogent rebuttal so you resort
> to implying I am crazy?
>
I have provided plenty of ideas. So who pays for treatment of mental
health?

> In any case you should be more polite if we are to do business
> together. You are clearly making some attempt to follow me around
> Usenet to attract my custom.
>
Where have I followed you around?

I imagine you have difficulty getting anybody willing to help you.

> Of course, I would like to meet you to enquire about your services
> available given that you are such an eager beaver. I presume this is
> where you work/live?
>
> http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=helpfulaccountant.jpg
>
That's where I live and work. But unfortunately I don't have any
desire to meet you.

> > He says abolish laws but then he wants to fund the judiciary!
>
> Obviously there needs to be some kind of peer review when one citizen
> takes the law into his own hands. The review would be much more
> streamlined than todays as the two key questions would be whether the
> deed was morally justified and proportionate. There would be no legal
> wrangling to go over.
>
What would happen in the case of bribery?

> > This guy thinks he has all the answers because he does too little
> > thinking.
>
> Well in that case it should be a simple matter to provide a cogent
> rebuttal. Let's hear it, Mr. Accountant. Your ilk have always been
> known for their towering intellect and imagination.

I have just explained one example of problems. Would there be any
codification or would it rely on case law from scratch? How would
anybody know if what they were doing was classed as "morally justified
and proportionate"?

It appears that you want to tear everything down and then construct
them again piecemeal. What would happen in the meantime?

What would happen with dangerous activities? Would people be able to
build anything and do anything on their property? What would happen
when a property catches fire? What would happen when businesses
produce food which is unhealthy and/or produced in unhealthy
conditions? How would you provide education? I can mention many
examples where you appear to see them as bureaucracy but it's just
common sense.

On 25 Mar, 14:38, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject  > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > > > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > > > > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > > > > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > > > > > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > > > > He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> > > > No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> > > > maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> > > > groups (just to name a few):
> > > > 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> > > > 2) Police
> > > > 3) Politicians
> > > > 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> > > > 5) Parasites
> > > > 6) Idiots
> > > > 7) Criminals
> > > > 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>
> > > > The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> > > > done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> > > > any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> > > > territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> > > > government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> > > > you're #4 too.
>
> > > Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> > > resort to insults.
>
> > I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> > insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> > monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> > > Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> > There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> > appropriate and in proportion.
>
> > I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> > (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>
> But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
> other peoples property.
>
> Why not condone lynching and have done with it.

Don't worry. He rants on usenet but I'm sure he's the kind of person
who people avoid.

On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject  > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > > > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > > > > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > > > > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > > > > > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > > > > He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> > > > No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> > > > maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> > > > groups (just to name a few):
> > > > 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> > > > 2) Police
> > > > 3) Politicians
> > > > 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> > > > 5) Parasites
> > > > 6) Idiots
> > > > 7) Criminals
> > > > 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>
> > > > The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> > > > done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> > > > any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> > > > territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> > > > government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> > > > you're #4 too.
>
> > > Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> > > resort to insults.
>
> > I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> > insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> > monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> > > Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> > There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> > appropriate and in proportion.
>
> > I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> > (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>
> But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
> other peoples property.
>
> Why not condone lynching and have done with it

A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
of.

I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
disproportionate. :)

On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > > On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > > > > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > > > > > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > > > > > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > > > > > > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > > > > > He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> > > > > No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> > > > > maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> > > > > groups (just to name a few):
> > > > > 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> > > > > 2) Police
> > > > > 3) Politicians
> > > > > 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> > > > > 5) Parasites
> > > > > 6) Idiots
> > > > > 7) Criminals
> > > > > 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>
> > > > > The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> > > > > done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> > > > > any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> > > > > territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> > > > > government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> > > > > you're #4 too.
>
> > > > Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> > > > resort to insults.
>
> > > I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> > > insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> > > monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> > > > Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> > > There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> > > appropriate and in proportion.
>
> > > I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> > > (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>
> > But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
> > other peoples property.
>
> > Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>
> A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
> Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
> of.
>
> I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
> disproportionate. :)

But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they wanted?

On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 14:22, Oppressed Subject  wrote:> On Mar 25, 1:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > I notice you don't want mental health hospitals funded!
>
> > What's the matter? Unable to provide a cogent rebuttal so you resort
> > to implying I am crazy?
>
> I have provided plenty of ideas. So who pays for treatment of mental
> health?

Relatives, charities, religious organisations, private donations.
Otherwise it is sink or swim.

> > In any case you should be more polite if we are to do business
> > together. You are clearly making some attempt to follow me around
> > Usenet to attract my custom.
>
> Where have I followed you around?
>
> I imagine you have difficulty getting anybody willing to help you.

You can stick to your imagination, and I shall stick to my reality.
All you see, my intellectual friend, is a part projection of my full
personality on Usenet.

> > Of course, I would like to meet you to enquire about your services
> > available given that you are such an eager beaver. I presume this is
> > where you work/live?
>
> >http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=helpfulaccountant.jpg
>
> That's where I live and work. But unfortunately I don't have any
> desire to meet you.

Well that is most unfortunate then. I had hoped we could do business
together. I always have use for an accountant of towering intellect
and fertile imagination. But in any case I am closer to you than you
think.

> > > He says abolish laws but then he wants to fund the judiciary!
>
> > Obviously there needs to be some kind of peer review when one citizen
> > takes the law into his own hands. The review would be much more
> > streamlined than todays as the two key questions would be whether the
> > deed was morally justified and proportionate. There would be no legal
> > wrangling to go over.
>
> What would happen in the case of bribery?

Entirely legal and permissible. If the result of bribery is suffering
on others, then those who suffered may seek redress by meting out
justice themselves.

So let's say a corporate official paid his employees doing safety
inspections of their goods to overlook certain anomalous results,
which caused injury to its customers. One customer may then take it
upon himself to hose down members of the board. Peer review would deem
that (1) justice was served.

If the bribing official's actions resulted in the death of others, he
would be labelled a killer and his actions would thus qualify him for
summary execution by any member of the public under the system of "Do
unto others." If the official's actions resulted in bodily harm to
others, members of the public could visit any kind of proportionate
injury upon him without fear of further reprisal. Killing the official
however, would be deemed as (2) excessive justice.

> > > This guy thinks he has all the answers because he does too little
> > > thinking.
>
> > Well in that case it should be a simple matter to provide a cogent
> > rebuttal. Let's hear it, Mr. Accountant. Your ilk have always been
> > known for their towering intellect and imagination.
>
> I have just explained one example of problems. Would there be any
> codification or would it rely on case law from scratch?

There would be no codification. It would rely on both case law and
wisdom of the judges/jury. The courtroom, prison and chopping block
will extend to life. So thieves once labelled as such would be open to
lawful theft from any member of the public, rapists would be open to
sexual assault by any member of the public and killers would be open
to summary execution by any member of the public.

> How would
> anybody know if what they were doing was classed as "morally justified
> and proportionate"?

The punishment being fitting to the crime.

> It appears that you want to tear everything down and then construct
> them again piecemeal. What would happen in the meantime?

Things may be reconstructed, but not as you envision it. As for what
happens in the meantime, you may be surprised to discover that human
society has historically survived without organised police forces or
codified law.

> What would happen with dangerous activities?

Fine as long as the only victim is yourself. Injure someone else, and
*anyone* else can injure you up to the same measure.

> Would people be able to
> build anything and do anything on their property?

There would be no building regs or H&S legislation. If your house sets
fire to your neighbour's on account of bad safety practice, then be
warned than after you rebuild your home your neighbour can wantonly
vandalise your property unless you have provided adequate
compensation.

> What would happen
> when a property catches fire?

See above.

> What would happen when businesses
> produce food which is unhealthy and/or produced in unhealthy
> conditions?

Injure your patrons, and they can injure you.

> How would you provide education?

Pay for it from parent to teacher. The same way we do now, except it
goes through the tax system and pays for all the useless
intermediaries like tax collectors, accountants and mandarins in the
process.

> I can mention many
> examples where you appear to see them as bureaucracy but it's just
> common sense.

No it is not. They are superfluous and serve no real need.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:d2f2036f-ff4f-4bea-ab2a-d91375f03ce9@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:

In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
(only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
that "protect the stupid".

Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.

-----------------------

And jewellers,  bank clerks and anyone else who has money and no large 
bunker and sophisticated defence system.


-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Maria"  wrote in message 
news:SMednWrClJDdqlfUnZ2dnUVZ8hILAAAA@bt.com...
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
>>>> Let people self-police.
>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>>>
>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>
>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>>
>> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
>> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
>> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
>> that "protect the stupid".
>>
>> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
>> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.
>
> Sounds like heaven.

Well,  until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs,  buys them 
sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an agricultural 
labourer tomorrow,  oh,  and your daughters will report for 'work' at what 
he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach puberty...

If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.

Welcome to the new feudalism...


-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:
> "Maria"  wrote in message 
> news:SMednWrClJDdqlfUnZ2dnUVZ8hILAAAA@bt.com...
>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
>>>>> Let people self-police.
>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>>>>
>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
>>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>>>
>>> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
>>> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
>>> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
>>> that "protect the stupid".
>>>
>>> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
>>> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.
>> Sounds like heaven.
> 
> Well,  until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs,  buys them 
> sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an agricultural 
> labourer tomorrow,  oh,  and your daughters will report for 'work' at what 
> he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach puberty...
> 
> If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.
> 
> Welcome to the new feudalism...
> 
> 
He said 'zero laws that protect the stupid' - I presume he meant the 
trivial law that has been brought in over the past 10-15 years, not the 
fundamental laws against murder, enslavement and extortion.
Perhaps he could clarify...

On Mar 25, 2:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > > > On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > > > > > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > > > > > > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > > > > > > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > > > > > > > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > > > > > > He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> > > > > > No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> > > > > > maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> > > > > > groups (just to name a few):
> > > > > > 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> > > > > > 2) Police
> > > > > > 3) Politicians
> > > > > > 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> > > > > > 5) Parasites
> > > > > > 6) Idiots
> > > > > > 7) Criminals
> > > > > > 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>
> > > > > > The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> > > > > > done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> > > > > > any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> > > > > > territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> > > > > > government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> > > > > > you're #4 too.
>
> > > > > Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> > > > > resort to insults.
>
> > > > I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> > > > insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> > > > monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> > > > > Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> > > > There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> > > > appropriate and in proportion.
>
> > > > I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> > > > (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>
> > > But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
> > > other peoples property.
>
> > > Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>
> > A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
> > Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
> > of.
>
> > I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
> > disproportionate. :)
>
> But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they wanted?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies have a
tendency to disassociate people from taking full responsibility for
cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking full responsibility for
their actions.

Also bear in mind that the board are more likely to exercise an
abundance of caution if they knew that they were all fully & jointly
liable for any debt sprees their company undertakes. All employees of
every company, also being liable for their company's excesses, would
effectively be the new whistleblowing regulators as it is in their
interests that the company not overstretch itself lest they too become
liable.

Such a system of self-policing is by far cheaper, more omnipresent,
more informed and more effective than external tax-funded regulation.

On Mar 25, 3:21 pm, Maria  wrote:
> William Black wrote:
> > "Maria"  wrote in message
> >news:SMednWrClJDdqlfUnZ2dnUVZ8hILAAAA@bt.com...
> >> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> >>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> >>>>> Let people self-police.
> >>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> >>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> >>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
> >>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> >>> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
> >>> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
> >>> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
> >>> that "protect the stupid".
>
> >>> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
> >>> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.
> >> Sounds like heaven.
>
> > Well,  until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs,  buys them
> > sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an agricultural
> > labourer tomorrow,  oh,  and your daughters will report for 'work' at what
> > he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach puberty...
>
> > If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.
>
> > Welcome to the new feudalism...
>
> He said 'zero laws that protect the stupid' - I presume he meant the
> trivial law that has been brought in over the past 10-15 years, not the
> fundamental laws against murder, enslavement and extortion.
> Perhaps he could clarify...

No! He made himself quite clear. he said:

"Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
everyone.
Let people self-police. "

"Maria"  wrote in message 
news:J6CdnYrnw9KX0VfUnZ2dnUVZ8t6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> William Black wrote:
>> "Maria"  wrote in message 
>> news:SMednWrClJDdqlfUnZ2dnUVZ8hILAAAA@bt.com...
>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm 
>>>>>> everyone.
>>>>>> Let people self-police.
>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>>>>>
>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
>>>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>>>>
>>>> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
>>>> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
>>>> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
>>>> that "protect the stupid".
>>>>
>>>> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
>>>> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.
>>> Sounds like heaven.
>>
>> Well,  until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs,  buys them 
>> sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an agricultural 
>> labourer tomorrow,  oh,  and your daughters will report for 'work' at 
>> what he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach puberty...
>>
>> If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.
>>
>> Welcome to the new feudalism...
>>
>>
> He said 'zero laws that protect the stupid' - I presume he meant the 
> trivial law that has been brought in over the past 10-15 years, not the 
> fundamental laws against murder, enslavement and extortion.
> Perhaps he could clarify...

No cops,    no officialdom, no money...

Just some sort of vestigial judicial system.

How's he going to protect you from murder,  rape,  robbery,  enslavement...

-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:6dbbbe54-82e8-47be-87f5-dce0d4d80afb@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies have a
tendency to disassociate people from taking full responsibility for
cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking full responsibility for
their actions.

-------------------------------

The only real responsibility in such a society is to make sure your henchmen 
always have adequate ammunition and women, and their armoured vehicles 
always have fuel...

Nothing else matters.

-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On 25 Mar, 15:07, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:44 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > On 25 Mar, 14:22, Oppressed Subject  wrote:> On Mar 25, 1:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > > I notice you don't want mental health hospitals funded!
>
> > > What's the matter? Unable to provide a cogent rebuttal so you resort
> > > to implying I am crazy?
>
> > I have provided plenty of ideas. So who pays for treatment of mental
> > health?
>
> Relatives, charities, religious organisations, private donations.
> Otherwise it is sink or swim.
>
A lot of people would sink.

> > > In any case you should be more polite if we are to do business
> > > together. You are clearly making some attempt to follow me around
> > > Usenet to attract my custom.
>
> > Where have I followed you around?
>
> > I imagine you have difficulty getting anybody willing to help you.
>
> You can stick to your imagination, and I shall stick to my reality.
> All you see, my intellectual friend, is a part projection of my full
> personality on Usenet.
>
> > > Of course, I would like to meet you to enquire about your services
> > > available given that you are such an eager beaver. I presume this is
> > > where you work/live?
>
> > >http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=helpfulaccountant.jpg
>
> > That's where I live and work. But unfortunately I don't have any
> > desire to meet you.
>
> Well that is most unfortunate then. I had hoped we could do business
> together. I always have use for an accountant of towering intellect
> and fertile imagination. But in any case I am closer to you than you
> think.
>
I haven't thought about how close you are but the further the better!

> > > > He says abolish laws but then he wants to fund the judiciary!
>
> > > Obviously there needs to be some kind of peer review when one citizen
> > > takes the law into his own hands. The review would be much more
> > > streamlined than todays as the two key questions would be whether the
> > > deed was morally justified and proportionate. There would be no legal
> > > wrangling to go over.
>
> > What would happen in the case of bribery?
>
> Entirely legal and permissible. If the result of bribery is suffering
> on others, then those who suffered may seek redress by meting out
> justice themselves.
>
So there's nothing wrong with the judiciary being bribed?

If somebody pees in your garden you are able to kill them?

> So let's say a corporate official paid his employees doing safety
> inspections of their goods to overlook certain anomalous results,
> which caused injury to its customers. One customer may then take it
> upon himself to hose down members of the board. Peer review would deem
> that (1) justice was served.
>
> If the bribing official's actions resulted in the death of others, he
> would be labelled a killer and his actions would thus qualify him for
> summary execution by any member of the public under the system of "Do
> unto others." If the official's actions resulted in bodily harm to
> others, members of the public could visit any kind of proportionate
> injury upon him without fear of further reprisal. Killing the official
> however, would be deemed as (2) excessive justice.
>
You ideal world seems to be the jungle. I suggest you go there and see
how you get treated in parts of Africa.

> > > > This guy thinks he has all the answers because he does too little
> > > > thinking.
>
> > > Well in that case it should be a simple matter to provide a cogent
> > > rebuttal. Let's hear it, Mr. Accountant. Your ilk have always been
> > > known for their towering intellect and imagination.
>
> > I have just explained one example of problems. Would there be any
> > codification or would it rely on case law from scratch?
>
> There would be no codification. It would rely on both case law and
> wisdom of the judges/jury. The courtroom, prison and chopping block
> will extend to life. So thieves once labelled as such would be open to
> lawful theft from any member of the public, rapists would be open to
> sexual assault by any member of the public and killers would be open
> to summary execution by any member of the public.
>
Law of the jungle again. Why are you living in the UK?

> > How would
> > anybody know if what they were doing was classed as "morally justified
> > and proportionate"?
>
> The punishment being fitting to the crime.
>
Who would decide?

> > It appears that you want to tear everything down and then construct
> > them again piecemeal. What would happen in the meantime?
>
> Things may be reconstructed, but not as you envision it. As for what
> happens in the meantime, you may be surprised to discover that human
> society has historically survived without organised police forces or
> codified law.
>
When?

> > What would happen with dangerous activities?
>
> Fine as long as the only victim is yourself. Injure someone else, and
> *anyone* else can injure you up to the same measure.
>
> > Would people be able to
> > build anything and do anything on their property?
>
> There would be no building regs or H&S legislation. If your house sets
> fire to your neighbour's on account of bad safety practice, then be
> warned than after you rebuild your home your neighbour can wantonly
> vandalise your property unless you have provided adequate
> compensation.
>
So having a rubbish tip on your property would mean other people could
have rubbish tips on their property? Playing loud music would mean you
could play loud music too?

Total stupidity.

> > What would happen
> > when a property catches fire?
>
> See above.
>
How would the fire get put out? Would everybody have their own fire
station attached to their property?

> > What would happen when businesses
> > produce food which is unhealthy and/or produced in unhealthy
> > conditions?
>
> Injure your patrons, and they can injure you.

That is preferable to people not getting injured?
>
> > How would you provide education?
>
> Pay for it from parent to teacher. The same way we do now, except it
> goes through the tax system and pays for all the useless
> intermediaries like tax collectors, accountants and mandarins in the
> process.
>
What if parents couldn't afford education? Would there be a large mass
of uneducated people who see it as reasonable to take what they want
because there's many of them?

> > I can mention many
> > examples where you appear to see them as bureaucracy but it's just
> > common sense.
>
> No it is not. They are superfluous and serve no real need.

You've shown that you have no idea of how society can progress. You
think it will be better if the powerful rule over the weak. Let me
guess: you don't have any friends?

On 25 Mar, 15:22, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote> > > > > > On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > > > > > > > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > > > > > > > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > > > > > > > > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > > > > > > > He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> > > > > > > No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> > > > > > > maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> > > > > > > groups (just to name a few):
> > > > > > > 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> > > > > > > 2) Police
> > > > > > > 3) Politicians
> > > > > > > 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> > > > > > > 5) Parasites
> > > > > > > 6) Idiots
> > > > > > > 7) Criminals
> > > > > > > 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>
> > > > > > > The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> > > > > > > done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> > > > > > > any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> > > > > > > territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> > > > > > > government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> > > > > > > you're #4 too.
>
> > > > > > Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> > > > > > resort to insults.
>
> > > > > I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> > > > > insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> > > > > monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> > > > > > Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> > > > > There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> > > > > appropriate and in proportion.
>
> > > > > I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> > > > > (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>
> > > > But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
> > > > other peoples property.
>
> > > > Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>
> > > A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
> > > Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
> > > of.
>
> > > I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
> > > disproportionate. :)
>
> > But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they wanted?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
> Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies have a
> tendency to disassociate people from taking full responsibility for
> cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking full responsibility for
> their actions.
>
> Also bear in mind that the board are more likely to exercise an
> abundance of caution if they knew that they were all fully & jointly
> liable for any debt sprees their company undertakes. All employees of
> every company, also being liable for their company's excesses, would
> effectively be the new whistleblowing regulators as it is in their
> interests that the company not overstretch itself lest they too become
> liable.
>
> Such a system of self-policing is by far cheaper, more omnipresent,
> more informed and more effective than external tax-funded regulation.

Could the board just take the money and disappear to another country?
There wouldn't be any way of getting them to return.

On Mar 25, 3:16 pm, "William Black" 
wrote:
> "Maria"  wrote in message
>
> news:SMednWrClJDdqlfUnZ2dnUVZ8hILAAAA@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Oppressed Subject wrote:
> >> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> >>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> >>>> Let people self-police.
> >>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> >>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> >>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> >> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> >> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
> >> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
> >> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
> >> that "protect the stupid".
>
> >> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
> >> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.
>
> > Sounds like heaven.
>
> Well,  until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs,  buys them
> sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an agricultural
> labourer tomorrow,  oh,  and your daughters will report for 'work' at what
> he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach puberty...

A rich guy with thugs for protection will be quite safe in a
legalistic society where even an old lady carrying pepper spray is
prohibited.

That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?

In such a society it would almost be mandatory to mind your own
business, be polite and nice to people lest something untoward happen
to you.

> If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.

And he will have his life forfeit for summary execution by any member
of the public.

> Welcome to the new feudalism...

This label is inappropriate.

On 25 Mar, 15:27, "William Black"  wrote:
> "Maria"  wrote in message
>
> news:J6CdnYrnw9KX0VfUnZ2dnUVZ8t6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
>
> > William Black wrote:
> >> "Maria"  wrote in message
> >>news:SMednWrClJDdqlfUnZ2dnUVZ8hILAAAA@bt.com...
> >>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
> >>>>>> everyone.
> >>>>>> Let people self-police.
> >>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> >>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> >>>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
> >>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> >>>> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
> >>>> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
> >>>> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
> >>>> that "protect the stupid".
>
> >>>> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
> >>>> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.
> >>> Sounds like heaven.
>
> >> Well,  until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs,  buys them
> >> sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an agricultural
> >> labourer tomorrow,  oh,  and your daughters will report for 'work' at
> >> what he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach puberty...
>
> >> If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.
>
> >> Welcome to the new feudalism...
>
> > He said 'zero laws that protect the stupid' - I presume he meant the
> > trivial law that has been brought in over the past 10-15 years, not the
> > fundamental laws against murder, enslavement and extortion.
> > Perhaps he could clarify...
>
> No cops,    no officialdom, no money...
>
> Just some sort of vestigial judicial system.
>
> How's he going to protect you from murder,  rape,  robbery,  enslavement...
>
He isn't. You are supposed to murder, rape, rob and enslave them in
return.

If you don't have the ability or willingness to do that they are free
to do it again.

On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
wrote:

> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?

Why buy it?

Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?

If I were you I'd give up for today!

On Mar 25, 3:36 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 15:22, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 2:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject  > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > > > > > > > > He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> > > > > > > > No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> > > > > > > > maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> > > > > > > > groups (just to name a few):
> > > > > > > > 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> > > > > > > > 2) Police
> > > > > > > > 3) Politicians
> > > > > > > > 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> > > > > > > > 5) Parasites
> > > > > > > > 6) Idiots
> > > > > > > > 7) Criminals
> > > > > > > > 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>
> > > > > > > > The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> > > > > > > > done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> > > > > > > > any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> > > > > > > > territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> > > > > > > > government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> > > > > > > > you're #4 too.
>
> > > > > > > Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> > > > > > > resort to insults.
>
> > > > > > I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> > > > > > insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> > > > > > monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> > > > > > > Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> > > > > > There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> > > > > > appropriate and in proportion.
>
> > > > > > I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> > > > > > (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>
> > > > > But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
> > > > > other peoples property.
>
> > > > > Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>
> > > > A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
> > > > Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
> > > > of.
>
> > > > I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
> > > > disproportionate. :)
>
> > > But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they wanted?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
> > Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies have a
> > tendency to disassociate people from taking full responsibility for
> > cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking full responsibility for
> > their actions.
>
> > Also bear in mind that the board are more likely to exercise an
> > abundance of caution if they knew that they were all fully & jointly
> > liable for any debt sprees their company undertakes. All employees of
> > every company, also being liable for their company's excesses, would
> > effectively be the new whistleblowing regulators as it is in their
> > interests that the company not overstretch itself lest they too become
> > liable.
>
> > Such a system of self-policing is by far cheaper, more omnipresent,
> > more informed and more effective than external tax-funded regulation.
>
> Could the board just take the money and disappear to another country?

Which they could also do in our present system.

> There wouldn't be any way of getting them to return.

Grudges have a way of following people around.

On 25 Mar, 15:44, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:36 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Mar, 15:22, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 2:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > > On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > > > > > > > > > He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> > > > > > > > > No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> > > > > > > > > maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> > > > > > > > > groups (just to name a few):
> > > > > > > > > 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> > > > > > > > > 2) Police
> > > > > > > > > 3) Politicians
> > > > > > > > > 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> > > > > > > > > 5) Parasites
> > > > > > > > > 6) Idiots
> > > > > > > > > 7) Criminals
> > > > > > > > > 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>
> > > > > > > > > The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> > > > > > > > > done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> > > > > > > > > any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> > > > > > > > > territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> > > > > > > > > government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> > > > > > > > > you're #4 too.
>
> > > > > > > > Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> > > > > > > > resort to insults.
>
> > > > > > > I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> > > > > > > insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> > > > > > > monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> > > > > > > > Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> > > > > > > There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> > > > > > > appropriate and in proportion.
>
> > > > > > > I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> > > > > > > (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>
> > > > > > But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
> > > > > > other peoples property.
>
> > > > > > Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>
> > > > > A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
> > > > > Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
> > > > > of.
>
> > > > > I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
> > > > > disproportionate. :)
>
> > > > But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they wanted?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
> > > Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies have a
> > > tendency to disassociate people from taking full responsibility for
> > > cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking full responsibility for
> > > their actions.
>
> > > Also bear in mind that the board are more likely to exercise an
> > > abundance of caution if they knew that they were all fully & jointly
> > > liable for any debt sprees their company undertakes. All employees of
> > > every company, also being liable for their company's excesses, would
> > > effectively be the new whistleblowing regulators as it is in their
> > > interests that the company not overstretch itself lest they too become
> > > liable.
>
> > > Such a system of self-policing is by far cheaper, more omnipresent,
> > > more informed and more effective than external tax-funded regulation.
>
> > Could the board just take the money and disappear to another country?
>
> Which they could also do in our present system.
>
> > There wouldn't be any way of getting them to return.
>
> Grudges have a way of following people around.

Presently there is a system of law and international cooperation.

Your system appears to think that it's down to the individual to mete
out justice.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
>>> everyone. Let people self-police.
>> 
>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>> 
>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
> 
> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
> 
> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
> that "protect the stupid".
> 
> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.

Yes - and under such a system you would be one of the first to go!!

Ret.

Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
> 
>> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
>> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
>> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
>> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
>> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
> 
> Why buy it?
> 
> Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
> 
> If I were you I'd give up for today!
> 

What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African 
countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did 
we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole 
things instead of paying?
That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now 
based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get 
away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never 
know.

Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:21 pm, Maria  wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>> "Maria"  wrote in message
>>> news:SMednWrClJDdqlfUnZ2dnUVZ8hILAAAA@bt.com...
>>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
>>>>>>> Let people self-police.
>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
>>>>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>>>>> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
>>>>> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
>>>>> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
>>>>> that "protect the stupid".
>>>>> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
>>>>> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.
>>>> Sounds like heaven.
>>> Well,  until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs,  buys them
>>> sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an agricultural
>>> labourer tomorrow,  oh,  and your daughters will report for 'work' at what
>>> he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach puberty...
>>> If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.
>>> Welcome to the new feudalism...
>> He said 'zero laws that protect the stupid' - I presume he meant the
>> trivial law that has been brought in over the past 10-15 years, not the
>> fundamental laws against murder, enslavement and extortion.
>> Perhaps he could clarify...
> 
> No! He made himself quite clear. he said:
> 
> "Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
> everyone.
> Let people self-police. "
> 
> 
Ok my mistake.
But even so, people were self-policing for milennia.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>> 
>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject 
>>>> wrote: 
>> 
>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>>> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing 
>>>>>>> wrote: 
>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
>>>>>>>>> everyone. Let people self-police.
>> 
>>>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>> 
>>>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have
>>>>>>>> freedom and wouldn't know what to do with it.
>> 
>>>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>> 
>>>>>> He's not on his own I'm sure!
>> 
>>>>> No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as
>>>>> well as maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the
>>>>> following groups (just to name a few):
>>>>> 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
>>>>> 2) Police
>>>>> 3) Politicians
>>>>> 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
>>>>> 5) Parasites
>>>>> 6) Idiots
>>>>> 7) Criminals
>>>>> 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database
>>>>> admins. 
>> 
>>>>> The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you
>>>>> have done nothing but undertake character assassinations without
>>>>> putting any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall
>>>>> into the territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical
>>>>> of this government's apparatchiks to do character assassination,
>>>>> chances are you're #4 too.
>> 
>>>> Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
>>>> resort to insults.
>> 
>>> I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
>>> insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
>>> monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>> 
>>>> Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>> 
>>> There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
>>> appropriate and in proportion.
>> 
>>> I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
>>> (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>> 
>> But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
>> other peoples property.
>> 
>> Why not condone lynching and have done with it
> 
> A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
> Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
> of.
> 
> I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
> disproportionate. :)

And which has been meted out by vigilantes of the sort that you propose!

Ret.

On 25 Mar, 16:20, Maria  wrote:
> Mel Rowing wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > wrote:
>
> >> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
> >> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
> >> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
> >> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
> >> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
>
> > Why buy it?
>
> > Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
>
> > If I were you I'd give up for today!
>
> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?

Mass murder and and large amounts of crime.

"A survey for the period 1998-2000 compiled by the United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and
murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita."

> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
> we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
> things instead of paying?

Of course they do.

"South Africa also has a bad record for car hijackings when compared
to industrialised countries largely associated with the lower rate of
car ownership. One South African insurance company, Hollard Insurance,
no longer insures Volkswagen Citi Golfs as they are one of the most
frequently hijacked vehicles in South Africa. In some areas there are
road signs that indicate a high car-jack zone.
A recent new trend in South Africa is for thieves to enter restaurants
and rob the patrons eating there. In July 2008, the Restaurant
Association of South Africa (RASA) was forced to raise the security
classification of the capital's restaurants to "caution areas". The
RASA said since January, 15 people have been killed in 687 attacks
carried out on RASA members' businesses."

> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
> based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
> away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
> know.

What are you suggesting?

On 25 Mar, 16:21, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> >> On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> >>>> On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing 
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject
> >>>>>>>>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
> >>>>>>>>> everyone. Let people self-police.
>
> >>>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> >>>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have
> >>>>>>>> freedom and wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> >>>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> >>>>>> He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> >>>>> No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as
> >>>>> well as maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the
> >>>>> following groups (just to name a few):
> >>>>> 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> >>>>> 2) Police
> >>>>> 3) Politicians
> >>>>> 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> >>>>> 5) Parasites
> >>>>> 6) Idiots
> >>>>> 7) Criminals
> >>>>> 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database
> >>>>> admins.
>
> >>>>> The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you
> >>>>> have done nothing but undertake character assassinations without
> >>>>> putting any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall
> >>>>> into the territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical
> >>>>> of this government's apparatchiks to do character assassination,
> >>>>> chances are you're #4 too.
>
> >>>> Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> >>>> resort to insults.
>
> >>> I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> >>> insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> >>> monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> >>>> Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> >>> There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> >>> appropriate and in proportion.
>
> >>> I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> >>> (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>
> >> But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
> >> other peoples property.
>
> >> Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>
> > A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
> > Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
> > of.
>
> > I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
> > disproportionate. :)
>
> And which has been meted out by vigilantes of the sort that you propose!
>
> Ret.

Luckily you have to have two people to form a political party in this
country!

PeterSaxton wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 16:20, Maria  wrote:
>> Mel Rowing wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>> wrote:
>>>> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
>>>> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
>>>> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
>>>> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
>>>> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
>>> Why buy it?
>>> Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
>>> If I were you I'd give up for today!
>> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
>> countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
> 
> Mass murder and and large amounts of crime.
> 
> "A survey for the period 1998-2000 compiled by the United Nations
> Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and
> murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita."
> 
>> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
>> we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
>> things instead of paying?
> 
> Of course they do.
> 
> "South Africa also has a bad record for car hijackings when compared
> to industrialised countries largely associated with the lower rate of
> car ownership. One South African insurance company, Hollard Insurance,
> no longer insures Volkswagen Citi Golfs as they are one of the most
> frequently hijacked vehicles in South Africa. In some areas there are
> road signs that indicate a high car-jack zone.
> A recent new trend in South Africa is for thieves to enter restaurants
> and rob the patrons eating there. In July 2008, the Restaurant
> Association of South Africa (RASA) was forced to raise the security
> classification of the capital's restaurants to "caution areas". The
> RASA said since January, 15 people have been killed in 687 attacks
> carried out on RASA members' businesses."

I said Africa, not South Africa. As in traditional societies, not modern 
ones which have gone to pieces.

> 
>> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
>> based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
>> away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
>> know.
> 
> What are you suggesting?
> 

That people can and should be trusted. Is that so horrific an idea?

Maria wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> On 25 Mar, 16:20, Maria  wrote:
>>> Mel Rowing wrote:
>>>> On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
>>>>> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
>>>>> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
>>>>> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
>>>>> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
>>>> Why buy it?
>>>> Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
>>>> If I were you I'd give up for today!
>>> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
>>> countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
>>
>> Mass murder and and large amounts of crime.
>>
>> "A survey for the period 1998-2000 compiled by the United Nations
>> Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and
>> murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita."
>>
>>> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
>>> we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
>>> things instead of paying?
>>
>> Of course they do.
>>
>> "South Africa also has a bad record for car hijackings when compared
>> to industrialised countries largely associated with the lower rate of
>> car ownership. One South African insurance company, Hollard Insurance,
>> no longer insures Volkswagen Citi Golfs as they are one of the most
>> frequently hijacked vehicles in South Africa. In some areas there are
>> road signs that indicate a high car-jack zone.
>> A recent new trend in South Africa is for thieves to enter restaurants
>> and rob the patrons eating there. In July 2008, the Restaurant
>> Association of South Africa (RASA) was forced to raise the security
>> classification of the capital's restaurants to "caution areas". The
>> RASA said since January, 15 people have been killed in 687 attacks
>> carried out on RASA members' businesses."
> 
> I said Africa, not South Africa. As in traditional societies, not modern 
> ones which have gone to pieces.
> 
>>
>>> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
>>> based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
>>> away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
>>> know.
>>
>> What are you suggesting?
>>
> 
> That people can and should be trusted. Is that so horrific an idea?

*and* that perhaps it is the lack of trust that causes societies in the 
condition of South Africa to arise in the first place.

PeterSaxton wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 15:44, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 3:36 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 25 Mar, 15:22, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>>>> On Mar 25, 2:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let people self-police.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>> He's not on his own I'm sure!
>>>>>>>>>> No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
>>>>>>>>>> maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
>>>>>>>>>> groups (just to name a few):
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Police
>>>>>>>>>> 3) Politicians
>>>>>>>>>> 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
>>>>>>>>>> 5) Parasites
>>>>>>>>>> 6) Idiots
>>>>>>>>>> 7) Criminals
>>>>>>>>>> 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>>>>>>>>>> The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
>>>>>>>>>> done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
>>>>>>>>>> any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
>>>>>>>>>> territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
>>>>>>>>>> government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
>>>>>>>>>> you're #4 too.
>>>>>>>>> Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
>>>>>>>>> resort to insults.
>>>>>>>> I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
>>>>>>>> insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
>>>>>>>> monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>>>>>>>>> Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>>>>>>>> There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
>>>>>>>> appropriate and in proportion.
>>>>>>>> I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
>>>>>>>> (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>>>>>>> But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
>>>>>>> other peoples property.
>>>>>>> Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>>>>>> A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
>>>>>> Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
>>>>>> of.
>>>>>> I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
>>>>>> disproportionate. :)
>>>>> But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they wanted?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
>>>> Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies have a
>>>> tendency to disassociate people from taking full responsibility for
>>>> cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking full responsibility for
>>>> their actions.
>>>> Also bear in mind that the board are more likely to exercise an
>>>> abundance of caution if they knew that they were all fully & jointly
>>>> liable for any debt sprees their company undertakes. All employees of
>>>> every company, also being liable for their company's excesses, would
>>>> effectively be the new whistleblowing regulators as it is in their
>>>> interests that the company not overstretch itself lest they too become
>>>> liable.
>>>> Such a system of self-policing is by far cheaper, more omnipresent,
>>>> more informed and more effective than external tax-funded regulation.
>>> Could the board just take the money and disappear to another country?
>> Which they could also do in our present system.
>>
>>> There wouldn't be any way of getting them to return.
>> Grudges have a way of following people around.
> 
> Presently there is a system of law and international cooperation.
> 
> Your system appears to think that it's down to the individual to mete
> out justice.
> 

It used to be down to the community, which would whatever was in it's 
best interest, and that community was in the best position to know what 
was in it's best interest. Justice and policing has been centralised and 
IMHO, to our detriment.

William Black wrote:
> "Maria"  wrote in message 
> news:J6CdnYrnw9KX0VfUnZ2dnUVZ8t6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> William Black wrote:
>>> "Maria"  wrote in message 
>>> news:SMednWrClJDdqlfUnZ2dnUVZ8hILAAAA@bt.com...
>>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm 
>>>>>>> everyone.
>>>>>>> Let people self-police.
>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
>>>>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
>>>>> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
>>>>> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
>>>>> that "protect the stupid".
>>>>>
>>>>> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
>>>>> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.
>>>> Sounds like heaven.
>>> Well,  until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs,  buys them 
>>> sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an agricultural 
>>> labourer tomorrow,  oh,  and your daughters will report for 'work' at 
>>> what he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach puberty...
>>>
>>> If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.
>>>
>>> Welcome to the new feudalism...
>>>
>>>
>> He said 'zero laws that protect the stupid' - I presume he meant the 
>> trivial law that has been brought in over the past 10-15 years, not the 
>> fundamental laws against murder, enslavement and extortion.
>> Perhaps he could clarify...
> 
> No cops,    no officialdom, no money...
> 
> Just some sort of vestigial judicial system.
> 
> How's he going to protect you from murder,  rape,  robbery,  enslavement...
> 

How were we protected before?

On 25 Mar, 16:41, Maria  wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 25 Mar, 16:20, Maria  wrote:
> >> Mel Rowing wrote:
> >>> On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
> >>>> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
> >>>> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
> >>>> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
> >>>> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
> >>> Why buy it?
> >>> Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
> >>> If I were you I'd give up for today!
> >> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> >> countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
>
> > Mass murder and and large amounts of crime.
>
> > "A survey for the period 1998-2000 compiled by the United Nations
> > Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and
> > murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita."
>
> >> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
> >> we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
> >> things instead of paying?
>
> > Of course they do.
>
> > "South Africa also has a bad record for car hijackings when compared
> > to industrialised countries largely associated with the lower rate of
> > car ownership. One South African insurance company, Hollard Insurance,
> > no longer insures Volkswagen Citi Golfs as they are one of the most
> > frequently hijacked vehicles in South Africa. In some areas there are
> > road signs that indicate a high car-jack zone.
> > A recent new trend in South Africa is for thieves to enter restaurants
> > and rob the patrons eating there. In July 2008, the Restaurant
> > Association of South Africa (RASA) was forced to raise the security
> > classification of the capital's restaurants to "caution areas". The
> > RASA said since January, 15 people have been killed in 687 attacks
> > carried out on RASA members' businesses."
>
> I said Africa, not South Africa. As in traditional societies, not modern
> ones which have gone to pieces.
>
Sudan 2 million dead
Rwanda 1 million dead

Both of the above are part of Africa. Are they traditional enough for
you?
>
>
> >> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
> >> based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
> >> away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
> >> know.
>
> > What are you suggesting?
>
> That people can and should be trusted. Is that so horrific an idea?

In what way should this idea manifest itself?

On 25 Mar, 16:43, Maria  wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 25 Mar, 15:44, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> >> On Mar 25, 3:36 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> >>> On 25 Mar, 15:22, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 25, 2:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> >>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let people self-police.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
> >>>>>>>>>>> He's not on his own I'm sure!
> >>>>>>>>>> No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> >>>>>>>>>> maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> >>>>>>>>>> groups (just to name a few):
> >>>>>>>>>> 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> >>>>>>>>>> 2) Police
> >>>>>>>>>> 3) Politicians
> >>>>>>>>>> 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> >>>>>>>>>> 5) Parasites
> >>>>>>>>>> 6) Idiots
> >>>>>>>>>> 7) Criminals
> >>>>>>>>>> 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
> >>>>>>>>>> The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> >>>>>>>>>> done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> >>>>>>>>>> any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> >>>>>>>>>> territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> >>>>>>>>>> government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> >>>>>>>>>> you're #4 too.
> >>>>>>>>> Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> >>>>>>>>> resort to insults.
> >>>>>>>> I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> >>>>>>>> insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> >>>>>>>> monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
> >>>>>>>>> Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
> >>>>>>>> There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> >>>>>>>> appropriate and in proportion.
> >>>>>>>> I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> >>>>>>>> (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
> >>>>>>> But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
> >>>>>>> other peoples property.
> >>>>>>> Why not condone lynching and have done with it
> >>>>>> A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
> >>>>>> Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
> >>>>>> of.
> >>>>>> I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
> >>>>>> disproportionate. :)
> >>>>> But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they wanted?- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
> >>>> Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies have a
> >>>> tendency to disassociate people from taking full responsibility for
> >>>> cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking full responsibility for
> >>>> their actions.
> >>>> Also bear in mind that the board are more likely to exercise an
> >>>> abundance of caution if they knew that they were all fully & jointly
> >>>> liable for any debt sprees their company undertakes. All employees of
> >>>> every company, also being liable for their company's excesses, would
> >>>> effectively be the new whistleblowing regulators as it is in their
> >>>> interests that the company not overstretch itself lest they too become
> >>>> liable.
> >>>> Such a system of self-policing is by far cheaper, more omnipresent,
> >>>> more informed and more effective than external tax-funded regulation.
> >>> Could the board just take the money and disappear to another country?
> >> Which they could also do in our present system.
>
> >>> There wouldn't be any way of getting them to return.
> >> Grudges have a way of following people around.
>
> > Presently there is a system of law and international cooperation.
>
> > Your system appears to think that it's down to the individual to mete
> > out justice.
>
> It used to be down to the community, which would whatever was in it's
> best interest, and that community was in the best position to know what
> was in it's best interest. Justice and policing has been centralised and
> IMHO, to our detriment.

When was this? I can't think of any time when the "community" was in
charge.

On Mar 25, 4:04 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 15:44, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 3:36 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Mar, 15:22, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 2:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > > > On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> > > > > > > > > > No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
> > > > > > > > > > maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
> > > > > > > > > > groups (just to name a few):
> > > > > > > > > > 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> > > > > > > > > > 2) Police
> > > > > > > > > > 3) Politicians
> > > > > > > > > > 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> > > > > > > > > > 5) Parasites
> > > > > > > > > > 6) Idiots
> > > > > > > > > > 7) Criminals
> > > > > > > > > > 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
> > > > > > > > > > done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
> > > > > > > > > > any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
> > > > > > > > > > territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
> > > > > > > > > > government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> > > > > > > > > > you're #4 too.
>
> > > > > > > > > Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> > > > > > > > > resort to insults.
>
> > > > > > > > I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> > > > > > > > insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> > > > > > > > monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> > > > > > > > > Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> > > > > > > > There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> > > > > > > > appropriate and in proportion.
>
> > > > > > > > I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> > > > > > > > (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>
> > > > > > > But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
> > > > > > > other peoples property.
>
> > > > > > > Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>
> > > > > > A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
> > > > > > Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
> > > > > > of.
>
> > > > > > I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
> > > > > > disproportionate. :)
>
> > > > > But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they wanted?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
> > > > Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies have a
> > > > tendency to disassociate people from taking full responsibility for
> > > > cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking full responsibility for
> > > > their actions.
>
> > > > Also bear in mind that the board are more likely to exercise an
> > > > abundance of caution if they knew that they were all fully & jointly
> > > > liable for any debt sprees their company undertakes. All employees of
> > > > every company, also being liable for their company's excesses, would
> > > > effectively be the new whistleblowing regulators as it is in their
> > > > interests that the company not overstretch itself lest they too become
> > > > liable.
>
> > > > Such a system of self-policing is by far cheaper, more omnipresent,
> > > > more informed and more effective than external tax-funded regulation.
>
> > > Could the board just take the money and disappear to another country?
>
> > Which they could also do in our present system.
>
> > > There wouldn't be any way of getting them to return.
>
> > Grudges have a way of following people around.
>
> Presently there is a system of law and international cooperation.
>
> Your system appears to think that it's down to the individual to mete
> out justice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

While the government of this system would have no jurisdiction over
matters involving the grievance of individual citizen(s), groups of
aggrieved citizens may decide to unite together temporarily to take
down someone who has wronged them.

On 25 Mar, 16:51, Maria  wrote:
> William Black wrote:
> > "Maria"  wrote in message
> >news:J6CdnYrnw9KX0VfUnZ2dnUVZ8t6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> >> William Black wrote:
> >>> "Maria"  wrote in message
> >>>news:SMednWrClJDdqlfUnZ2dnUVZ8hILAAAA@bt.com...
> >>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
> >>>>>>> everyone.
> >>>>>>> Let people self-police.
> >>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> >>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> >>>>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
> >>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> >>>>> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
> >>>>> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
> >>>>> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
> >>>>> that "protect the stupid".
>
> >>>>> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
> >>>>> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.
> >>>> Sounds like heaven.
> >>> Well,  until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs,  buys them
> >>> sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an agricultural
> >>> labourer tomorrow,  oh,  and your daughters will report for 'work' at
> >>> what he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach puberty...
>
> >>> If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.
>
> >>> Welcome to the new feudalism...
>
> >> He said 'zero laws that protect the stupid' - I presume he meant the
> >> trivial law that has been brought in over the past 10-15 years, not the
> >> fundamental laws against murder, enslavement and extortion.
> >> Perhaps he could clarify...
>
> > No cops,    no officialdom, no money...
>
> > Just some sort of vestigial judicial system.
>
> > How's he going to protect you from murder,  rape,  robbery,  enslavement...
>
> How were we protected before?

I think before people knew each other but it's easier for people to
act antisocial nowadays. We have also have more people from cultures
how have a different view of crime. Previously, schools encouraged
discipline but they don't bother nowadays. Police don't seem to care
so much about fighting crime.

I don't think the answer is to ark back to the middle ages or the law
of the jungle. I am in favour of a return to strong and efficient
leadership rather than the promotion of ambitious incompetents.

On Mar 25, 3:38 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:

> He isn't. You are supposed to murder, rape, rob and enslave them in
> return.
>
> If you don't have the ability

You would have a damn sight more "ability" to mete out justice given
that anyone can walk into a weapons shop and buy weapons. A lot more
than our present disarmed society where even pepper spray will land
you in trouble.

> or willingness to do that they are free
> to do it again.

There would be more willingness to mete out justice under such a
system because:
1) People can't delegate responsibility for ensuring justice to a
third party (i.e. the police)
2) People would be empowered to mete out justice
3) People won't be paralysed by myriad laws into inaction
4) The going rule would be simple and clear to understand: do evil to
someone else, and everyone else is entitled to do evil back to you.

On Mar 25, 5:13 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 16:51, Maria  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > William Black wrote:
> > > "Maria"  wrote in message
> > >news:J6CdnYrnw9KX0VfUnZ2dnUVZ8t6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> > >> William Black wrote:
> > >>> "Maria"  wrote in message
> > >>>news:SMednWrClJDdqlfUnZ2dnUVZ8hILAAAA@bt.com...
> > >>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > >>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > >>>>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
> > >>>>>>> everyone.
> > >>>>>>> Let people self-police.
> > >>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > >>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
> > >>>>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
> > >>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > >>>>> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
> > >>>>> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
> > >>>>> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
> > >>>>> that "protect the stupid".
>
> > >>>>> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots> > >>>>> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.
> > >>>> Sounds like heaven.
> > >>> Well,  until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs,  buys them
> > >>> sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an agricultural
> > >>> labourer tomorrow,  oh,  and your daughters will report for 'work' at
> > >>> what he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach puberty...
>
> > >>> If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.
>
> > >>> Welcome to the new feudalism...
>
> > >> He said 'zero laws that protect the stupid' - I presume he meant the
> > >> trivial law that has been brought in over the past 10-15 years, not the
> > >> fundamental laws against murder, enslavement and extortion.
> > >> Perhaps he could clarify...
>
> > > No cops,    no officialdom, no money...
>
> > > Just some sort of vestigial judicial system.
>
> > > How's he going to protect you from murder,  rape,  robbery,  enslavement...
>
> > How were we protected before?
>
> I think before people knew each other but it's easier for people to
> act antisocial nowadays. We have also have more people from cultures
> how have a different view of crime. Previously, schools encouraged
> discipline but they don't bother nowadays. Police don't seem to care
> so much about fighting crime.
>
> I don't think the answer is to ark back to the middle ages or the law
> of the jungle. I am in favour of a return to strong and efficient
> leadership rather than the promotion of ambitious incompetents.

The law of the jungle is the ONLY way for humans as biological
entities to evolve and progress.

For example, what do you think it means to the collective human
genepool when benefit spongers end up having more children than hard-
up working class families?

On Mar 25, 3:41 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
>
> > That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
> > personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
> > out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
> > light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
> > ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
>
> Why buy it?
>
> Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
>
> If I were you I'd give up for today!

Then as a thief anyone can steal his possessions in return.

On 25 Mar, 13:16, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> scumbags get their comeuppance.
>
> By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
> and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
>
> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> Let people self-police.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj
>
> Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
> responsbility
> A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
> responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred Goodwin,
> the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.
>
> By Aislinn Simpson
> Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009
>
> In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank bosses
> to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".
>
> The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's upmarket
> Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a dark-coloured
> Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.
>
> Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed to have
> been reported to police by a member of his household staff at 4.35am
> on Wednesday morning.
>
> Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name Moira
> McLeod and the address bankbossesarecrimin...@mail.com.
>
> The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked this
> morning.
>
> "We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge
> amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made
> unemployed, destitute and homeless.
>
> "This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.
>
> "This is just the beginning."
>
> Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give up any
> of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped down
> following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN Amro which
> saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.
>
> The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs and
> "unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon Brown but
> Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not warranted".
>
> A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard outside
> his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the stone villa were
> clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and nearside rear passenger
> window of the Mercedes.
>
> There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.
>
> A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
> attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.
>
> “Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are appealing
> for witnesses.”
>
> It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal security
> for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV monitoring of his
> home.
>
> An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
> matter for police.
>
> "There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is normal
> practice for departing executives."
>
> A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware of the
> damage until she walked past the house.
>
> "I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has been so
> much publicity," she said.
>
> "I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are running
> very high in today's environment.
>
> "Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always looking for
> someone to blame."
>
> Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally unnecessary -
> absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."

Jacqui Smith would agree with the actions of these people.  In the
court of public opinion, Fred The Shred, Tony Blair and a lot of other
people who apparently ARE above the law, are still sponging on this
society.  I do not support violent acts that can injure, but when I
heard one of Fred's neighbours say on the news "they shouldn't have
damaged his property", my thoughts went to the people who have lost
their properties because of crooks like him.  As for the Mercedes - he
could buy a new one every day and still live like a King.  So
politicians beware - you're always threatening us and cracking down on
us and finding ever more imaginitive ways to fine us - what about
justice for all?  The people have spoken.  In the absence of police
action - the law of the jungle ensues.  Let's hope parliament wakes up
to the dangers they are courting through inaction.

Turk182

On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote:

> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
> we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
> things instead of paying?

I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
land you in jail.

> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
> based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
> away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
> know.

It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we can
always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then lament
when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod can't. They
are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be), omnipresent and
they aren't all powerful.

If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it is
they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the police,
wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is long gone.
People should not be afraid to do the right thing and sadly this is
what has happened in legalistic societies.

On 25 Mar, 17:25, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:41 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > wrote:
>
> > > That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
> > > personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
> > > out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
> > > light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
> > > ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
>
> > Why buy it?
>
> > Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
>
> > If I were you I'd give up for today!
>
> Then as a thief anyone can steal his possessions in return.

And that's the kind of society you would like to see?

On 25 Mar, 17:29, Turk182  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 13:16, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
>
>
> > It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> > vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> > that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> > fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> > people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> > doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> > innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> > scumbags get their comeuppance.
>
> > By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> > substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> > and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> > moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
> > and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> > upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> > justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
>
> > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > Let people self-police.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj
>
> > Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
> > responsbility
> > A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
> > responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred Goodwin,
> > the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.
>
> > By Aislinn Simpson
> > Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009
>
> > In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank bosses
> > to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".
>
> > The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's upmarket
> > Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a dark-coloured
> > Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.
>
> > Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed to have
> > been reported to police by a member of his household staff at 4.35am
> > on Wednesday morning.
>
> > Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name Moira
> > McLeod and the address bankbossesarecrimin...@mail.com.
>
> > The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked this
> > morning.
>
> > "We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge
> > amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made
> > unemployed, destitute and homeless.
>
> > "This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.
>
> > "This is just the beginning."
>
> > Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give up any
> > of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped down
> > following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN Amro which
> > saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.
>
> > The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs and
> > "unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon Brown but
> > Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not warranted".
>
> > A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard outside
> > his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the stone villa were
> > clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and nearside rear passenger
> > window of the Mercedes.
>
> > There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.
>
> > A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
> > attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.
>
> > “Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are appealing
> > for witnesses.”
>
> > It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal security
> > for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV monitoring of his
> > home.
>
> > An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
> > matter for police.
>
> > "There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is normal
> > practice for departing executives."
>
> > A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware of the
> > damage until she walked past the house.
>
> > "I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has been so
> > much publicity," she said.
>
> > "I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are running
> > very high in today's environment.
>
> > "Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always looking for
> > someone to blame."
>
> > Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally unnecessary -
> > absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."
>
> Jacqui Smith would agree with the actions of these people.  In the
> court of public opinion, Fred The Shred, Tony Blair and a lot of other
> people who apparently ARE above the law, are still sponging on this
> society.  I do not support violent acts that can injure, but when I
> heard one of Fred's neighbours say on the news "they shouldn't have
> damaged his property", my thoughts went to the people who have lost
> their properties because of crooks like him.  As for the Mercedes - he
> could buy a new one every day and still live like a King.  So
> politicians beware - you're always threatening us and cracking down on
> us and finding ever more imaginitive ways to fine us - what about
> justice for all?  The people have spoken.  In the absence of police
> action - the law of the jungle ensues.  Let's hope parliament wakes up
> to the dangers they are courting through inaction.
>
> Turk182

Jacqui Smith? Not Harriet Harman?

On Mar 25, 4:41 pm, Maria  wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 25 Mar, 16:20, Maria  wrote:
> >> Mel Rowing wrote:
> >>> On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
> >>>> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
> >>>> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
> >>>> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
> >>>> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
> >>> Why buy it?
> >>> Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
> >>> If I were you I'd give up for today!
> >> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> >> countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
>
> > Mass murder and and large amounts of crime.
>
> > "A survey for the period 1998-2000 compiled by the United Nations
> > Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and
> > murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita."
>
> >> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
> >> we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
> >> things instead of paying?
>
> > Of course they do.
>
> > "South Africa also has a bad record for car hijackings when compared
> > to industrialised countries largely associated with the lower rate of
> > car ownership. One South African insurance company, Hollard Insurance,
> > no longer insures Volkswagen Citi Golfs as they are one of the most
> > frequently hijacked vehicles in South Africa. In some areas there are
> > road signs that indicate a high car-jack zone.
> > A recent new trend in South Africa is for thieves to enter restaurants
> > and rob the patrons eating there. In July 2008, the Restaurant
> > Association of South Africa (RASA) was forced to raise the security
> > classification of the capital's restaurants to "caution areas". The
> > RASA said since January, 15 people have been killed in 687 attacks
> > carried out on RASA members' businesses."
>
> I said Africa, not South Africa. As in traditional societies, not modern
> ones which have gone to pieces.

> >> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
> >> based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
> >> away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
> >> know.
>
> > What are you suggesting?
>
> That people can and should be trusted. Is that so horrific an idea?

Mr. Accountant probably needs novel concepts to be dripfed to him.
Anything more and his imagination starts getting stretched.

On Mar 25, 4:36 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 16:20, Maria  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mel Rowing wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
> > >> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
> > >> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
> > >> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
> > >> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
>
> > > Why buy it?
>
> > > Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
>
> > > If I were you I'd give up for today!
>
> > What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> > countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
>
> Mass murder and and large amounts of crime.
>
> "A survey for the period 1998-2000 compiled by the United Nations
> Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and
> murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita."

I think you would not be able to disagree that:
1) A woman facing a rapist with a handgun is a lot more likely to
prevent being raped than if she is not even allowed to carry pepper
spray.
2) You are more likely to fend off a carjacking if you had a
submachinegun than if you didn't.

> > Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
> > we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
> > things instead of paying?
>
> Of course they do.
>
> "South Africa also has a bad record for car hijackings when compared
> to industrialised countries largely associated with the lower rate of
> car ownership. One South African insurance company, Hollard Insurance,
> no longer insures Volkswagen Citi Golfs as they are one of the most
> frequently hijacked vehicles in South Africa. In some areas there are
> road signs that indicate a high car-jack zone.
> A recent new trend in South Africa is for thieves to enter restaurants
> and rob the patrons eating there. In July 2008, the Restaurant
> Association of South Africa (RASA) was forced to raise the security
> classification of the capital's restaurants to "caution areas". The
> RASA said since January, 15 people have been killed in 687 attacks
> carried out on RASA members' businesses."
>
> > That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
> > based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
> > away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
> > know.
>
> What are you suggesting?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote:
>
> > What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> > countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
> > Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
> > we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
> > things instead of paying?
>
> I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
> answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
> pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
> view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
> in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
> everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
> police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
> land you in jail.
>
> > That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
> > based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
> > away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
> > know.
>
> It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we can
> always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then lament
> when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod can't. They
> are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be), omnipresent and
> they aren't all powerful.
>
> If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
> intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it is
> they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the police,
> wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is long gone.
> People should not be afraid to do the right thing and sadly this is
> what has happened in legalistic societies.

Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use reasonable
force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable force against a
mugger. You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a mugger
then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You may argue
about this but this is what you have said many times. There's no rule
of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job that
people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I don't think
you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible idea.

On 25 Mar, 17:37, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:41 pm, Maria  wrote:
>
>
>
> > PeterSaxton wrote:
> > > On 25 Mar, 16:20, Maria  wrote:
> > >> Mel Rowing wrote:
> > >>> On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
> > >>>> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
> > >>>> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
> > >>>> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
> > >>>> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
> > >>> Why buy it?
> > >>> Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
> > >>> If I were you I'd give up for today!
> > >> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> > >> countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
>
> > > Mass murder and and large amounts of crime.
>
> > > "A survey for the period 1998-2000 compiled by the United Nations
> > > Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and
> > > murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita."
>
> > >> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
> > >> we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
> > >> things instead of paying?
>
> > > Of course they do.
>
> > > "South Africa also has a bad record for car hijackings when compared
> > > to industrialised countries largely associated with the lower rate of
> > > car ownership. One South African insurance company, Hollard Insurance> > > no longer insures Volkswagen Citi Golfs as they are one of the most
> > > frequently hijacked vehicles in South Africa. In some areas there are
> > > road signs that indicate a high car-jack zone.
> > > A recent new trend in South Africa is for thieves to enter restaurants
> > > and rob the patrons eating there. In July 2008, the Restaurant
> > > Association of South Africa (RASA) was forced to raise the security
> > > classification of the capital's restaurants to "caution areas". The
> > > RASA said since January, 15 people have been killed in 687 attacks
> > > carried out on RASA members' businesses."
>
> > I said Africa, not South Africa. As in traditional societies, not modern
> > ones which have gone to pieces.
> > >> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
> > >> based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
> > >> away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
> > >> know.
>
> > > What are you suggesting?
>
> > That people can and should be trusted. Is that so horrific an idea?
>
> Mr. Accountant probably needs novel concepts to be dripfed to him.
> Anything more and his imagination starts getting stretched.

You have not come up with anything logical. You are only capable of
abuse. This shows how you have no understanding - eg. the majority of
the population would be denied education. They wouldn't be able to
read and write.

Can you explain how you would put into practice this idea that people
can and should be trusted?

On Mar 25, 5:01 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 16:41, Maria  wrote:
>
>
>
> > PeterSaxton wrote:
> > > On 25 Mar, 16:20, Maria  wrote:
> > >> Mel Rowing wrote:
> > >>> On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
> > >>>> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
> > >>>> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
> > >>>> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
> > >>>> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
> > >>> Why buy it?
> > >>> Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
> > >>> If I were you I'd give up for today!
> > >> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> > >> countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
>
> > > Mass murder and and large amounts of crime.
>
> > > "A survey for the period 1998-2000 compiled by the United Nations
> > > Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and
> > > murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita."
>
> > >> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
> > >> we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
> > >> things instead of paying?
>
> > > Of course they do.
>
> > > "South Africa also has a bad record for car hijackings when compared
> > > to industrialised countries largely associated with the lower rate of
> > > car ownership. One South African insurance company, Hollard Insurance> > > no longer insures Volkswagen Citi Golfs as they are one of the most
> > > frequently hijacked vehicles in South Africa. In some areas there are
> > > road signs that indicate a high car-jack zone.
> > > A recent new trend in South Africa is for thieves to enter restaurants
> > > and rob the patrons eating there. In July 2008, the Restaurant
> > > Association of South Africa (RASA) was forced to raise the security
> > > classification of the capital's restaurants to "caution areas". The
> > > RASA said since January, 15 people have been killed in 687 attacks
> > > carried out on RASA members' businesses."
>
> > I said Africa, not South Africa. As in traditional societies, not modern
> > ones which have gone to pieces.
>
> Sudan 2 million dead
> Rwanda 1 million dead
>
> Both of the above are part of Africa. Are they traditional enough for
> you?

Moron. The examples you provided are exactly what happens when all the
guns are on one side, which is exactly what is happening in the UK
where the government is monopolising arms to its agents (armed forces
& police).

Thank you anyway for proving my point by being such a bumbling idiot.

>
>
> > >> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
> > >> based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
> > >> away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
> > >> know.
>
> > > What are you suggesting?
>
> > That people can and should be trusted. Is that so horrific an idea?
>
> In what way should this idea manifest itself?

For starters by breaking a monopoly of empowering tools by the
government.

On 25 Mar, 17:38, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:36 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Mar, 16:20, Maria  wrote:
>
> > > Mel Rowing wrote:
> > > > On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
> > > >> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
> > > >> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
> > > >> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
> > > >> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
>
> > > > Why buy it?
>
> > > > Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
>
> > > > If I were you I'd give up for today!
>
> > > What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> > > countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
>
> > Mass murder and and large amounts of crime.
>
> > "A survey for the period 1998-2000 compiled by the United Nations
> > Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and
> > murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita."
>
> I think you would not be able to disagree that:
> 1) A woman facing a rapist with a handgun is a lot more likely to
> prevent being raped than if she is not even allowed to carry pepper
> spray.

People should carry handguns?

> 2) You are more likely to fend off a carjacking if you had a
> submachinegun than if you didn't.
>
Are you suggesting that people should ride in their cars with a
submachine gun?

Is this an example of people trusting others?

Maria, is this what you meant by trusting others? Everybody carrying
guns?

On Mar 25, 5:01 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 16:41, Maria  wrote:
>
>
>
> > PeterSaxton wrote:
> > > On 25 Mar, 16:20, Maria  wrote:
> > >> Mel Rowing wrote:
> > >>> On Mar 25, 3:37 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
> > >>>> personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
> > >>>> out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
> > >>>> light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
> > >>>> ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?
> > >>> Why buy it?
> > >>> Wouldn't he be free to break into the store and steal it?
> > >>> If I were you I'd give up for today!
> > >> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> > >> countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
>
> > > Mass murder and and large amounts of crime.
>
> > > "A survey for the period 1998-2000 compiled by the United Nations
> > > Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and
> > > murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita."
>
> > >> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
> > >> we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
> > >> things instead of paying?
>
> > > Of course they do.
>
> > > "South Africa also has a bad record for car hijackings when compared
> > > to industrialised countries largely associated with the lower rate of
> > > car ownership. One South African insurance company, Hollard Insurance,
> > > no longer insures Volkswagen Citi Golfs as they are one of the most
> > > frequently hijacked vehicles in South Africa. In some areas there are
> > > road signs that indicate a high car-jack zone.
> > > A recent new trend in South Africa is for thieves to enter restaurants
> > > and rob the patrons eating there. In July 2008, the Restaurant
> > > Association of South Africa (RASA) was forced to raise the security
> > > classification of the capital's restaurants to "caution areas". The
> > > RASA said since January, 15 people have been killed in 687 attacks
> > > carried out on RASA members' businesses."
>
> > I said Africa, not South Africa. As in traditional societies, not modern
> > ones which have gone to pieces.
>
> Sudan 2 million dead
> Rwanda 1 million dead
>
> Both of the above are part of Africa. Are they traditional enough for
> you?

Moron. The examples you provided are exactly what happens when all the
guns are on one side, which is exactly what is happening in the UK
where the government is monopolising arms to its agents (armed forces
& police).

Thank you anyway for proving my point by being such a bumbling idiot.

>
>
> > >> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
> > >> based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
> > >> away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
> > >> know.
>
> > > What are you suggesting?
>
> > That people can and should be trusted. Is that so horrific an idea?
>
> In what way should this idea manifest itself?

For starters by breaking a monopoly of empowering tools by the
government.

On Mar 25, 5:40 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote:
>
> > > What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> > > countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
> > > Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
> > > we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
> > > things instead of paying?
>
> > I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
> > answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
> > pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
> > view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
> > in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
> > everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
> > police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
> > land you in jail.
>
> > > That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
> > > based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
> > > away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
> > > know.
>
> > It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we can
> > always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then lament
> > when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod can't. They
> > are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be), omnipresent and
> > they aren't all powerful.
>
> > If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
> > intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it is
> > they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the police,
> > wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is long gone.
> > People should not be afraid to do the right thing and sadly this is
> > what has happened in legalistic societies.
>
> Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use reasonable
> force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable force against a
> mugger.

It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed or
if his weapon is visible, be prepared to use it if you try to
intervene. So yes shooting him is reasonable force.

> You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
> person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a mugger
> then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You may argue
> about this but this is what you have said many times.

Then shoot the mugger, drop your weapon and let the courts rule that
your intervention was proportionate. You won't be a walking corpse
until the courts say so if you aren't an immediate threat.

> There's no rule
> of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job that
> people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I don't think
> you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible idea.

I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my mind, am
I not?

"Maria"  wrote in message 
news:7LCdneKGNZVr_VfUnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@bt.com...
> William Black wrote:
>> "Maria"  wrote in message 
>> news:J6CdnYrnw9KX0VfUnZ2dnUVZ8t6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>> "Maria"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:SMednWrClJDdqlfUnZ2dnUVZ8hILAAAA@bt.com...
>>>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm 
>>>>>>>> everyone.
>>>>>>>> Let people self-police.
>>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
>>>>>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In which case, you should have no objection to turning the UK into an
>>>>>> almost tax free (only military & judiciary are tax-funded), monolegal
>>>>>> (only law is "Do unto others") system with zero welfare and zero laws
>>>>>> that "protect the stupid".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Under such a system, Darwin will ruthlessly select against idiots,
>>>>>> parasites, mandarins, troublemakers and crooks.
>>>>> Sounds like heaven.
>>>> Well,  until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs,  buys 
>>>> them sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an 
>>>> agricultural labourer tomorrow,  oh,  and your daughters will report 
>>>> for 'work' at what he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach 
>>>> puberty...
>>>>
>>>> If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the new feudalism...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> He said 'zero laws that protect the stupid' - I presume he meant the 
>>> trivial law that has been brought in over the past 10-15 years, not the 
>>> fundamental laws against murder, enslavement and extortion.
>>> Perhaps he could clarify...
>>
>> No cops,    no officialdom, no money...
>>
>> Just some sort of vestigial judicial system.
>>
>> How's he going to protect you from murder,  rape,  robbery, 
>> enslavement...
>>
>
> How were we protected before?

These days we have the police.

Way back when...

You rented land and grew food.

As rent for that land you worked the land belonging to your landlord,  who 
you usually referred to as 'the lord of the manor'.

He protected you,  but you couldn't leave or they'd bore a red hot iron 
through your tongue and bring you back to the farm.

He also acted as judge and jury in any legal cases,  including ones 
involving himself.

If there was a war with the 'lord of the manor' next door they gave you a 
pointed stick.

Lords got armour so your pointed stick could only hurt people like you,  not 
lords.

The lords killed people until they got bored with it.

The lord with the least people left lost.


-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"PeterSaxton"  wrote in message 
news:7873fed9-28c2-472c-89ce-fa469191c152@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

> When was this? I can't think of any time when the "community" was in
> charge.
>

Some time in the distant Celtic twilight I think...

-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:edc8d9e7-7c70-43f8-b8d1-3de83173ad86@v28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

While the government of this system would have no jurisdiction over
matters involving the grievance of individual citizen(s), groups of
aggrieved citizens may decide to unite together temporarily to take
down someone who has wronged them.

-------------------

Or even band together to oppress people...

-- 
William Black

Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:f14b3dfa-a402-48a5-b1ce-56258a79c35d@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

> Well, until the rich guy down the road hires a load of thugs, buys them
> sophisticated weapons and tells you to start work as an agricultural
> labourer tomorrow, oh, and your daughters will report for 'work' at what
> he now calls 'his castle' as soon as they reach puberty...

A rich guy with thugs for protection will be quite safe in a
legalistic society where even an old lady carrying pepper spray is
prohibited.

That said, how long do you think an unpopular rich guy with his own
personal army will last in a society where anyone with justice to mete
out can walk into a store and buy a .50cal sniper rifle with a passive
light amplification scope and armour piercing Zirconium-incendiary
ammunition or a few bricks of PE4, no questions asked?

---------------------

Why buy it?

Why not just shoot the shopkeeper and steal it?


> If you attempt to leave his employ you will be shot.

And he will have his life forfeit for summary execution by any member
of the public.

------------------------------

I suggest you make enquires into the life and times of the Percy family in 
medieval Northumberland.

> Welcome to the new feudalism...

This label is inappropriate.

--------------------------------

It's bloody appropriate.

-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Maria"  wrote in message 
news:u76dnSpvqKVKxFfUnZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> What happened before we had enforceable law?

When would that have been?

-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On 25 Mar, 17:56, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 5:40 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote:
>
> > > > What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in African
> > > > countries where there are few laws and even fewer 'policemen'?
> > > > Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule? How did
> > > > we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people just stole
> > > > things instead of paying?
>
> > > I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
> > > answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
> > > pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
> > > view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
> > > in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
> > > everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
> > > police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
> > > land you in jail.
>
> > > > That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all now
> > > > based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we will get
> > > > away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever built I'll never
> > > > know.
>
> > > It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we can
> > > always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then lament
> > > when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod can't. They
> > > are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be), omnipresent and
> > > they aren't all powerful.
>
> > > If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
> > > intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it is
> > > they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the police,
> > > wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is long gone.
> > > People should not be afraid to do the right thing and sadly this is
> > > what has happened in legalistic societies.
>
> > Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use reasonable
> > force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable force against a
> > mugger.
>
> It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed or
> if his weapon is visible, be prepared to use it if you try to
> intervene. So yes shooting him is reasonable force.
>
" It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed!"
That is not a reasonable statement.

> > You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
> > person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a mugger
> > then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You may argue
> > about this but this is what you have said many times.
>
> Then shoot the mugger, drop your weapon and let the courts rule that
> your intervention was proportionate. You won't be a walking corpse
> until the courts say so if you aren't an immediate threat.
>
Another unreasonable comment.

> > There's no rule
> > of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job that
> > people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I don't think
> > you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible idea.
>
> I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my mind, am
> I not?

As long as you are happy for people to avoid you, sure.

We seem to be witnessing the birth of a new political party.

Welcome to the Maria Oppressed Subject Party (MOSP).

They want to get back to the idea that people should trust each other
- but everybody should carry guns just in case!

This new order should be based on the "traditional" African countries
such as Rwanda and Sudan. A bit of genocide never hurt anyone!

They face an uphill struggle getting elected but at least they don't
appear to be hindered by the thought process!

Be warned, if you don't vote for them they will call you very bad
names.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> scumbags get their comeuppance.
> 
> By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
> and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
> 
> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> Let people self-police.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj
> 
> Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
> responsbility
> A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
> responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred Goodwin,
> the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.
> 
> By Aislinn Simpson
> Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009
> 
> In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank bosses
> to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".
> 
> The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's upmarket
> Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a dark-coloured
> Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.
> 
> Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed to have
> been reported to police by a member of his household staff at 4.35am
> on Wednesday morning.
> 
> Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name Moira
> McLeod and the address bankbossesarecriminals@mail.com.
> 
> The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked this
> morning.
> 
> "We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge
> amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made
> unemployed, destitute and homeless.
> 
> "This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.
> 
> "This is just the beginning."
> 
> Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give up any
> of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped down
> following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN Amro which
> saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.
> 
> The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs and
> "unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon Brown but
> Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not warranted".
> 
> A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard outside
> his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the stone villa were
> clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and nearside rear passenger
> window of the Mercedes.
> 
> There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.
> 
> A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
> attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.
> 
> “Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are appealing
> for witnesses.”
> 
> It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal security
> for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV monitoring of his
> home.
> 
> An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
> matter for police.
> 
> "There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is normal
> practice for departing executives."
> 
> A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware of the
> damage until she walked past the house.
> 
> "I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has been so
> much publicity," she said.
> 
> "I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are running
> very high in today's environment.
> 
> "Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always looking for
> someone to blame."
> 
> Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally unnecessary -
> absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."


nice to see plod in attendence to what is basically a broken window,
wonder why he wasn't just given a crime number and/or told its a civil
matter.

or told he'll have to wait two weeks for anyone to come round.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Oppressed Subject
 wrote:

>It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
>vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
>that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
>fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
>people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
>doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
>innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
>scumbags get their comeuppance.
>
>By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
>substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
>and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
>moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
>and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
>upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
>justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.

They failed, miserably.  Petty disorganised attacks like this only
serve one purpose, to increase his security and enable him to live
longer and spend his pension.  A few pieces of glass and a small
repair to a Mercedes is affordable every single day of the week to a
twat on a pension of 2000 quid a day.

In the absence of the government doing something constructive and
slinging the money grabbing cunt in an offshore jail without a trial
many people, particularly those that have been royally fucked by the
banks,  would consider that a far more appropriate response would have
seen him and Mrs Goodwin (in case there is a widows pension provision)
being permanently removed from the gene pool.


--

On 25 Mar, 23:43, Mike  wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Oppressed Subject
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> >vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> >that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> >fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> >people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> >doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> >innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> >scumbags get their comeuppance.
>
> >By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> >substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> >and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> >moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
> >and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> >upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> >justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
>
> They failed, miserably.  Petty disorganised attacks like this only
> serve one purpose, to increase his security and enable him to live
> longer and spend his pension.  A few pieces of glass and a small
> repair to a Mercedes is affordable every single day of the week to a
> twat on a pension of 2000 quid a day.
>
> In the absence of the government doing something constructive and
> slinging the money grabbing cunt in an offshore jail without a trial
> many people, particularly those that have been royally fucked by the
> banks,  would consider that a far more appropriate response would have
> seen him and Mrs Goodwin (in case there is a widows pension provision)
> being permanently removed from the gene pool.
>
Are these serious comments or is it a send up?

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 25, 5:40 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>> On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote:
>>
>>>> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in
>>>> African countries where there are few laws and even fewer
>>>> 'policemen'?
>>>> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule?
>>>> How did we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people
>>>> just stole things instead of paying?
>>
>>> I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
>>> answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
>>> pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
>>> view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
>>> in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
>>> everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
>>> police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
>>> land you in jail.
>>
>>>> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all
>>>> now based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we
>>>> will get away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever
>>>> built I'll never know.
>>
>>> It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we
>>> can always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then
>>> lament when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod
>>> can't. They are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be),
>>> omnipresent and they aren't all powerful.
>>
>>> If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
>>> intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it
>>> is they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the
>>> police, wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is
>>> long gone. People should not be afraid to do the right thing and
>>> sadly this is what has happened in legalistic societies.
>>
>> Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use reasonable
>> force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable force against a
>> mugger.
>
> It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed or
> if his weapon is visible, be prepared to use it if you try to
> intervene. So yes shooting him is reasonable force.
>
>> You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
>> person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a
>> mugger then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You may
>> argue about this but this is what you have said many times.
>
> Then shoot the mugger, drop your weapon and let the courts rule that
> your intervention was proportionate. You won't be a walking corpse
> until the courts say so if you aren't an immediate threat.
>
>> There's no rule
>> of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job that
>> people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I don't think
>> you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible idea.
>
> I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my mind, am
> I not?

You are indeed - and we are entitled to point out that your views are not 
only extreme, but also utterly stupid and moronic. They would not work in a 
modern society and 'civilisation' would cease to exist. Shoot outs would 
become common and thousands of wholly innocent people would end up dead. 
There would be no public services because no-one would be prepared to pay 
for them. The country would descend into total chaos within no time at all, 
populated by roaming gangs of armed thugs shooting anyone who got in their 
way and the vulnerable in our society would go to the wall. You are indeed a 
very silly person.

Ret.

On 26 Mar, 08:19, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:

> > I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my mind, am
> > I not?
>
> You are indeed - and we are entitled to point out that your views are not
> only extreme, but also utterly stupid and moronic. They would not work in a
> modern society and 'civilisation' would cease to exist. Shoot outs would
> become common and thousands of wholly innocent people would end up dead.
> There would be no public services because no-one would be prepared to pay
> for them. The country would descend into total chaos within no time at all,
> populated by roaming gangs of armed thugs shooting anyone who got in their
> way and the vulnerable in our society would go to the wall. You are indeed a
> very silly person.
>
> Ret.

And he should go to his room.

On Mar 26, 8:19 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 5:40 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> >> On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote:
>
> >>>> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in
> >>>> African countries where there are few laws and even fewer
> >>>> 'policemen'?
> >>>> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule?
> >>>> How did we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people
> >>>> just stole things instead of paying?
>
> >>> I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
> >>> answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
> >>> pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
> >>> view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
> >>> in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
> >>> everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
> >>> police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
> >>> land you in jail.
>
> >>>> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all
> >>>> now based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we
> >>>> will get away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever
> >>>> built I'll never know.
>
> >>> It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we
> >>> can always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then
> >>> lament when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod
> >>> can't. They are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be),
> >>> omnipresent and they aren't all powerful.
>
> >>> If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
> >>> intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it
> >>> is they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the
> >>> police, wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is
> >>> long gone. People should not be afraid to do the right thing and
> >>> sadly this is what has happened in legalistic societies.
>
> >> Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use reasonable
> >> force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable force against a
> >> mugger.
>
> > It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed or
> > if his weapon is visible, be prepared to use it if you try to
> > intervene. So yes shooting him is reasonable force.
>
> >> You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
> >> person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a
> >> mugger then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You may
> >> argue about this but this is what you have said many times.
>
> > Then shoot the mugger, drop your weapon and let the courts rule that
> > your intervention was proportionate. You won't be a walking corpse
> > until the courts say so if you aren't an immediate threat.
>
> >> There's no rule
> >> of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job that
> >> people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I don't think
> >> you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible idea.
>
> > I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my mind, am
> > I not?
>
> You are indeed - and we are entitled to point out that your views are not
> only extreme, but also utterly stupid and moronic. They would not work in a
> modern society and 'civilisation' would cease to exist. Shoot outs would
> become common and thousands of wholly innocent people would end up dead.

Typical scaremongering by our neighbourhood plod to get us to
surrender more powers to a government bent on consolidating and
centralising its power. You are a well conditioned and brainwashed
mouthpiece.

The High Seas are probably the closest analogue to a lawless region
and apart from the occasional bit of piracy, it is not wholesale
violence as you paint it out to be. In fact it would be even less if
civilian cargo ships were allowed to arm themselves.

In contrast, just about every incident of mass massacres in history
have happened when one side either had all the guns (e.g. Hitler
taking guns away from Jews after coming into power) or there was a
disproportionate disparity in strength, both of which we are seeing
happening in "civilised" countries today such as the UK.

Decentralising power from government is only a good thing.

> There would be no public services because no-one would be prepared to pay
> for them.

People will pay for things they need. This has always been the case
and no amount of your scare mongering will change that. A tax funded
system pays for things the mandarins want.

> The country would descend into total chaos within no time at all,
> populated by roaming gangs of armed thugs shooting anyone who got in their
> way and the vulnerable in our society would go to the wall. You are indeed a
> very silly person.

All the substance of your post can be summarised as speculative fear
mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
braindead mouthpiece.

On 26 Mar, 10:03, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 26, 8:19 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 5:40 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> > >> On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject  wrote> > >>> On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote:
>
> > >>>> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in
> > >>>> African countries where there are few laws and even fewer
> > >>>> 'policemen'?
> > >>>> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule?
> > >>>> How did we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people
> > >>>> just stole things instead of paying?
>
> > >>> I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
> > >>> answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
> > >>> pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
> > >>> view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
> > >>> in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
> > >>> everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
> > >>> police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
> > >>> land you in jail.
>
> > >>>> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all
> > >>>> now based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we
> > >>>> will get away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever
> > >>>> built I'll never know.
>
> > >>> It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we
> > >>> can always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then
> > >>> lament when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod
> > >>> can't. They are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be),
> > >>> omnipresent and they aren't all powerful.
>
> > >>> If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
> > >>> intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it
> > >>> is they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the
> > >>> police, wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is
> > >>> long gone. People should not be afraid to do the right thing and
> > >>> sadly this is what has happened in legalistic societies.
>
> > >> Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use reasonable
> > >> force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable force against a
> > >> mugger.
>
> > > It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed or
> > > if his weapon is visible, be prepared to use it if you try to
> > > intervene. So yes shooting him is reasonable force.
>
> > >> You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
> > >> person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a
> > >> mugger then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You may
> > >> argue about this but this is what you have said many times.
>
> > > Then shoot the mugger, drop your weapon and let the courts rule that
> > > your intervention was proportionate. You won't be a walking corpse
> > > until the courts say so if you aren't an immediate threat.
>
> > >> There's no rule
> > >> of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job that
> > >> people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I don't think
> > >> you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible idea.
>
> > > I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my mind, am
> > > I not?
>
> > You are indeed - and we are entitled to point out that your views are not
> > only extreme, but also utterly stupid and moronic. They would not work in a
> > modern society and 'civilisation' would cease to exist. Shoot outs would
> > become common and thousands of wholly innocent people would end up dead> Typical scaremongering by our neighbourhood plod to get us to
> surrender more powers to a government bent on consolidating and
> centralising its power. You are a well conditioned and brainwashed
> mouthpiece.
>
> The High Seas are probably the closest analogue to a lawless region
> and apart from the occasional bit of piracy, it is not wholesale
> violence as you paint it out to be. In fact it would be even less if
> civilian cargo ships were allowed to arm themselves.
>
> In contrast, just about every incident of mass massacres in history
> have happened when one side either had all the guns (e.g. Hitler
> taking guns away from Jews after coming into power) or there was a
> disproportionate disparity in strength, both of which we are seeing
> happening in "civilised" countries today such as the UK.
>
> Decentralising power from government is only a good thing.
>
> > There would be no public services because no-one would be prepared to pay
> > for them.
>
> People will pay for things they need. This has always been the case
> and no amount of your scare mongering will change that. A tax funded
> system pays for things the mandarins want.
>
> > The country would descend into total chaos within no time at all,
> > populated by roaming gangs of armed thugs shooting anyone who got in their
> > way and the vulnerable in our society would go to the wall. You are indeed a
> > very silly person.
>
> All the substance of your post can be summarised as speculative fear
> mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
> braindead mouthpiece.

And you are totally without insults?

What do you say to Maria's idea of trusting people? How does it fit in
with your wish that everybody carries guns?

Oppressed Subject wrote:
  summarised as speculative fear
> mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
> braindead mouthpiece.
touché' turtle strikes again:-))

On 26 Mar, 10:47, John Bennett  wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>
>   summarised as speculative fear> mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
> > braindead mouthpiece.
>
> touché' turtle strikes again:-))

John, I think your point will be totally lost on anybody who complains
about personal insults and then makes personal insults in the very
next sentence.

On Mar 26, 10:44 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 10:03, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 8:19 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> > > Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > > > On Mar 25, 5:40 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> > > >> On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote:
>
> > > >>>> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in
> > > >>>> African countries where there are few laws and even fewer
> > > >>>> 'policemen'?
> > > >>>> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule?
> > > >>>> How did we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people
> > > >>>> just stole things instead of paying?
>
> > > >>> I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
> > > >>> answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
> > > >>> pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
> > > >>> view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
> > > >>> in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
> > > >>> everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
> > > >>> police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
> > > >>> land you in jail.
>
> > > >>>> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all
> > > >>>> now based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we
> > > >>>> will get away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever
> > > >>>> built I'll never know.
>
> > > >>> It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we
> > > >>> can always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then
> > > >>> lament when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod
> > > >>> can't. They are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be),
> > > >>> omnipresent and they aren't all powerful.
>
> > > >>> If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
> > > >>> intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it
> > > >>> is they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the
> > > >>> police, wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is
> > > >>> long gone. People should not be afraid to do the right thing and
> > > >>> sadly this is what has happened in legalistic societies.
>
> > > >> Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use reasonable
> > > >> force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable force against a
> > > >> mugger.
>
> > > > It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed or
> > > > if his weapon is visible, be prepared to use it if you try to
> > > > intervene. So yes shooting him is reasonable force.
>
> > > >> You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
> > > >> person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a
> > > >> mugger then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You may
> > > >> argue about this but this is what you have said many times.
>
> > > > Then shoot the mugger, drop your weapon and let the courts rule that
> > > > your intervention was proportionate. You won't be a walking corpse
> > > > until the courts say so if you aren't an immediate threat.
>
> > > >> There's no rule
> > > >> of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job that
> > > >> people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I don't think
> > > >> you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible idea.
>
> > > > I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my mind, am
> > > > I not?
>
> > > You are indeed - and we are entitled to point out that your views are not
> > > only extreme, but also utterly stupid and moronic. They would not work in a
> > > modern society and 'civilisation' would cease to exist. Shoot outs would
> > > become common and thousands of wholly innocent people would end up dead.
>
> > Typical scaremongering by our neighbourhood plod to get us to
> > surrender more powers to a government bent on consolidating and
> > centralising its power. You are a well conditioned and brainwashed
> > mouthpiece.
>
> > The High Seas are probably the closest analogue to a lawless region
> > and apart from the occasional bit of piracy, it is not wholesale
> > violence as you paint it out to be. In fact it would be even less if
> > civilian cargo ships were allowed to arm themselves.
>
> > In contrast, just about every incident of mass massacres in history
> > have happened when one side either had all the guns (e.g. Hitler
> > taking guns away from Jews after coming into power) or there was a
> > disproportionate disparity in strength, both of which we are seeing
> > happening in "civilised" countries today such as the UK.
>
> > Decentralising power from government is only a good thing.
>
> > > There would be no public services because no-one would be prepared to pay
> > > for them.
>
> > People will pay for things they need. This has always been the case
> > and no amount of your scare mongering will change that. A tax funded
> > system pays for things the mandarins want.
>
> > > The country would descend into total chaos within no time at all,
> > > populated by roaming gangs of armed thugs shooting anyone who got in their
> > > way and the vulnerable in our society would go to the wall. You are indeed a
> > > very silly person.
>
> > All the substance of your post can be summarised as speculative fear
> > mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
> > braindead mouthpiece.
>
> And you are totally without insults?

You have both insulted and posted vacuous posts, so what are you
complaining about? I have already fingered you as a rude bean counter
a thread or two back. It appeared to improve your manners momentarily
and then you reverted to your Polska training and lost it all over
again. I am now fingering you as a simple-minded, unimaginative and
hypocritical as well.

LOL it looks like your skin is too thin to bear a few jibes. I
strongly recommend you return to your Polska kurwa and stay off
Usenet.

At least my posts combine taking a few cathartic shots with arguments/
substance.

> What do you say to Maria's idea of trusting people? How does it fit in
> with your wish that everybody carries guns?

Just because you carry guns, doesn't mean you don't trust people in
general. It just means you don't trust a small minority of people or
can also mean that you're out to help others who may not be able to
defend themselves.

The latter being much more preferable to the current situation where
anyone who is a victim of crime basically has to wet their pants and
call the police.

On Mar 26, 11:03 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 10:47, John Bennett  wrote:
>
> > Oppressed Subject wrote:
>
> >   summarised as speculative fear> mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
> > > braindead mouthpiece.
>
> > touché' turtle strikes again:-))
>
> John, I think your point will be totally lost on anybody who complains
> about personal insults and then makes personal insults in the very
> next sentence.

Pot kettle black, my rude little accountant friend.

On 25 Mar, 17:34, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 17:29, Turk182  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 Mar, 13:16, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> > > vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> > > that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> > > fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> > > people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> > > doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> > > innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> > > scumbags get their comeuppance.
>
> > > By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> > > substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> > > and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> > > moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
> > > and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> > > upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> > > justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
>
> > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone> > > Let people self-police.
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj
>
> > > Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
> > > responsbility
> > > A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
> > > responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred Goodwin> > > the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.
>
> > > By Aislinn Simpson
> > > Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009
>
> > > In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank bosses
> > > to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".
>
> > > The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's upmarket
> > > Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a dark-coloured
> > > Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.
>
> > > Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed to have
> > > been reported to police by a member of his household staff at 4.35am
> > > on Wednesday morning.
>
> > > Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name Moira
> > > McLeod and the address bankbossesarecrimin...@mail.com.
>
> > > The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked this
> > > morning.
>
> > > "We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge
> > > amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made
> > > unemployed, destitute and homeless.
>
> > > "This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.
>
> > > "This is just the beginning."
>
> > > Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give up any
> > > of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped down
> > > following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN Amro which
> > > saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.
>
> > > The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs and
> > > "unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon Brown but
> > > Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not warranted".
>
> > > A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard outside
> > > his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the stone villa were
> > > clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and nearside rear passenger
> > > window of the Mercedes.
>
> > > There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.
>
> > > A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
> > > attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.
>
> > > “Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are appealing
> > > for witnesses.”
>
> > > It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal security
> > > for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV monitoring of his
> > > home.
>
> > > An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
> > > matter for police.
>
> > > "There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is normal
> > > practice for departing executives."
>
> > > A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware of the
> > > damage until she walked past the house.
>
> > > "I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has been so
> > > much publicity," she said.
>
> > > "I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are running
> > > very high in today's environment.
>
> > > "Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always looking for
> > > someone to blame."
>
> > > Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally unnecessary > > > absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."
>
> > Jacqui Smith would agree with the actions of these people.  In the
> > court of public opinion, Fred The Shred, Tony Blair and a lot of other
> > people who apparently ARE above the law, are still sponging on this
> > society.  I do not support violent acts that can injure, but when I
> > heard one of Fred's neighbours say on the news "they shouldn't have
> > damaged his property", my thoughts went to the people who have lost
> > their properties because of crooks like him.  As for the Mercedes - he
> > could buy a new one every day and still live like a King.  So
> > politicians beware - you're always threatening us and cracking down on
> > us and finding ever more imaginitive ways to fine us - what about
> > justice for all?  The people have spoken.  In the absence of police
> > action - the law of the jungle ensues.  Let's hope parliament wakes up
> > to the dangers they are courting through inaction.
>
> > Turk182
>
> Jacqui Smith? Not Harriet Harman?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Woops! Ta

Turk182

On 26 Mar, 11:58, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 26, 11:03 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > On 26 Mar, 10:47, John Bennett  wrote:
>
> > > Oppressed Subject wrote:
>
> > >   summarised as speculative fear> mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
> > > > braindead mouthpiece.
>
> > > touché' turtle strikes again:-))
>
> > John, I think your point will be totally lost on anybody who complains
> > about personal insults and then makes personal insults in the very
> > next sentence.
>
> Pot kettle black, my rude little accountant friend.

I am no friend of yours.

I'd love it if you travelled to Africa and wandered around with your
submachine gun and found out how long you lasted.

On 26 Mar, 11:57, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 26, 10:44 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 Mar, 10:03, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 8:19 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> > > > Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 25, 5:40 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> > > > >> On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > >>> On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote> > > > >>>> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in
> > > > >>>> African countries where there are few laws and even fewer
> > > > >>>> 'policemen'?
> > > > >>>> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule> > > > >>>> How did we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people
> > > > >>>> just stole things instead of paying?
>
> > > > >>> I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
> > > > >>> answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
> > > > >>> pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
> > > > >>> view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
> > > > >>> in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
> > > > >>> everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
> > > > >>> police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
> > > > >>> land you in jail.
>
> > > > >>>> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all
> > > > >>>> now based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we
> > > > >>>> will get away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever
> > > > >>>> built I'll never know.
>
> > > > >>> It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we
> > > > >>> can always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then
> > > > >>> lament when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod
> > > > >>> can't. They are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be),
> > > > >>> omnipresent and they aren't all powerful.
>
> > > > >>> If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
> > > > >>> intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it
> > > > >>> is they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the
> > > > >>> police, wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is
> > > > >>> long gone. People should not be afraid to do the right thing and
> > > > >>> sadly this is what has happened in legalistic societies.
>
> > > > >> Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use reasonable
> > > > >> force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable force against a
> > > > >> mugger.
>
> > > > > It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed or
> > > > > if his weapon is visible, be prepared to use it if you try to
> > > > > intervene. So yes shooting him is reasonable force.
>
> > > > >> You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
> > > > >> person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a
> > > > >> mugger then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You may
> > > > >> argue about this but this is what you have said many times.
>
> > > > > Then shoot the mugger, drop your weapon and let the courts rule that
> > > > > your intervention was proportionate. You won't be a walking corpse
> > > > > until the courts say so if you aren't an immediate threat.
>
> > > > >> There's no rule
> > > > >> of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job that
> > > > >> people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I don't think
> > > > >> you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible idea.
>
> > > > > I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my mind, am
> > > > > I not?
>
> > > > You are indeed - and we are entitled to point out that your views are not
> > > > only extreme, but also utterly stupid and moronic. They would not work in a
> > > > modern society and 'civilisation' would cease to exist. Shoot outs would
> > > > become common and thousands of wholly innocent people would end up dead.
>
> > > Typical scaremongering by our neighbourhood plod to get us to
> > > surrender more powers to a government bent on consolidating and
> > > centralising its power. You are a well conditioned and brainwashed
> > > mouthpiece.
>
> > > The High Seas are probably the closest analogue to a lawless region
> > > and apart from the occasional bit of piracy, it is not wholesale
> > > violence as you paint it out to be. In fact it would be even less if
> > > civilian cargo ships were allowed to arm themselves.
>
> > > In contrast, just about every incident of mass massacres in history
> > > have happened when one side either had all the guns (e.g. Hitler
> > > taking guns away from Jews after coming into power) or there was a
> > > disproportionate disparity in strength, both of which we are seeing
> > > happening in "civilised" countries today such as the UK.
>
> > > Decentralising power from government is only a good thing.
>
> > > > There would be no public services because no-one would be prepared to pay
> > > > for them.
>
> > > People will pay for things they need. This has always been the case
> > > and no amount of your scare mongering will change that. A tax funded
> > > system pays for things the mandarins want.
>
> > > > The country would descend into total chaos within no time at all,
> > > > populated by roaming gangs of armed thugs shooting anyone who got in their
> > > > way and the vulnerable in our society would go to the wall. You are indeed a
> > > > very silly person.
>
> > > All the substance of your post can be summarised as speculative fear
> > > mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
> > > braindead mouthpiece.
>
> > And you are totally without insults?
>
> You have both insulted and posted vacuous posts, so what are you
> complaining about? I have already fingered you as a rude bean counter
> a thread or two back. It appeared to improve your manners momentarily
> and then you reverted to your Polska training and lost it all over
> again. I am now fingering you as a simple-minded, unimaginative and
> hypocritical as well.
>
> LOL it looks like your skin is too thin to bear a few jibes. I
> strongly recommend you return to your Polska kurwa and stay off
> Usenet.
>
> At least my posts combine taking a few cathartic shots with arguments/
> substance.
>
> > What do you say to Maria's idea of trusting people? How does it fit in
> > with your wish that everybody carries guns?
>
> Just because you carry guns, doesn't mean you don't trust people in
> general. It just means you don't trust a small minority of people or
> can also mean that you're out to help others who may not be able to
> defend themselves.
>
> The latter being much more preferable to the current situation where
> anyone who is a victim of crime basically has to wet their pants and
> call the police.

We'll see how far your views are supported by the sensible majority.
Cue more abuse.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 26, 10:44 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>> On 26 Mar, 10:03, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 8:19 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 25, 5:40 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>>>>>> On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in
>>>>>>>> African countries where there are few laws and even fewer
>>>>>>>> 'policemen'?
>>>>>>>> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule?
>>>>>>>> How did we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if
>>>>>>>> people just stole things instead of paying?
>>
>>>>>>> I have served this country in such places in my distant past
>>>>>>> and the answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to
>>>>>>> be armed or pays for protection from the local neighbourhood
>>>>>>> youths. Some might view the latter as extortion but then what
>>>>>>> is it the police do to us in exchange for vague promises of
>>>>>>> protection from them? I remind everyone reading this that
>>>>>>> failing to pay your taxes because the police aren't providing
>>>>>>> adequate protection for you will eventually land you in jail.
>>
>>>>>>>> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are
>>>>>>>> all now based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we
>>>>>>>> think we will get away with it. How the presumption of
>>>>>>>> innocence was ever built I'll never know.
>>
>>>>>>> It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when
>>>>>>> we can always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and
>>>>>>> then lament when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the
>>>>>>> plod can't. They are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to
>>>>>>> be), omnipresent and they aren't all powerful.
>>
>>>>>>> If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and
>>>>>>> empowered to intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then
>>>>>>> people would. As it is they just think the extent of their
>>>>>>> civic duty is to call the police, wait for the police to arrive
>>>>>>> and by then the mugger is long gone. People should not be
>>>>>>> afraid to do the right thing and sadly this is what has
>>>>>>> happened in legalistic societies.
>>
>>>>>> Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use
>>>>>> reasonable force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable
>>>>>> force against a mugger.
>>
>>>>> It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed
>>>>> or if his weapon is visible, be prepared to use it if you try to
>>>>> intervene. So yes shooting him is reasonable force.
>>
>>>>>> You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
>>>>>> person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a
>>>>>> mugger then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You
>>>>>> may argue about this but this is what you have said many times.
>>
>>>>> Then shoot the mugger, drop your weapon and let the courts rule
>>>>> that your intervention was proportionate. You won't be a walking
>>>>> corpse until the courts say so if you aren't an immediate threat.
>>
>>>>>> There's no rule
>>>>>> of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job
>>>>>> that people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I
>>>>>> don't think you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible
>>>>>> idea.
>>
>>>>> I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my
>>>>> mind, am I not?
>>
>>>> You are indeed - and we are entitled to point out that your views
>>>> are not only extreme, but also utterly stupid and moronic. They
>>>> would not work in a modern society and 'civilisation' would cease
>>>> to exist. Shoot outs would become common and thousands of wholly
>>>> innocent people would end up dead.
>>
>>> Typical scaremongering by our neighbourhood plod to get us to
>>> surrender more powers to a government bent on consolidating and
>>> centralising its power. You are a well conditioned and brainwashed
>>> mouthpiece.
>>
>>> The High Seas are probably the closest analogue to a lawless region
>>> and apart from the occasional bit of piracy, it is not wholesale
>>> violence as you paint it out to be. In fact it would be even less if
>>> civilian cargo ships were allowed to arm themselves.
>>
>>> In contrast, just about every incident of mass massacres in history
>>> have happened when one side either had all the guns (e.g. Hitler
>>> taking guns away from Jews after coming into power) or there was a
>>> disproportionate disparity in strength, both of which we are seeing
>>> happening in "civilised" countries today such as the UK.
>>
>>> Decentralising power from government is only a good thing.
>>
>>>> There would be no public services because no-one would be prepared
>>>> to pay for them.
>>
>>> People will pay for things they need. This has always been the case
>>> and no amount of your scare mongering will change that. A tax funded
>>> system pays for things the mandarins want.
>>
>>>> The country would descend into total chaos within no time at all,
>>>> populated by roaming gangs of armed thugs shooting anyone who got
>>>> in their way and the vulnerable in our society would go to the
>>>> wall. You are indeed a very silly person.
>>
>>> All the substance of your post can be summarised as speculative fear
>>> mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
>>> braindead mouthpiece.
>>
>> And you are totally without insults?
>
> You have both insulted and posted vacuous posts, so what are you
> complaining about? I have already fingered you as a rude bean counter
> a thread or two back. It appeared to improve your manners momentarily
> and then you reverted to your Polska training and lost it all over
> again. I am now fingering you as a simple-minded, unimaginative and
> hypocritical as well.
>
> LOL it looks like your skin is too thin to bear a few jibes. I
> strongly recommend you return to your Polska kurwa and stay off
> Usenet.
>
> At least my posts combine taking a few cathartic shots with arguments/
> substance.

No they don't - you combine ad hominem with absolute raving nonsense. There 
mere fact that virtually no-one on this thread (apart from Alang - and 
that's to be expected) share *any* of your views, should make you think. 
But, of course, everyone's a nutter but you eh?

Ret.

Ret.

On Mar 26, 12:16 am, Oppressed Subject 
wrote:
> It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> scumbags get their comeuppance.
>
> By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
> and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
>
> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> Let people self-police.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj
>
> Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
> responsbility
> A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
> responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred Goodwin,
> the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.
>
> By Aislinn Simpson
> Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009
>
> In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank bosses
> to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".
>
> The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's upmarket
> Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a dark-coloured
> Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.
>
> Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed to have
> been reported to police by a member of his household staff at 4.35am
> on Wednesday morning.
>
> Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name Moira
> McLeod and the address bankbossesarecrimin...@mail.com.
>
> The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked this
> morning.
>
> "We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge
> amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made
> unemployed, destitute and homeless.
>
> "This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.
>
> "This is just the beginning."
>
> Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give up any
> of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped down
> following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN Amro which
> saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.
>
> The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs and
> "unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon Brown but
> Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not warranted".
>
> A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard outside
> his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the stone villa were
> clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and nearside rear passenger
> window of the Mercedes.
>
> There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.
>
> A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
> attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.
>
> “Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are appealing
> for witnesses.”
>
> It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal security
> for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV monitoring of his
> home.
>
> An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
> matter for police.
>
> "There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is normal
> practice for departing executives."
>
> A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware of the
> damage until she walked past the house.
>
> "I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has been so
> much publicity," she said.
>
> "I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are running
> very high in today's environment.
>
> "Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always looking for
> someone to blame."
>
> Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally unnecessary -
> absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."

as an executive representative of the share holders he was aware of
the risks
involved before he signed up for the job. now the people aren't going
to chase
the global manipulators like sir rothschild or sir rockefeller. they
are going to
chase whomever they can get their hands on. in this case, a small
fish.
there is nothing shocking about the reaction when you compare it to
the
magnitude of the executive crime. should give the next generation of
servile
crooks something to think about before getting involved in global
manipulations.

On 26 Mar, 16:22, "Relevant.Search.Result"
 wrote:
> On Mar 26, 12:16 am, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> > vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> > that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> > fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> > people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> > doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> > innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> > scumbags get their comeuppance.
>
> > By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> > substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> > and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> > moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
> > and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> > upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> > justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
>
> > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > Let people self-police.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj
>
> > Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
> > responsbility
> > A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
> > responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred Goodwin,
> > the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.
>
> > By Aislinn Simpson
> > Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009
>
> > In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank bosses
> > to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".
>
> > The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's upmarket
> > Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a dark-coloured
> > Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.
>
> > Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed to have
> > been reported to police by a member of his household staff at 4.35am
> > on Wednesday morning.
>
> > Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name Moira
> > McLeod and the address bankbossesarecrimin...@mail.com.
>
> > The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked this
> > morning.
>
> > "We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge
> > amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made
> > unemployed, destitute and homeless.
>
> > "This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.
>
> > "This is just the beginning."
>
> > Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give up any
> > of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped down
> > following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN Amro which
> > saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.
>
> > The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs and
> > "unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon Brown but
> > Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not warranted".
>
> > A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard outside
> > his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the stone villa were
> > clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and nearside rear passenger
> > window of the Mercedes.
>
> > There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.
>
> > A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
> > attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.
>
> > “Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are appealing
> > for witnesses.”
>
> > It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal security
> > for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV monitoring of his
> > home.
>
> > An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
> > matter for police.
>
> > "There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is normal
> > practice for departing executives."
>
> > A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware of the
> > damage until she walked past the house.
>
> > "I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has been so
> > much publicity," she said.
>
> > "I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are running
> > very high in today's environment.
>
> > "Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always looking for
> > someone to blame."
>
> > Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally unnecessary -
> > absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."
>
> as an executive representative of the share holders he was aware of
> the risks
> involved before he signed up for the job. now the people aren't going
> to chase
> the global manipulators like sir rothschild or sir rockefeller. they
> are going to
> chase whomever they can get their hands on. in this case, a small
> fish.
> there is nothing shocking about the reaction when you compare it to
> the
> magnitude of the executive crime. should give the next generation of
> servile
> crooks something to think about before getting involved in global
> manipulations.

"global manipulations" - great phrase if you want to talk rubbish!

Oppressed Subject wrote:

> I think you would not be able to disagree that:
> 1) A woman facing a rapist with a handgun is a lot more likely to
> prevent being raped than if she is not even allowed to carry pepper
> spray.
> 2) You are more likely to fend off a carjacking if you had a
> submachinegun than if you didn't.

Yep and when someone got up some idiot's nose, erpahaps by queue jumping 
or some other unimportant thing, one or the other would blow the 
opposite party's head off.

You are stark staring mad, and I mean that. I've read this thread in its 
entirety and I don't think I've ever seen such fallacious and ridiculous 
arguments as yours. As I said, you are stark staring mad.

On Mar 26, 9:00 pm, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > I think you would not be able to disagree that:
> > 1) A woman facing a rapist with a handgun is a lot more likely to
> > prevent being raped than if she is not even allowed to carry pepper
> > spray.
> > 2) You are more likely to fend off a carjacking if you had a
> > submachinegun than if you didn't.
>
> Yep and when someone got up some idiot's nose, erpahaps by queue jumping
> or some other unimportant thing, one or the other would blow the
> opposite party's head off.

At which point they'd be fair game for anyone else. Statistically
speaking, troublemakers are more likely to get weeded out.

> You are stark staring mad, and I mean that. I've read this thread in its
> entirety and I don't think I've ever seen such fallacious and ridiculous
> arguments as yours. As I said, you are stark staring mad.

LOL, you're going to have to try a bit harder than that to offend me.

On Mar 26, 12:12 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 11:57, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 10:44 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Mar, 10:03, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 26, 8:19 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> > > > > Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 5:40 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote> > > > > >> On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in
> > > > > >>>> African countries where there are few laws and even fewer
> > > > > >>>> 'policemen'?
> > > > > >>>> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule?
> > > > > >>>> How did we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people
> > > > > >>>> just stole things instead of paying?
>
> > > > > >>> I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
> > > > > >>> answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
> > > > > >>> pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
> > > > > >>> view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
> > > > > >>> in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
> > > > > >>> everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
> > > > > >>> police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
> > > > > >>> land you in jail.
>
> > > > > >>>> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all
> > > > > >>>> now based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we
> > > > > >>>> will get away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever
> > > > > >>>> built I'll never know.
>
> > > > > >>> It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we
> > > > > >>> can always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then
> > > > > >>> lament when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod
> > > > > >>> can't. They are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be> > > > > >>> omnipresent and they aren't all powerful.
>
> > > > > >>> If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
> > > > > >>> intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it
> > > > > >>> is they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the
> > > > > >>> police, wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is
> > > > > >>> long gone. People should not be afraid to do the right thing and
> > > > > >>> sadly this is what has happened in legalistic societies.
>
> > > > > >> Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use reasonable
> > > > > >> force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable force against a
> > > > > >> mugger.
>
> > > > > > It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed or
> > > > > > if his weapon is visible, be prepared to use it if you try to
> > > > > > intervene. So yes shooting him is reasonable force.
>
> > > > > >> You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
> > > > > >> person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a
> > > > > >> mugger then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You may
> > > > > >> argue about this but this is what you have said many times.
>
> > > > > > Then shoot the mugger, drop your weapon and let the courts rule that
> > > > > > your intervention was proportionate. You won't be a walking corpse
> > > > > > until the courts say so if you aren't an immediate threat.
>
> > > > > >> There's no rule
> > > > > >> of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job that
> > > > > >> people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I don't think
> > > > > >> you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible idea.
>
> > > > > > I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my mind, am
> > > > > > I not?
>
> > > > > You are indeed - and we are entitled to point out that your views are not
> > > > > only extreme, but also utterly stupid and moronic. They would not work in a
> > > > > modern society and 'civilisation' would cease to exist. Shoot outs would
> > > > > become common and thousands of wholly innocent people would end up dead.
>
> > > > Typical scaremongering by our neighbourhood plod to get us to
> > > > surrender more powers to a government bent on consolidating and
> > > > centralising its power. You are a well conditioned and brainwashed
> > > > mouthpiece.
>
> > > > The High Seas are probably the closest analogue to a lawless region
> > > > and apart from the occasional bit of piracy, it is not wholesale
> > > > violence as you paint it out to be. In fact it would be even less if
> > > > civilian cargo ships were allowed to arm themselves.
>
> > > > In contrast, just about every incident of mass massacres in history
> > > > have happened when one side either had all the guns (e.g. Hitler
> > > > taking guns away from Jews after coming into power) or there was a
> > > > disproportionate disparity in strength, both of which we are seeing
> > > > happening in "civilised" countries today such as the UK.
>
> > > > Decentralising power from government is only a good thing.
>
> > > > > There would be no public services because no-one would be prepared to pay
> > > > > for them.
>
> > > > People will pay for things they need. This has always been the case
> > > > and no amount of your scare mongering will change that. A tax funded
> > > > system pays for things the mandarins want.
>
> > > > > The country would descend into total chaos within no time at all,
> > > > > populated by roaming gangs of armed thugs shooting anyone who got in their
> > > > > way and the vulnerable in our society would go to the wall. You are indeed a
> > > > > very silly person.
>
> > > > All the substance of your post can be summarised as speculative fear
> > > > mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
> > > > braindead mouthpiece.
>
> > > And you are totally without insults?
>
> > You have both insulted and posted vacuous posts, so what are you
> > complaining about? I have already fingered you as a rude bean counter
> > a thread or two back. It appeared to improve your manners momentarily
> > and then you reverted to your Polska training and lost it all over
> > again. I am now fingering you as a simple-minded, unimaginative and
> > hypocritical as well.
>
> > LOL it looks like your skin is too thin to bear a few jibes. I
> > strongly recommend you return to your Polska kurwa and stay off
> > Usenet.
>
> > At least my posts combine taking a few cathartic shots with arguments/
> > substance.
>
> > > What do you say to Maria's idea of trusting people? How does it fit in
> > > with your wish that everybody carries guns?
>
> > Just because you carry guns, doesn't mean you don't trust people in
> > general. It just means you don't trust a small minority of people or
> > can also mean that you're out to help others who may not be able to
> > defend themselves.
>
> > The latter being much more preferable to the current situation where
> > anyone who is a victim of crime basically has to wet their pants and
> > call the police.
>
> We'll see how far your views are supported by the sensible majority.
> Cue more abuse.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Majority rule does not always lead to the right or best solution. The
Nazi party was democratically elected. So were Hamas. Ditto Zanu-PF.

On Mar 26, 6:00 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 16:22, "Relevant.Search.Result"
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 12:16 am, Oppressed Subject 
> > wrote:
>
> > > It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> > > vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> > > that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> > > fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> > > people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> > > doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> > > innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> > > scumbags get their comeuppance.
>
> > > By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> > > substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> > > and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> > > moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
> > > and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> > > upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> > > justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
>
> > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone> > > Let people self-police.
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj
>
> > > Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
> > > responsbility
> > > A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
> > > responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred Goodwin> > > the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.
>
> > > By Aislinn Simpson
> > > Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009
>
> > > In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank bosses
> > > to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".
>
> > > The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's upmarket
> > > Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a dark-coloured
> > > Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.
>
> > > Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed to have
> > > been reported to police by a member of his household staff at 4.35am
> > > on Wednesday morning.
>
> > > Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name Moira
> > > McLeod and the address bankbossesarecrimin...@mail.com.
>
> > > The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked this
> > > morning.
>
> > > "We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge
> > > amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made
> > > unemployed, destitute and homeless.
>
> > > "This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.
>
> > > "This is just the beginning."
>
> > > Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give up any
> > > of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped down
> > > following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN Amro which
> > > saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.
>
> > > The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs and
> > > "unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon Brown but
> > > Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not warranted".
>
> > > A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard outside
> > > his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the stone villa were
> > > clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and nearside rear passenger
> > > window of the Mercedes.
>
> > > There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.
>
> > > A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
> > > attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.
>
> > > “Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are appealing
> > > for witnesses.”
>
> > > It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal security
> > > for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV monitoring of his
> > > home.
>
> > > An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
> > > matter for police.
>
> > > "There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is normal
> > > practice for departing executives."
>
> > > A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware of the
> > > damage until she walked past the house.
>
> > > "I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has been so
> > > much publicity," she said.
>
> > > "I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are running
> > > very high in today's environment.
>
> > > "Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always looking for
> > > someone to blame."
>
> > > Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally unnecessary > > > absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."
>
> > as an executive representative of the share holders he was aware of
> > the risks
> > involved before he signed up for the job. now the people aren't going
> > to chase
> > the global manipulators like sir rothschild or sir rockefeller. they
> > are going to
> > chase whomever they can get their hands on. in this case, a small
> > fish.
> > there is nothing shocking about the reaction when you compare it to
> > the
> > magnitude of the executive crime. should give the next generation of
> > servile
> > crooks something to think about before getting involved in global
> > manipulations.
>
> "global manipulations" - great phrase if you want to talk rubbish!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mr. Saxton here is getting excited because his job as an accountant
depends on the complexities of tax laws and finance regulation. The
concept of minimal government is absolutely anathema to him.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:32d81098-3838-43b7-b7e8-c6f12d017370@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

Majority rule does not always lead to the right or best solution. The
Nazi party was democratically elected. So were Hamas. Ditto Zanu-PF.

-------------------

The Nazi Party never had a majority until after they seized power.

Hamas are an odd one.  The election seems to have been flawed in many areas.

Zanu PF are a bunch of murderous thugs who shoot people who vote the 'wrong' 
way.

-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Mar 26, 10:02 pm, "William Black" 
wrote:
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> news:32d81098-3838-43b7-b7e8-c6f12d017370@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Majority rule does not always lead to the right or best solution. The
> Nazi party was democratically elected. So were Hamas. Ditto Zanu-PF.
>
> -------------------
>
> The Nazi Party never had a majority until after they seized power.
>
> Hamas are an odd one.  The election seems to have been flawed in many areas.
>
> Zanu PF are a bunch of murderous thugs who shoot people who vote the 'wrong'
> way.

Majority rule *might* work if everyone was informed, everyone was
arsed and everyone was reasonably intelligent. The fact of the matter
is that inconvenient practicalities get in the way of true democracy
(as you point out) and the reality is that true democracy only works
in textbooks.

Oh, and George Bush didn't win the popular vote and Gordon Brown
wasn't elected into office (these examples coming from the beacons of
"civilisation").

Proportionate distribution of wealth and power through Darwinism is
the optimal way to govern under practical circumstances. Is it fair
that a street bum's vote counts the same as a head of a
megacorporation or that a young kid who has barely scratched adulthood
has the same voting clout as his experienced senior?

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 26, 9:00 pm, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:

>> You are stark staring mad, and I mean that. I've read this thread in
>> its entirety and I don't think I've ever seen such fallacious and
>> ridiculous arguments as yours. As I said, you are stark staring mad.
>
> LOL, you're going to have to try a bit harder than that to offend me.

I am not trying to offend you, I am stating what seems an obvious fact 
to me, you are stark staring mad.

On Mar 26, 10:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
wrote:

> Proportionate distribution of wealth and power through Darwinism is
> the optimal way to govern under practical circumstances. Is it fair
> that a street bum's vote counts the same as a head of a
> megacorporation or that a young kid who has barely scratched adulthood
> has the same voting clout as his experienced senior?

It most certainly is if the former in each case is to resist the
exploitation of the latter.

However, I intervene to point out that the acquisition of wealth and
power has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism which focuses upon
the evolution of entirely separate species from common ancestors
through a process he described as natural selection.

On Mar 26, 10:34 pm, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 9:00 pm, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:
> >> You are stark staring mad, and I mean that. I've read this thread in
> >> its entirety and I don't think I've ever seen such fallacious and
> >> ridiculous arguments as yours. As I said, you are stark staring mad.
>
> > LOL, you're going to have to try a bit harder than that to offend me.
>
> I am not trying to offend you, I am stating what seems an obvious fact
> to me, you are stark staring mad.

Keep "stating the obvious" then. The thread needs to be continually
bumped to raise awareness that the anarcho-capitalist alternative is
better than the status quo of de facto communism, and I am not
bothered by your opinion in the slightest.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:6461b90e-47e5-42c4-adf4-b42462b90339@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...


Proportionate distribution of wealth and power through Darwinism is
the optimal way to govern under practical circumstances.

----------------------

The problem with that idea is that rational intellectual ability won't keep 
you alive in your society.

All that will keep you alive is friends/hirelings and an adequate supply of 
ammunition.

You're putting society into the hands of the gun nuts and retired soldiers.

-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On 26 Mar, 11:57, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 26, 10:44 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 Mar, 10:03, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 8:19 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> > > > Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 25, 5:40 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> > > > >> On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > >>> On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote> > > > >>>> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in
> > > > >>>> African countries where there are few laws and even fewer
> > > > >>>> 'policemen'?
> > > > >>>> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule> > > > >>>> How did we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people
> > > > >>>> just stole things instead of paying?
>
> > > > >>> I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
> > > > >>> answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
> > > > >>> pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
> > > > >>> view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
> > > > >>> in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
> > > > >>> everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
> > > > >>> police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
> > > > >>> land you in jail.
>
> > > > >>>> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all
> > > > >>>> now based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we
> > > > >>>> will get away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever
> > > > >>>> built I'll never know.
>
> > > > >>> It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we
> > > > >>> can always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then
> > > > >>> lament when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod
> > > > >>> can't. They are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be),
> > > > >>> omnipresent and they aren't all powerful.
>
> > > > >>> If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
> > > > >>> intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it
> > > > >>> is they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the
> > > > >>> police, wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is
> > > > >>> long gone. People should not be afraid to do the right thing and
> > > > >>> sadly this is what has happened in legalistic societies.
>
> > > > >> Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use reasonable
> > > > >> force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable force against a
> > > > >> mugger.
>
> > > > > It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed or
> > > > > if his weapon is visible, be prepared to use it if you try to
> > > > > intervene. So yes shooting him is reasonable force.
>
> > > > >> You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
> > > > >> person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a
> > > > >> mugger then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You may
> > > > >> argue about this but this is what you have said many times.
>
> > > > > Then shoot the mugger, drop your weapon and let the courts rule that
> > > > > your intervention was proportionate. You won't be a walking corpse
> > > > > until the courts say so if you aren't an immediate threat.
>
> > > > >> There's no rule
> > > > >> of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job that
> > > > >> people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I don't think
> > > > >> you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible idea.
>
> > > > > I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my mind, am
> > > > > I not?
>
> > > > You are indeed - and we are entitled to point out that your views are not
> > > > only extreme, but also utterly stupid and moronic. They would not work in a
> > > > modern society and 'civilisation' would cease to exist. Shoot outs would
> > > > become common and thousands of wholly innocent people would end up dead.
>
> > > Typical scaremongering by our neighbourhood plod to get us to
> > > surrender more powers to a government bent on consolidating and
> > > centralising its power. You are a well conditioned and brainwashed
> > > mouthpiece.
>
> > > The High Seas are probably the closest analogue to a lawless region
> > > and apart from the occasional bit of piracy, it is not wholesale
> > > violence as you paint it out to be. In fact it would be even less if
> > > civilian cargo ships were allowed to arm themselves.
>
> > > In contrast, just about every incident of mass massacres in history
> > > have happened when one side either had all the guns (e.g. Hitler
> > > taking guns away from Jews after coming into power) or there was a
> > > disproportionate disparity in strength, both of which we are seeing
> > > happening in "civilised" countries today such as the UK.
>
> > > Decentralising power from government is only a good thing.
>
> > > > There would be no public services because no-one would be prepared to pay
> > > > for them.
>
> > > People will pay for things they need. This has always been the case
> > > and no amount of your scare mongering will change that. A tax funded
> > > system pays for things the mandarins want.
>
> > > > The country would descend into total chaos within no time at all,
> > > > populated by roaming gangs of armed thugs shooting anyone who got in their
> > > > way and the vulnerable in our society would go to the wall. You are indeed a
> > > > very silly person.
>
> > > All the substance of your post can be summarised as speculative fear
> > > mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
> > > braindead mouthpiece.
>
> > And you are totally without insults?
>
> You have both insulted and posted vacuous posts, so what are you
> complaining about? I have already fingered you as a rude bean counter
> a thread or two back. It appeared to improve your manners momentarily
> and then you reverted to your Polska training and lost it all over
> again. I am now fingering you as a simple-minded, unimaginative and
> hypocritical as well.
>
> LOL it looks like your skin is too thin to bear a few jibes. I
> strongly recommend you return to your Polska kurwa and stay off
> Usenet.
>
> At least my posts combine taking a few cathartic shots with arguments/
> substance.
>
> > What do you say to Maria's idea of trusting people? How does it fit in
> > with your wish that everybody carries guns?
>
> Just because you carry guns, doesn't mean you don't trust people in
> general. It just means you don't trust a small minority of people or
> can also mean that you're out to help others who may not be able to
> defend themselves.
>
> The latter being much more preferable to the current situation where
> anyone who is a victim of crime basically has to wet their pants and
> call the police.

So from a society where the people who carry guns may be in double
figures you would prefer a society where millions carried sub machine
guns and people in pubs and clubs regularly shot each other for
spilling drinks over each other.

You don't seem to have any common sense.

On 26 Mar, 21:26, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 26, 6:00 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 Mar, 16:22, "Relevant.Search.Result"
>
> >  wrote:
> > > On Mar 26, 12:16 am, Oppressed Subject 
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> > > > vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> > > > that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> > > > fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> > > > people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> > > > doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> > > > innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> > > > scumbags get their comeuppance.
>
> > > > By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> > > > substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> > > > and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> > > > moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened> > > > and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> > > > upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> > > > justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
>
> > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj
>
> > > > Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
> > > > responsbility
> > > > A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
> > > > responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred Goodwin,
> > > > the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.
>
> > > > By Aislinn Simpson
> > > > Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009
>
> > > > In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank bosses
> > > > to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".
>
> > > > The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's upmarket
> > > > Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a dark-coloured
> > > > Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.
>
> > > > Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed to have
> > > > been reported to police by a member of his household staff at 4.35am
> > > > on Wednesday morning.
>
> > > > Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name Moira
> > > > McLeod and the address bankbossesarecrimin...@mail.com.
>
> > > > The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked this
> > > > morning.
>
> > > > "We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge
> > > > amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made
> > > > unemployed, destitute and homeless.
>
> > > > "This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.
>
> > > > "This is just the beginning."
>
> > > > Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give up any
> > > > of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped down
> > > > following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN Amro which
> > > > saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.
>
> > > > The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs and
> > > > "unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon Brown but
> > > > Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not warranted".
>
> > > > A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard outside
> > > > his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the stone villa were
> > > > clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and nearside rear passenger
> > > > window of the Mercedes.
>
> > > > There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.
>
> > > > A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
> > > > attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.
>
> > > > “Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are appealing
> > > > for witnesses.”
>
> > > > It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal security
> > > > for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV monitoring of his
> > > > home.
>
> > > > An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
> > > > matter for police.
>
> > > > "There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is normal
> > > > practice for departing executives."
>
> > > > A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware of the
> > > > damage until she walked past the house.
>
> > > > "I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has been so
> > > > much publicity," she said.
>
> > > > "I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are running
> > > > very high in today's environment.
>
> > > > "Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always looking for
> > > > someone to blame."
>
> > > > Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally unnecessary -
> > > > absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."
>
> > > as an executive representative of the share holders he was aware of
> > > the risks
> > > involved before he signed up for the job. now the people aren't going
> > > to chase
> > > the global manipulators like sir rothschild or sir rockefeller. they
> > > are going to
> > > chase whomever they can get their hands on. in this case, a small
> > > fish.
> > > there is nothing shocking about the reaction when you compare it to
> > > the
> > > magnitude of the executive crime. should give the next generation of
> > > servile
> > > crooks something to think about before getting involved in global
> > > manipulations.
>
> > "global manipulations" - great phrase if you want to talk rubbish!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Mr. Saxton here is getting excited because his job as an accountant
> depends on the complexities of tax laws and finance regulation. The
> concept of minimal government is absolutely anathema to him.

Moronic government will never be brought in because most people
realise that there's a level of complexity in the world. It's only
stupid people who think that everything is simple and situations can
be resolved without thought.

Being poorly paid in a dead end job doesn't mean that anything you
can't understand is bad. It just means that you are a failure.

The solution isn't to wander the streets with a submachine gun. Nobody
else seems to agree with you.

Cue "Everybody else is brainwashed. I'm the only intelligent person".

There's another thread about car insurance and car tax. It would
appear that these would be abolished in OS's deluded world. Also the
requirement for vehicles to be roadworthy. It would appear that OS's
solution to road accidents would be to smash up the other parties
house or car to gain revenge. That would be after killing the person
with a sub machine gun.

I would assume that parents would be allowed to kill their children.
The child's recourse before death would be to obtain a sub machine gun
and kill the parents. It's ok though. If a child actually died the
local nutter would go round and kill the parents with a sub machine
gun. Whether the death was an accident or not isn't something that
needs to be considered at this stage.

OS would appear to be unhappy with his life and would love to be able
to shoot other people with a sub machine gun. He wouldn't be too
worried if somebody killed him because it would at least stop his
suffering in a miserable existence and he can only see other people
having fun.

My name is Rob And I live in Vancouver BC and we have a drug war going on 
here where people are dying and the banks are making piles of cash off the 
dealers.(as they are everywhere, on the unregulated drug trade).

The Alcohol and Pharmaceutical companies also have an interest in keeping 
all now unregulated drugs unregulated. Because to put them under public 
control, cuts into their bottom line.

That is just one example of the complete idiocy the world has been served up 
by BANK / CORPORATE / ZOMBIE-THINK, which is primarily characterized by 
seeing the world as belonging to you only, and to be used by you, FOR YOUR 
OWN SELFISH ENDS, AND FUCK EVERYUONE ELSE.

Well the bottom line is, we have ruined the natural world, and if any one 
still reads, they might want to get a book called Seasick, which documents 
quite well, how the ocean is dying, because it's the last and most powerful 
ecosphere left to destroy. It also happens to CONTROL ALL LIFE on earth. 
Ooops?

When the ocean currents fail, as they are now, the weather will start to get 
cold quite rapidly, AND YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST. (a cold winter in England 
this year?)

While all the great  leaders and economic thinkers (drinkers?) of our time 
were preoccupied with how to glue HUMPTY DUMTPTY back together again, and 
turn the power back on in Las Vegas... the ocean died. Oops? 

As of two years ago, the earth started to get colder, that is empirical data 
you can check. But you don't here shit about that in the media. Unless it's 
public like CBC or BBC.

I am sick and tired of creeps and zombies running the world and deciding how 
fast and how many are going to go off the next financial cliff THEY drive 
the train over.

And finally, everyone in the world should watch a video on the net called, 
MONEY AS DEBT, it's the kind of expose that may have inspired the BBAC in 
the first place.

It's actually a very revolutionary work as it shows in cartoon fromat the 
way currency / banking has evolved and become the psycho-fascist corporate 
freakmare we call civilization.

I hope the movement spreads, I want the Canadian franchise, who do I email?

Have a pleasant Armageddon.

Rob in Drug Wars Vancouver / home of the Official real estate developer's 
2010... Speculators Games.

url:http://myreader.co.uk/msg/13703494.aspx

On Mar 27, 1:11 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 21:26, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 6:00 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Mar, 16:22, "Relevant.Search.Result"
>
> > >  wrote:
> > > > On Mar 26, 12:16 am, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> > > > > vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> > > > > that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> > > > > fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> > > > > people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> > > > > doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> > > > > innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> > > > > scumbags get their comeuppance.
>
> > > > > By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> > > > > substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> > > > > and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> > > > > moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
> > > > > and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> > > > > upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> > > > > justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
>
> > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > >http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj
>
> > > > > Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
> > > > > responsbility
> > > > > A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
> > > > > responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred Goodwin,
> > > > > the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.
>
> > > > > By Aislinn Simpson
> > > > > Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009
>
> > > > > In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank bosses
> > > > > to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".
>
> > > > > The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's upmarket
> > > > > Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a dark-coloured
> > > > > Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.
>
> > > > > Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed to have
> > > > > been reported to police by a member of his household staff at 4.35am
> > > > > on Wednesday morning.
>
> > > > > Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name Moira
> > > > > McLeod and the address bankbossesarecrimin...@mail.com.
>
> > > > > The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked this
> > > > > morning.
>
> > > > > "We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge
> > > > > amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made
> > > > > unemployed, destitute and homeless.
>
> > > > > "This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.
>
> > > > > "This is just the beginning."
>
> > > > > Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give up any
> > > > > of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped down
> > > > > following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN Amro which
> > > > > saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.
>
> > > > > The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs and
> > > > > "unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon Brown but
> > > > > Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not warranted".
>
> > > > > A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard outside
> > > > > his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the stone villa were
> > > > > clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and nearside rear passenger
> > > > > window of the Mercedes.
>
> > > > > There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.
>
> > > > > A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
> > > > > attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.
>
> > > > > “Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are appealing
> > > > > for witnesses.”
>
> > > > > It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal security
> > > > > for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV monitoring of his
> > > > > home.
>
> > > > > An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
> > > > > matter for police.
>
> > > > > "There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is normal
> > > > > practice for departing executives."
>
> > > > > A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware of the
> > > > > damage until she walked past the house.
>
> > > > > "I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has been so
> > > > > much publicity," she said.
>
> > > > > "I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are running
> > > > > very high in today's environment.
>
> > > > > "Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always looking for
> > > > > someone to blame."
>
> > > > > Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally unnecessary -
> > > > > absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."
>
> > > > as an executive representative of the share holders he was aware of
> > > > the risks
> > > > involved before he signed up for the job. now the people aren't going
> > > > to chase
> > > > the global manipulators like sir rothschild or sir rockefeller. they
> > > > are going to
> > > > chase whomever they can get their hands on. in this case, a small
> > > > fish.
> > > > there is nothing shocking about the reaction when you compare it to
> > > > the
> > > > magnitude of the executive crime. should give the next generation of
> > > > servile
> > > > crooks something to think about before getting involved in global
> > > > manipulations.
>
> > > "global manipulations" - great phrase if you want to talk rubbish!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Mr. Saxton here is getting excited because his job as an accountant
> > depends on the complexities of tax laws and finance regulation. The
> > concept of minimal government is absolutely anathema to him.
>
> Moronic government will never be brought in because most people
> realise that there's a level of complexity in the world. It's only
> stupid people who think that everything is simple and situations can
> be resolved without thought.

it is the government that introduces the complexity on purpose.
if governments were truly idealistic they would not need to resort to
such defensive measures. and what is the modern government btw? it is
the protective buffer for the ultra-rich from the oppressed masses.

> Being poorly paid in a dead end job doesn't mean that anything you
> can't understand is bad. It just means that you are a failure.

no, it just means that he is too busy kicking shit uphill to find time
to understand
while the ultra-rich have plenty of time and resources to construct
complicated schemes
and oppress him at their leisure.

> The solution isn't to wander the streets with a submachine gun. Nobody
> else seems to agree with you.
>
> Cue "Everybody else is brainwashed. I'm the only intelligent person".

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:04 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>> On 25 Mar, 15:44, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 25, 3:36 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>> 
>>>> On 25 Mar, 15:22, Oppressed Subject 
>>>> wrote: 
>> 
>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>>> wrote: 
>> 
>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing 
>>>>>>> wrote: 
>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton 
>>>>>>>>> wrote: 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject
>>>>>>>>>>  wrote: 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing 
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote: 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government. Arm everyone. Let people self-police.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom and wouldn't know what to do with it.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> He's not on his own I'm sure!
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism,
>>>>>>>>>>> as well as maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul
>>>>>>>>>>> of the following groups (just to name a few):
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Police
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Politicians
>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Parasites
>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Idiots
>>>>>>>>>>> 7) Criminals
>>>>>>>>>>> 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and
>>>>>>>>>>> database admins. 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that
>>>>>>>>>>> as you have done nothing but undertake character
>>>>>>>>>>> assassinations without putting any reasoned rebuttals into
>>>>>>>>>>> your posts, you clearly fall into the territory of #5 & #6.
>>>>>>>>>>> I also note that as it is typical of this government's
>>>>>>>>>>> apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
>>>>>>>>>>> you're #4 too. 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous
>>>>>>>>>> "ideas" you resort to insults.
>> 
>>>>>>>>> I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted
>>>>>>>>> to insults first. I am simply being true to my word and
>>>>>>>>> applying monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>> 
>>>>>>>>> There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served
>>>>>>>>> where appropriate and in proportion.
>> 
>>>>>>>>> I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively
>>>>>>>>> injustice) or (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>> 
>>>>>>>> But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to
>>>>>>>> smash up other peoples property.
>> 
>>>>>>>> Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>> 
>>>>>>> A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of
>>>>>>> "Sir" Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major
>>>>>>> contributor of.
>> 
>>>>>>> I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
>>>>>>> disproportionate. :)
>> 
>>>>>> But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they
>>>>>> wanted?- Hide quoted text - 
>> 
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>> 
>>>>> Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
>>>>> Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies
>>>>> have a tendency to disassociate people from taking full
>>>>> responsibility for cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking
>>>>> full responsibility for their actions.
>> 
>>>>> Also bear in mind that the board are more likely to exercise an
>>>>> abundance of caution if they knew that they were all fully &
>>>>> jointly liable for any debt sprees their company undertakes. All
>>>>> employees of every company, also being liable for their company's
>>>>> excesses, would effectively be the new whistleblowing regulators
>>>>> as it is in their interests that the company not overstretch
>>>>> itself lest they too become liable.
>> 
>>>>> Such a system of self-policing is by far cheaper, more
>>>>> omnipresent, more informed and more effective than external
>>>>> tax-funded regulation. 
>> 
>>>> Could the board just take the money and disappear to another
>>>> country? 
>> 
>>> Which they could also do in our present system.
>> 
>>>> There wouldn't be any way of getting them to return.
>> 
>>> Grudges have a way of following people around.
>> 
>> Presently there is a system of law and international cooperation.
>> 
>> Your system appears to think that it's down to the individual to mete
>> out justice.- Hide quoted text -
>> 
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> While the government of this system would have no jurisdiction over
> matters involving the grievance of individual citizen(s), groups of
> aggrieved citizens may decide to unite together temporarily to take
> down someone who has wronged them.

A bit like the Ku Klux Klan then?

Ret.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 26, 9:00 pm, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:
>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>> I think you would not be able to disagree that:
>>> 1) A woman facing a rapist with a handgun is a lot more likely to
>>> prevent being raped than if she is not even allowed to carry pepper
>>> spray.
>>> 2) You are more likely to fend off a carjacking if you had a
>>> submachinegun than if you didn't.
>> 
>> Yep and when someone got up some idiot's nose, erpahaps by queue
>> jumping or some other unimportant thing, one or the other would blow
>> the opposite party's head off.
> 
> At which point they'd be fair game for anyone else. Statistically
> speaking, troublemakers are more likely to get weeded out.
> 
>> You are stark staring mad, and I mean that. I've read this thread in
>> its entirety and I don't think I've ever seen such fallacious and
>> ridiculous arguments as yours. As I said, you are stark staring mad.
> 
> LOL, you're going to have to try a bit harder than that to offend me.

It's impossible to offend a madman - didn't you know?

Ret.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 26, 10:34 pm, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:
>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>> On Mar 26, 9:00 pm, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:
>>>> You are stark staring mad, and I mean that. I've read this thread
>>>> in its entirety and I don't think I've ever seen such fallacious
>>>> and ridiculous arguments as yours. As I said, you are stark
>>>> staring mad.
>>
>>> LOL, you're going to have to try a bit harder than that to offend
>>> me.
>>
>> I am not trying to offend you, I am stating what seems an obvious
>> fact to me, you are stark staring mad.
>
> Keep "stating the obvious" then. The thread needs to be continually
> bumped to raise awareness that the anarcho-capitalist alternative is
> better than the status quo of de facto communism, and I am not
> bothered by your opinion in the slightest.

Thankfully, no one is bothered by your opinion either. You must realise that 
there is absolutely zero chance of your proposals *ever* coming about? The 
public in those countries most resembling your 'Utopian dream' are desperate 
to move toward a more civilised and law-controlled society.

Ret.

On Mar 27, 8:20 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 9:00 pm, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:
> >> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> >>> I think you would not be able to disagree that:
> >>> 1) A woman facing a rapist with a handgun is a lot more likely to
> >>> prevent being raped than if she is not even allowed to carry pepper
> >>> spray.
> >>> 2) You are more likely to fend off a carjacking if you had a
> >>> submachinegun than if you didn't.
>
> >> Yep and when someone got up some idiot's nose, erpahaps by queue
> >> jumping or some other unimportant thing, one or the other would blow
> >> the opposite party's head off.
>
> > At which point they'd be fair game for anyone else. Statistically
> > speaking, troublemakers are more likely to get weeded out.
>
> >> You are stark staring mad, and I mean that. I've read this thread in
> >> its entirety and I don't think I've ever seen such fallacious and
> >> ridiculous arguments as yours. As I said, you are stark staring mad.
>
> > LOL, you're going to have to try a bit harder than that to offend me.
>
> It's impossible to offend a madman - didn't you know?
>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Harder still to offend someone who is both senile and a sandwich short
of a picnic, but still worth trying, eh Ret? ;)

On Mar 27, 8:23 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

> Thankfully, no one is bothered by your opinion either. You must realise that
> there is absolutely zero chance of your proposals *ever* coming about? The
> public in those countries most resembling your 'Utopian dream' are desperate
> to move toward a more civilised and law-controlled society.

As we have discussed before in another thread, regardless of the
probable outcomes, striving for a better system is good for two
reasons:
1) It gives hope that things may change for the better.
2) Concepts from this may still be integrated into "modern" society,
such as decentralised  minimised government, minimised tax burden,
better government oversight, reduction in police powers and more
powers to the public, restoring freedoms to bear arms, etc.

On Mar 26, 10:43 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Mar 26, 10:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> wrote:
>
> > Proportionate distribution of wealth and power through Darwinism is
> > the optimal way to govern under practical circumstances. Is it fair
> > that a street bum's vote counts the same as a head of a
> > megacorporation or that a young kid who has barely scratched adulthood
> > has the same voting clout as his experienced senior?
>
> It most certainly is if the former in each case is to resist the
> exploitation of the latter.

We have always been exploited, even in our "enlightened" societies.
You are just unable to notice it.

For example, the government can forcibly extract payment from people
for services promised but not rendered and can raise payment demands
unilaterally. This is called tax.

> However, I intervene to point out that the acquisition of wealth and
> power has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism which focuses upon
> the evolution of entirely separate species from common ancestors
> through a process he described as natural selection.

Tsk tsk. No wonder I'm struggling with you. Not only did you miss the
parallel between exploitation and taxation, you also missed the
parallel between Darwinism (of which natural selection is a subset)
and the system I propose.

1) All things being equal (statistically and in the long term they
are), the ability to have more children reach fertile age in a society
devoid of any welfare whatsoever is proportional to an individual's
ability to support them.

2) In a society with almost no regulation, the fittest in terms of an
amalgamation of intelligence, health, wisdom and other desirable human
attributes would also likely be the wealthiest.

3) Therefore good genes are more likely to be emphasised in a free
society.

4) Any country whose genes dominate that of other countries will
eventually have a standard of living and national wealth that will
surpass that of its neighbours.

On the flipside of the coin, poor genes are more likely to be
propagated in collectivist societies.

On Mar 27, 12:11 am, "William Black" 
wrote:
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> news:6461b90e-47e5-42c4-adf4-b42462b90339@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Proportionate distribution of wealth and power through Darwinism is
> the optimal way to govern under practical circumstances.
>
> ----------------------
>
> The problem with that idea is that rational intellectual ability won't keep
> you alive in your society.
>
> All that will keep you alive is friends/hirelings and an adequate supply of
> ammunition.
>
> You're putting society into the hands of the gun nuts and retired soldiers.

Rubbish. How many people do you think an unpopular person can piss off
before a bullet finds home? Don't forget in this society anyone can
buy sniper rifles, machine guns and RPGs.

On Mar 27, 2:00 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 11:57, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 10:44 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Mar, 10:03, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 26, 8:19 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> > > > > Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 5:40 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote> > > > > >> On 25 Mar, 17:31, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> On Mar 25, 4:20 pm, Maria  wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>> What happened before we had enforceable law? What happens in
> > > > > >>>> African countries where there are few laws and even fewer
> > > > > >>>> 'policemen'?
> > > > > >>>> Do people just walk up and take goods without paying as a rule?
> > > > > >>>> How did we build such huge trade hundreds of years ago if people
> > > > > >>>> just stole things instead of paying?
>
> > > > > >>> I have served this country in such places in my distant past and the
> > > > > >>> answer to that question is that the shopkeeper tends to be armed or
> > > > > >>> pays for protection from the local neighbourhood youths. Some might
> > > > > >>> view the latter as extortion but then what is it the police do to us
> > > > > >>> in exchange for vague promises of protection from them? I remind
> > > > > >>> everyone reading this that failing to pay your taxes because the
> > > > > >>> police aren't providing adequate protection for you will eventually
> > > > > >>> land you in jail.
>
> > > > > >>>> That is where policing and law have gone wrong IMV- they are all
> > > > > >>>> now based on the assumption that we will do wrong if we think we
> > > > > >>>> will get away with it. How the presumption of innocence was ever
> > > > > >>>> built I'll never know.
>
> > > > > >>> It is also easy to wash our hands from meting out justice when we
> > > > > >>> can always point our finger to the plod to do it for us, and then
> > > > > >>> lament when they don't. The fact of the matter is that the plod
> > > > > >>> can't. They are not all knowing (as much as they'd like to be> > > > > >>> omnipresent and they aren't all powerful.
>
> > > > > >>> If someone witnesses a mugging, if people felt free and empowered to
> > > > > >>> intervene and apprehend/shoot the mugger, then people would. As it
> > > > > >>> is they just think the extent of their civic duty is to call the
> > > > > >>> police, wait for the police to arrive and by then the mugger is
> > > > > >>> long gone. People should not be afraid to do the right thing and
> > > > > >>> sadly this is what has happened in legalistic societies.
>
> > > > > >> Why do you say that? People can apprehend a mugger and use reasonable
> > > > > >> force but shooting wouldn't be classed as reasonable force against a
> > > > > >> mugger.
>
> > > > > > It is reasonable to presume that the mugger would either be armed or
> > > > > > if his weapon is visible, be prepared to use it if you try to
> > > > > > intervene. So yes shooting him is reasonable force.
>
> > > > > >> You may say that it is to you but you are not a reasonable
> > > > > >> person which is what matters in our legal system. If you shot a
> > > > > >> mugger then you think people would be entitled to shoot you. You may
> > > > > >> argue about this but this is what you have said many times.
>
> > > > > > Then shoot the mugger, drop your weapon and let the courts rule that
> > > > > > your intervention was proportionate. You won't be a walking corpse
> > > > > > until the courts say so if you aren't an immediate threat.
>
> > > > > >> There's no rule
> > > > > >> of law people are allowed to do what they want. It's a good job that
> > > > > >> people are more sensible than you give them credit for. I don't think
> > > > > >> you will find anybody who thinks you have a sensible idea.
>
> > > > > > I don't care what people think but I am entitled to speak my mind, am
> > > > > > I not?
>
> > > > > You are indeed - and we are entitled to point out that your views are not
> > > > > only extreme, but also utterly stupid and moronic. They would not work in a
> > > > > modern society and 'civilisation' would cease to exist. Shoot outs would
> > > > > become common and thousands of wholly innocent people would end up dead.
>
> > > > Typical scaremongering by our neighbourhood plod to get us to
> > > > surrender more powers to a government bent on consolidating and
> > > > centralising its power. You are a well conditioned and brainwashed
> > > > mouthpiece.
>
> > > > The High Seas are probably the closest analogue to a lawless region
> > > > and apart from the occasional bit of piracy, it is not wholesale
> > > > violence as you paint it out to be. In fact it would be even less if
> > > > civilian cargo ships were allowed to arm themselves.
>
> > > > In contrast, just about every incident of mass massacres in history
> > > > have happened when one side either had all the guns (e.g. Hitler
> > > > taking guns away from Jews after coming into power) or there was a
> > > > disproportionate disparity in strength, both of which we are seeing
> > > > happening in "civilised" countries today such as the UK.
>
> > > > Decentralising power from government is only a good thing.
>
> > > > > There would be no public services because no-one would be prepared to pay
> > > > > for them.
>
> > > > People will pay for things they need. This has always been the case
> > > > and no amount of your scare mongering will change that. A tax funded
> > > > system pays for things the mandarins want.
>
> > > > > The country would descend into total chaos within no time at all,
> > > > > populated by roaming gangs of armed thugs shooting anyone who got in their
> > > > > way and the vulnerable in our society would go to the wall. You are indeed a
> > > > > very silly person.
>
> > > > All the substance of your post can be summarised as speculative fear
> > > > mongering and personal insults. Utterly typical of a brainwashed and
> > > > braindead mouthpiece.
>
> > > And you are totally without insults?
>
> > You have both insulted and posted vacuous posts, so what are you
> > complaining about? I have already fingered you as a rude bean counter
> > a thread or two back. It appeared to improve your manners momentarily
> > and then you reverted to your Polska training and lost it all over
> > again. I am now fingering you as a simple-minded, unimaginative and
> > hypocritical as well.
>
> > LOL it looks like your skin is too thin to bear a few jibes. I
> > strongly recommend you return to your Polska kurwa and stay off
> > Usenet.
>
> > At least my posts combine taking a few cathartic shots with arguments/
> > substance.
>
> > > What do you say to Maria's idea of trusting people? How does it fit in
> > > with your wish that everybody carries guns?
>
> > Just because you carry guns, doesn't mean you don't trust people in
> > general. It just means you don't trust a small minority of people or
> > can also mean that you're out to help others who may not be able to
> > defend themselves.
>
> > The latter being much more preferable to the current situation where
> > anyone who is a victim of crime basically has to wet their pants and
> > call the police.
>
> So from a society where the people who carry guns may be in double
> figures you would prefer a society where millions carried sub machine
> guns and people in pubs and clubs regularly shot each other for
> spilling drinks over each other.
>
> You don't seem to have any common sense.-

Is it such a bad thing that alkies, junkies and chimneys get weeded
out by natural selection biased against troublemakers (especially if
they are under the influence)?

A few incidents like that and the smart ones will either control their
consumption. The dumb ones will keep playing Russian Roulette and
eventually they will remove each other from the gene pool.

That's self policing for you. A most satisfactory outcome.

On 27 Mar, 10:04, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:20 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > > On Mar 26, 9:00 pm, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:
> > >> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > >>> I think you would not be able to disagree that:
> > >>> 1) A woman facing a rapist with a handgun is a lot more likely to
> > >>> prevent being raped than if she is not even allowed to carry pepper
> > >>> spray.
> > >>> 2) You are more likely to fend off a carjacking if you had a
> > >>> submachinegun than if you didn't.
>
> > >> Yep and when someone got up some idiot's nose, erpahaps by queue
> > >> jumping or some other unimportant thing, one or the other would blow
> > >> the opposite party's head off.
>
> > > At which point they'd be fair game for anyone else. Statistically
> > > speaking, troublemakers are more likely to get weeded out.
>
> > >> You are stark staring mad, and I mean that. I've read this thread in
> > >> its entirety and I don't think I've ever seen such fallacious and
> > >> ridiculous arguments as yours. As I said, you are stark staring mad.
>
> > > LOL, you're going to have to try a bit harder than that to offend me.
>
> > It's impossible to offend a madman - didn't you know?
>
> > Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Harder still to offend someone who is both senile and a sandwich short
> of a picnic, but still worth trying, eh Ret? ;)

Somebody seems to be unhappy enough with their lot to resort to
constant abuse and ranting. Let me guess. You live alone? You have a
poorly paid job?

You dream for a society which would recognise your "brilliance".

One day you'll feel humiliated and you'll rush home, get a knife and
stab the offender.

You'll be sentenced to spend the rest of your days in a secure wing of
a mental hospital.

Until that day you will rant and insult over the internet.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> scumbags get their comeuppance.
> 
> By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
> and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
> 
> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> Let people self-police.
> 

That was pretty much the state of affairs before Peel.  We need to 
return to the principles set out by Peel.

R

On Mar 27, 2:11 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 21:26, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 6:00 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Mar, 16:22, "Relevant.Search.Result"
>
> > >  wrote:
> > > > On Mar 26, 12:16 am, Oppressed Subject 
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
> > > > > vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my view
> > > > > that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting justice and in
> > > > > fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has either paralysed
> > > > > people into inaction or put the fear of breaking an obscure law into
> > > > > doing what is morally right (which everyone apart from psychopaths
> > > > > innately know). And of course, it is always good news when unrepentant
> > > > > scumbags get their comeuppance.
>
> > > > > By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
> > > > > substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The police
> > > > > and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice. However, by
> > > > > moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving of what happened,
> > > > > and more. A group of self-policing citizens (not subjects) took it
> > > > > upon themselves to see that justice is done. A small serving of
> > > > > justice was served not by our overlords, but by common folk.
>
> > > > > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > > > > Let people self-police.
>
> > > > >http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj
>
> > > > > Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
> > > > > responsbility
> > > > > A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
> > > > > responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred Goodwin,
> > > > > the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.
>
> > > > > By Aislinn Simpson
> > > > > Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009
>
> > > > > In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank bosses
> > > > > to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".
>
> > > > > The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's upmarket
> > > > > Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a dark-coloured
> > > > > Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.
>
> > > > > Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed to have
> > > > > been reported to police by a member of his household staff at 4.35am
> > > > > on Wednesday morning.
>
> > > > > Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name Moira
> > > > > McLeod and the address bankbossesarecrimin...@mail.com.
>
> > > > > The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked this
> > > > > morning.
>
> > > > > "We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge
> > > > > amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made
> > > > > unemployed, destitute and homeless.
>
> > > > > "This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.
>
> > > > > "This is just the beginning."
>
> > > > > Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give up any
> > > > > of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped down
> > > > > following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN Amro which
> > > > > saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.
>
> > > > > The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs and
> > > > > "unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon Brown but
> > > > > Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not warranted".
>
> > > > > A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard outside
> > > > > his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the stone villa were
> > > > > clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and nearside rear passenger
> > > > > window of the Mercedes.
>
> > > > > There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.
>
> > > > > A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
> > > > > attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.
>
> > > > > “Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are appealing
> > > > > for witnesses.”
>
> > > > > It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal security
> > > > > for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV monitoring of his
> > > > > home.
>
> > > > > An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
> > > > > matter for police.
>
> > > > > "There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is normal
> > > > > practice for departing executives."
>
> > > > > A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware of the
> > > > > damage until she walked past the house.
>
> > > > > "I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has been so
> > > > > much publicity," she said.
>
> > > > > "I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are running
> > > > > very high in today's environment.
>
> > > > > "Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always looking for
> > > > > someone to blame."
>
> > > > > Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally unnecessary -
> > > > > absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."
>
> > > > as an executive representative of the share holders he was aware of
> > > > the risks
> > > > involved before he signed up for the job. now the people aren't going
> > > > to chase
> > > > the global manipulators like sir rothschild or sir rockefeller. they
> > > > are going to
> > > > chase whomever they can get their hands on. in this case, a small
> > > > fish.
> > > > there is nothing shocking about the reaction when you compare it to
> > > > the
> > > > magnitude of the executive crime. should give the next generation of
> > > > servile
> > > > crooks something to think about before getting involved in global
> > > > manipulations.
>
> > > "global manipulations" - great phrase if you want to talk rubbish!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Mr. Saxton here is getting excited because his job as an accountant
> > depends on the complexities of tax laws and finance regulation. The
> > concept of minimal government is absolutely anathema to him.
>
> Moronic government will never be brought in because most people
> realise that there's a level of complexity in the world. It's only
> stupid people who think that everything is simple and situations can
> be resolved without thought.
>

Yes I agree governments in general bias towards the moronic but I
think it is a bit excessive to apply that to everyone in government,
don't you agree my rude Polish friend?

I see you've dropped your holier-than-thou attitude and reverted back
to your insults. It is most amusing to see your hypocrisy manifest
itself in the span of one thread. In any event I do agree that it is
stupid people who think that situations can be resolved without
thought, such as you posting in this thread without consulting your
towering intellect as a bean counter.

However, enlightened people realise that systems find their own
equilibrium and that a stable, progressive and Darwinistic anarcho-
capitalist society will be the emergent outcome of the intelligent
thought of its people (the stupid ones having shot themselves up in
bar brawls as you point out earlier).

> Being poorly paid in a dead end job doesn't mean that anything you
> can't understand is bad. It just means that you are a failure.

Someone being poorly paid in a "dead end job" might see it for things
bigger than the pay itself, such as the training. I was poorly paid in
the army to keep fit, fire a gun and handle explosives. I still do the
first and the second (through my gun club and clay pigeon shooting),
and sometimes the third through work.

> The solution isn't to wander the streets with a submachine gun. Nobody
> else seems to agree with you.

Only a simpleton like you will think that is the essence of my
proposal. My proposal is to let society find its level without
interference from government, allow proportionate distribution of
wealth according to ability without restrictive regulations and to
allow natural selection to emphasise good genes in the population
whilst weeding out bad ones.

> Cue "Everybody else is brainwashed. I'm the only intelligent person".

I never said either. It is evidence of your inability to debate that
you resort to bait and switch tactics.

On Mar 27, 2:25 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> There's another thread about car insurance and car tax. It would
> appear that these would be abolished in OS's deluded world.

Car tax would be abolished. Car insurance is up to the individual. No
rules to force them to have it.

> Also the
> requirement for vehicles to be roadworthy.

Your vehicle, your business. If it affects my vehicle, I can then use
reasonable force to extract payment from you.

> It would appear that OS's
> solution to road accidents would be to smash up the other parties
> house or car to gain revenge. That would be after killing the person
> with a sub machine gun.

Killing over an accident would get yourself labelled as a killer in
court and your life forfeit.

> I would assume that parents would be allowed to kill their children.

No, a child's life is their own.

> The child's recourse before death would be to obtain a sub machine gun
> and kill the parents. It's ok though. If a child actually died the
> local nutter would go round and kill the parents with a sub machine
> gun. Whether the death was an accident or not isn't something that
> needs to be considered at this stage.

You are too dim witted to understand what I said and instead go off
tangent.

> OS would appear to be unhappy with his life and would love to be able
> to shoot other people with a sub machine gun. He wouldn't be too
> worried if somebody killed him because it would at least stop his
> suffering in a miserable existence and he can only see other people
> having fun.

Again more proof of the influence of a Polska kurwa wife on your life,
lol.

On Mar 27, 10:24 am, Roger Dewhurst  wrote:

> > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
> > Let people self-police.
>
> That was pretty much the state of affairs before Peel.  We need to
> return to the principles set out by Peel.

No it wasn't!

There were already parish constables in existence before Peel's time.
Justices of the Peace go back a lot further than these. The old Assize
Court system is medieval in origin. Going back still further to tribal
times, law was arbitrary and autocratically applied.

There has never been a society in which everyone did as they pleased
with respect to these matters. It's doubtful whether such a society
could survive.

Sir Robert Peel did not "invent" policemen.

What he did do, was draw together the plethora of policing
organisations and initiatives (e.g. the Bow Street Runners) both
parochially and privately raised and organised, and rationalise  them
into a single body of more relevance to the needs of an expanding
metropolis in the 1840's.

PeterSaxton wrote:
> On 27 Mar, 10:04, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 8:20 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>> On Mar 26, 9:00 pm, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:
>>>>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>>>> I think you would not be able to disagree that:
>>>>>> 1) A woman facing a rapist with a handgun is a lot more likely to
>>>>>> prevent being raped than if she is not even allowed to carry
>>>>>> pepper spray.
>>>>>> 2) You are more likely to fend off a carjacking if you had a
>>>>>> submachinegun than if you didn't.
>> 
>>>>> Yep and when someone got up some idiot's nose, erpahaps by queue
>>>>> jumping or some other unimportant thing, one or the other would
>>>>> blow the opposite party's head off.
>> 
>>>> At which point they'd be fair game for anyone else. Statistically
>>>> speaking, troublemakers are more likely to get weeded out.
>> 
>>>>> You are stark staring mad, and I mean that. I've read this thread
>>>>> in its entirety and I don't think I've ever seen such fallacious
>>>>> and ridiculous arguments as yours. As I said, you are stark
>>>>> staring mad. 
>> 
>>>> LOL, you're going to have to try a bit harder than that to offend
>>>> me. 
>> 
>>> It's impossible to offend a madman - didn't you know?
>> 
>>> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>> 
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> 
>> Harder still to offend someone who is both senile and a sandwich
>> short of a picnic, but still worth trying, eh Ret? ;)
> 
> Somebody seems to be unhappy enough with their lot to resort to
> constant abuse and ranting. Let me guess. You live alone? You have a
> poorly paid job?
> 
> You dream for a society which would recognise your "brilliance".
> 
> One day you'll feel humiliated and you'll rush home, get a knife and
> stab the offender.
> 
> You'll be sentenced to spend the rest of your days in a secure wing of
> a mental hospital.
> 
> Until that day you will rant and insult over the internet.

LOL!!  I think you've described him to a 'T'  !!

Ret.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:5b5ae006-2706-4aac-afd2-308faf50fc3e@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...


2) In a society with almost no regulation, the fittest in terms of an
amalgamation of intelligence, health, wisdom and other desirable human
attributes would also likely be the wealthiest.

----------------------]

The historical evidence does not seem to show this.

The wealthiest people in societies where there was little regulation were 
almost invariably the descendants of very violent people who managed to live 
long enough to sire children.

-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 26, 10:43 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 10:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Proportionate distribution of wealth and power through Darwinism is
>>> the optimal way to govern under practical circumstances. Is it fair
>>> that a street bum's vote counts the same as a head of a
>>> megacorporation or that a young kid who has barely scratched
>>> adulthood has the same voting clout as his experienced senior?
>>
>> It most certainly is if the former in each case is to resist the
>> exploitation of the latter.
>
> We have always been exploited, even in our "enlightened" societies.
> You are just unable to notice it.
>
> For example, the government can forcibly extract payment from people
> for services promised but not rendered and can raise payment demands
> unilaterally. This is called tax.
>
>> However, I intervene to point out that the acquisition of wealth and
>> power has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism which focuses upon
>> the evolution of entirely separate species from common ancestors
>> through a process he described as natural selection.
>
> Tsk tsk. No wonder I'm struggling with you. Not only did you miss the
> parallel between exploitation and taxation, you also missed the
> parallel between Darwinism (of which natural selection is a subset)
> and the system I propose.
>
> 1) All things being equal (statistically and in the long term they
> are), the ability to have more children reach fertile age in a society
> devoid of any welfare whatsoever is proportional to an individual's
> ability to support them.
>
> 2) In a society with almost no regulation, the fittest in terms of an
> amalgamation of intelligence, health, wisdom and other desirable human
> attributes would also likely be the wealthiest.

Not so, not so. The type of people who will prosper in your society will be 
the bullies, the thugs, and those who are better able to handle a handgun 
than the others.  The meek will inherit the earth? !!  Not in your society!

Ret.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:df7328fd-9abe-4786-955e-3896c2e1b053@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 27, 12:11 am, "William Black" 
wrote:
> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> news:6461b90e-47e5-42c4-adf4-b42462b90339@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Proportionate distribution of wealth and power through Darwinism is
> the optimal way to govern under practical circumstances.
>
> ----------------------
>
> The problem with that idea is that rational intellectual ability won't 
> keep
> you alive in your society.
>
> All that will keep you alive is friends/hirelings and an adequate supply 
> of
> ammunition.
>
> You're putting society into the hands of the gun nuts and retired 
> soldiers.

Rubbish. How many people do you think an unpopular person can piss off
before a bullet finds home? Don't forget in this society anyone can
buy sniper rifles, machine guns and RPGs.

---------------------------------

Who is going to manufacture them?

And what stops the gunmakers forming a cartel, stop selling guns,  hiring 
gunmen and taking over?

-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On 27 Mar, 10:16, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
> On Mar 27, 12:11 am, "William Black" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>
> >news:6461b90e-47e5-42c4-adf4-b42462b90339@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com..> > Proportionate distribution of wealth and power through Darwinism is
> > the optimal way to govern under practical circumstances.
>
> > ----------------------
>
> > The problem with that idea is that rational intellectual ability won't keep
> > you alive in your society.
>
> > All that will keep you alive is friends/hirelings and an adequate supply of
> > ammunition.
>
> > You're putting society into the hands of the gun nuts and retired soldiers.
>
> Rubbish. How many people do you think an unpopular person can piss off
> before a bullet finds home? Don't forget in this society anyone can
> buy sniper rifles, machine guns and RPGs.

Not legally.

If you take illegality into account it is a pointless statement.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 27, 12:11 am, "William Black" 
> wrote:
>> "Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:6461b90e-47e5-42c4-adf4-b42462b90339@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Proportionate distribution of wealth and power through Darwinism is
>> the optimal way to govern under practical circumstances.
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>> The problem with that idea is that rational intellectual ability
>> won't keep you alive in your society.
>>
>> All that will keep you alive is friends/hirelings and an adequate
>> supply of ammunition.
>>
>> You're putting society into the hands of the gun nuts and retired
>> soldiers.
>
> Rubbish. How many people do you think an unpopular person can piss off
> before a bullet finds home? Don't forget in this society anyone can
> buy sniper rifles, machine guns and RPGs.

LOL!!  It's true - you *are* mad! Who do you think will be in a better 
position to handle all this weaponry?  Will it be Miss Tilley the local 
schoolteacher - or will it be Billy Thug, the gun nut who has been reared on 
'Grand Theft Auto'?

Ret.

Ret.

"Oppressed Subject"  wrote in message 
news:06f69af8-d4f0-45d0-bd01-11d1759f0927@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 27, 2:25 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> There's another thread about car insurance and car tax. It would
> appear that these would be abolished in OS's deluded world.

Car tax would be abolished. Car insurance is up to the individual. No
rules to force them to have it.

--------------------

Or,  indeed,  a rule that makes the insurance company pay out.

I can see insurance salesmen now...

"Now sir,  you need insurance for your house"

"But you never pay out"

"No sir,  you don't understand,  if you don't pay your house WILL burn down, 
we'll make sure of it..."


> Also the
> requirement for vehicles to be roadworthy.

Your vehicle, your business. If it affects my vehicle, I can then use
reasonable force to extract payment from you.

-------------------------------

Well,  unless you're trying to get money from a dead man...

Or someone who got drunk,  got into a huge lorry,  and drove it into your 
car.

You're dead,  he walked away,  nobody can do anything about it...


-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2:25 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>> There's another thread about car insurance and car tax. It would
>> appear that these would be abolished in OS's deluded world.
> 
> Car tax would be abolished. Car insurance is up to the individual. No
> rules to force them to have it.
> 
>> Also the
>> requirement for vehicles to be roadworthy.
> 
> Your vehicle, your business. If it affects my vehicle, I can then use
> reasonable force to extract payment from you.

And if you are dead because an unroadworthy car has crashed into you? 

Ret.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2:11 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>> On 26 Mar, 21:26, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 6:00 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>>
>>>> On 26 Mar, 16:22, "Relevant.Search.Result"
>>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 26, 12:16 am, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> It was with some degree of mirth that I read today's news on the
>>>>>> vandalism of Sir Fred Goodwin's Edinburgh home. It reinforces my
>>>>>> view that a legalistic framework is incapable of exacting
>>>>>> justice and in fact does the opposite as excessive legalism has
>>>>>> either paralysed people into inaction or put the fear of
>>>>>> breaking an obscure law into doing what is morally right (which
>>>>>> everyone apart from psychopaths innately know). And of course,
>>>>>> it is always good news when unrepentant scumbags get their
>>>>>> comeuppance.
>>
>>>>>> By law, Sir Fred Goodwin is a knighted man of some "honour", of
>>>>>> substantial material wealth and with a sizeable pension. The
>>>>>> police and CPS are impotent and incapable of exacting justice.
>>>>>> However, by moral standards, he is a pauper and duly deserving
>>>>>> of what happened, and more. A group of self-policing citizens
>>>>>> (not subjects) took it upon themselves to see that justice is
>>>>>> done. A small serving of justice was served not by our
>>>>>> overlords, but by common folk.
>>
>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
>>>>>> everyone. Let people self-police.
>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4tmvj
>>
>>>>>> Sir Fred Goodwin attack: Bank Bosses Are Criminals group claims
>>>>>> responsbility
>>>>>> A group calling itself Bank Bosses Are Criminals has claimed
>>>>>> responsibility for vandalising the Edinburgh home of Sir Fred
>>>>>> Goodwin, the disgraced former chief executive of RBS bank.
>>
>>>>>> By Aislinn Simpson
>>>>>> Last Updated: 12:36PM GMT 25 Mar 2009
>>
>>>>>> In an email sent to local newspapers, the group called for bank
>>>>>> bosses to be jailed and warned: "This is just the beginning".
>>
>>>>>> The attack saw the windows of Sir Fred's home, in Edinburgh's
>>>>>> upmarket Morningside area, smashed, along with those of a
>>>>>> dark-coloured Mercedes S600 saloon parked in the driveway.
>>
>>>>>> Sir Fred is understood to be abroad and the attack is believed
>>>>>> to have been reported to police by a member of his household
>>>>>> staff at 4.35am on Wednesday morning.
>>
>>>>>> Minutes afterwards, an email was sent by a woman using the name
>>>>>> Moira McLeod and the address bankbossesarecrimin...@mail.com.
>>
>>>>>> The email read: "Fred Goodwins house in Edinburgh, was attacked
>>>>>> this morning.
>>
>>>>>> "We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves
>>>>>> a huge amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary
>>>>>> people are made unemployed, destitute and homeless.
>>
>>>>>> "This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed.
>>
>>>>>> "This is just the beginning."
>>
>>>>>> Sir Fred was subject to heavy criticism after refusing to give
>>>>>> up any of his £700,000-a-year pension, awarded after he stepped
>>>>>> down following the disatrous acquisition of Dutch rival bank ABN
>>>>>> Amro which saw RBS bailed out by the taxpayer.
>>
>>>>>> The massive payout was branded "obscene" and "grotesque" by MPs
>>>>>> and "unjustifiable and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Gordon
>>>>>> Brown but Sir Fred insisted any changes to it were "not
>>>>>> warranted".
>>
>>>>>> A police car was visible on Wednesday morning standing guard
>>>>>> outside his home. Three smashed ground-floor windows of the
>>>>>> stone villa were clearly visible, as were the smashed rear and
>>>>>> nearside rear passenger window of the Mercedes.
>>
>>>>>> There were no obvious signs of activity inside the house.
>>
>>>>>> A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said: “We can confirm we
>>>>>> attended at an address in Morningside around 4.35am today.
>>
>>>>>> “Inquiries in relation to the incident are ongoing. We are
>>>>>> appealing for witnesses.”
>>
>>>>>> It has been reported that RBS continued to pay for personal
>>>>>> security for Sir Fred following his departure, including CCTV
>>>>>> monitoring of his home.
>>
>>>>>> An RBS spokesman said: "We are aware of the incident but it is a
>>>>>> matter for police.
>>
>>>>>> "There are security arrangements in place for Sir Fred, as is
>>>>>> normal practice for departing executives."
>>
>>>>>> A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said she was unaware
>>>>>> of the damage until she walked past the house.
>>
>>>>>> "I'm surprised that nothing has happened sooner as there has
>>>>>> been so much publicity," she said.
>>
>>>>>> "I feel sorry for his family but I think people's emotions are
>>>>>> running very high in today's environment.
>>
>>>>>> "Like it or not, we are in a blame society and are always
>>>>>> looking for someone to blame."
>>
>>>>>> Another neighbour said: "It is shocking, that is totally
>>>>>> unnecessary - absolutely shocking. Nobody deserves that."
>>
>>>>> as an executive representative of the share holders he was aware
>>>>> of the risks
>>>>> involved before he signed up for the job. now the people aren't
>>>>> going to chase
>>>>> the global manipulators like sir rothschild or sir rockefeller.
>>>>> they are going to
>>>>> chase whomever they can get their hands on. in this case, a small
>>>>> fish.
>>>>> there is nothing shocking about the reaction when you compare it
>>>>> to the
>>>>> magnitude of the executive crime. should give the next generation
>>>>> of servile
>>>>> crooks something to think about before getting involved in global
>>>>> manipulations.
>>
>>>> "global manipulations" - great phrase if you want to talk
>>>> rubbish!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Mr. Saxton here is getting excited because his job as an accountant
>>> depends on the complexities of tax laws and finance regulation. The
>>> concept of minimal government is absolutely anathema to him.
>>
>> Moronic government will never be brought in because most people
>> realise that there's a level of complexity in the world. It's only
>> stupid people who think that everything is simple and situations can
>> be resolved without thought.
>>
>
> Yes I agree governments in general bias towards the moronic but I
> think it is a bit excessive to apply that to everyone in government,
> don't you agree my rude Polish friend?
>
> I see you've dropped your holier-than-thou attitude and reverted back
> to your insults. It is most amusing to see your hypocrisy manifest
> itself in the span of one thread. In any event I do agree that it is
> stupid people who think that situations can be resolved without
> thought, such as you posting in this thread without consulting your
> towering intellect as a bean counter.
>
> However, enlightened people realise that systems find their own
> equilibrium and that a stable, progressive and Darwinistic anarcho-
> capitalist society will be the emergent outcome of the intelligent
> thought of its people (the stupid ones having shot themselves up in
> bar brawls as you point out earlier).
>
>> Being poorly paid in a dead end job doesn't mean that anything you
>> can't understand is bad. It just means that you are a failure.
>
> Someone being poorly paid in a "dead end job" might see it for things
> bigger than the pay itself, such as the training. I was poorly paid in
> the army to keep fit, fire a gun and handle explosives. I still do the
> first and the second (through my gun club and clay pigeon shooting),
> and sometimes the third through work.
>
>> The solution isn't to wander the streets with a submachine gun.
>> Nobody else seems to agree with you.
>
> Only a simpleton like you will think that is the essence of my
> proposal. My proposal is to let society find its level without
> interference from government, allow proportionate distribution of
> wealth according to ability without restrictive regulations and to
> allow natural selection to emphasise good genes in the population
> whilst weeding out bad ones.

So you have no feeling of empathy toward the less fortunate in society?  If 
someone is born with a physical disability that prevents them from working - 
you would just allow them to die?

Ret.

Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
>>>>>> everyone. Let people self-police.

I take it you will be out in London next week, protesting with all the other 
anarchists?

Ret.

On Mar 27, 8:16 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 4:04 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> >> On 25 Mar, 15:44, Oppressed Subject  wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 25, 3:36 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> >>>> On 25 Mar, 15:22, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 25, 2:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject 
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing 
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject
> >>>>>>>>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton 
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject
> >>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing 
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government. Arm everyone. Let people self-police.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom and wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism,
> >>>>>>>>>>> as well as maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul
> >>>>>>>>>>> of the following groups (just to name a few):
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2) Police
> >>>>>>>>>>> 3) Politicians
> >>>>>>>>>>> 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> >>>>>>>>>>> 5) Parasites
> >>>>>>>>>>> 6) Idiots
> >>>>>>>>>>> 7) Criminals
> >>>>>>>>>>> 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and
> >>>>>>>>>>> database admins.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that
> >>>>>>>>>>> as you have done nothing but undertake character
> >>>>>>>>>>> assassinations without putting any reasoned rebuttals into
> >>>>>>>>>>> your posts, you clearly fall into the territory of #5 & #6.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I also note that as it is typical of this government's
> >>>>>>>>>>> apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
> >>>>>>>>>>> you're #4 too.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous
> >>>>>>>>>> "ideas" you resort to insults.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted
> >>>>>>>>> to insults first. I am simply being true to my word and
> >>>>>>>>> applying monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> >>>>>>>>> There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served
> >>>>>>>>> where appropriate and in proportion.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively
> >>>>>>>>> injustice) or (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>
> >>>>>>>> But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to
> >>>>>>>> smash up other peoples property.
>
> >>>>>>>> Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>
> >>>>>>> A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of
> >>>>>>> "Sir" Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major
> >>>>>>> contributor of.
>
> >>>>>>> I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
> >>>>>>> disproportionate. :)
>
> >>>>>> But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they
> >>>>>> wanted?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>> Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
> >>>>> Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies
> >>>>> have a tendency to disassociate people from taking full
> >>>>> responsibility for cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking
> >>>>> full responsibility for their actions.
>
> >>>>> Also bear in mind that the board are more likely to exercise an
> >>>>> abundance of caution if they knew that they were all fully &
> >>>>> jointly liable for any debt sprees their company undertakes. All
> >>>>> employees of every company, also being liable for their company's
> >>>>> excesses, would effectively be the new whistleblowing regulators
> >>>>> as it is in their interests that the company not overstretch
> >>>>> itself lest they too become liable.
>
> >>>>> Such a system of self-policing is by far cheaper, more
> >>>>> omnipresent, more informed and more effective than external
> >>>>> tax-funded regulation.
>
> >>>> Could the board just take the money and disappear to another
> >>>> country?
>
> >>> Which they could also do in our present system.
>
> >>>> There wouldn't be any way of getting them to return.
>
> >>> Grudges have a way of following people around.
>
> >> Presently there is a system of law and international cooperation.
>
> >> Your system appears to think that it's down to the individual to mete
> >> out justice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > While the government of this system would have no jurisdiction over
> > matters involving the grievance of individual citizen(s), groups of
> > aggrieved citizens may decide to unite together temporarily to take
> > down someone who has wronged them.
>
> A bit like the Ku Klux Klan then?
>
> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The good shall prevail. Unfounded racists would have justice visited
upon them swiftly.

On 27 Mar, 11:07, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> >>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
> >>>>>> everyone. Let people self-police.
>
> I take it you will be out in London next week, protesting with all the other
> anarchists?
>
> Ret.

Of course he wont. There'll be people there!

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:05:35 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>So you have no feeling of empathy toward the less fortunate in society?  If 
>someone is born with a physical disability that prevents them from working - 
>you would just allow them to die?

The problem with such "empathy" is that it places a mandatory burden
on everyone in society to support the disadvantaged.  That is possible
*only* if the society as a whole is wealthy enough to be able to give
such support.  It also removes responsibility from people who brought
the disadvantaged people into the World (which is often a matter of
choice).

So one couple have a good income, and responsibly limit their family
to one or two children who they ensure receive good care and
education.

Another couple are illiterate and jobless, and produce child after
disadvantaged child who, because of this "empathy" you speak of, have
to be supported by the rest of us.

IMO it is better to allow each small community decide whether to help
a disadvantaged person and to what extent.  In places where that
happens, the help given is far more on the practical side and less on
the financial side, and is geared toward finding a way for the
disadvantaged person to contribute to society as well as supporting
them.

-- 
Cynic

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:KoKdnbqGnb37LlHUnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
>>>>>>> everyone. Let people self-police.
>
> I take it you will be out in London next week, protesting with all the 
> other anarchists?

I doubt it.

The external evidence seems to indicate that he doesn't get out much...

-- 
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On 27 Mar, 12:59, Cynic  wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:05:35 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >So you have no feeling of empathy toward the less fortunate in society?  If
> >someone is born with a physical disability that prevents them from working -
> >you would just allow them to die?
>
> The problem with such "empathy" is that it places a mandatory burden
> on everyone in society to support the disadvantaged.  That is possible
> *only* if the society as a whole is wealthy enough to be able to give
> such support.  It also removes responsibility from people who brought
> the disadvantaged people into the World (which is often a matter of
> choice).
>
> So one couple have a good income, and responsibly limit their family
> to one or two children who they ensure receive good care and
> education.
>
> Another couple are illiterate and jobless, and produce child after
> disadvantaged child who, because of this "empathy" you speak of, have
> to be supported by the rest of us.
>
> IMO it is better to allow each small community decide whether to help
> a disadvantaged person and to what extent.  In places where that
> happens, the help given is far more on the practical side and less on
> the financial side, and is geared toward finding a way for the
> disadvantaged person to contribute to society as well as supporting
> them.
>
> --
> Cynic

I don't think people disagree with you.

What the sensible people are saying is that it shouldn't be left to
armed thugs wandering the streets shooting people at will.

On Mar 28, 12:11 am, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 27 Mar, 12:59, Cynic  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:05:35 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> > >So you have no feeling of empathy toward the less fortunate in society?  If
> > >someone is born with a physical disability that prevents them from working -
> > >you would just allow them to die?
>
> > The problem with such "empathy" is that it places a mandatory burden
> > on everyone in society to support the disadvantaged.  That is possible
> > *only* if the society as a whole is wealthy enough to be able to give
> > such support.  It also removes responsibility from people who brought
> > the disadvantaged people into the World (which is often a matter of
> > choice).
>
> > So one couple have a good income, and responsibly limit their family
> > to one or two children who they ensure receive good care and
> > education.
>
> > Another couple are illiterate and jobless, and produce child after
> > disadvantaged child who, because of this "empathy" you speak of, have
> > to be supported by the rest of us.
>
> > IMO it is better to allow each small community decide whether to help
> > a disadvantaged person and to what extent.  In places where that
> > happens, the help given is far more on the practical side and less on
> > the financial side, and is geared toward finding a way for the
> > disadvantaged person to contribute to society as well as supporting
> > them.
>
> > --
> > Cynic
>
> I don't think people disagree with you.
>



> What the sensible people are saying is that it shouldn't be left to
> armed thugs wandering the streets shooting people at will.

we should take the guns away from the governments, problem solved. :-)

Oppressed Subject wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:16 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 4:04 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>>>> On 25 Mar, 15:44, Oppressed Subject 
>>>> wrote: 
>> 
>>>>> On Mar 25, 3:36 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> On 25 Mar, 15:22, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>>> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:52 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject
>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton 
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government. Arm everyone. Let people self-police.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom and wouldn't know what to do with it.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's not on his own I'm sure!
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well as maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the following groups (just to name a few):
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Police
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Politicians
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Parasites
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Idiots
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7) Criminals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> database admins.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you have done nothing but undertake character
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assassinations without putting any reasoned rebuttals into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your posts, you clearly fall into the territory of #5 &
>>>>>>>>>>>>> #6. I also note that as it is typical of this government's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're #4 too.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous
>>>>>>>>>>>> "ideas" you resort to insults.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you look at the thread history and see who
>>>>>>>>>>> resorted to insults first. I am simply being true to my
>>>>>>>>>>> word and applying monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served
>>>>>>>>>>> where appropriate and in proportion.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively
>>>>>>>>>>> injustice) or (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to
>>>>>>>>>> smash up other peoples property.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>> 
>>>>>>>>> A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth
>>>>>>>>> of "Sir" Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a
>>>>>>>>> major contributor of.
>> 
>>>>>>>>> I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
>>>>>>>>> disproportionate. :)
>> 
>>>>>>>> But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they
>>>>>>>> wanted?- Hide quoted text -
>> 
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>> 
>>>>>>> Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
>>>>>>> Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies
>>>>>>> have a tendency to disassociate people from taking full
>>>>>>> responsibility for cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking
>>>>>>> full responsibility for their actions.
>> 
>>>>>>> Also bear in mind that the board are more likely to exercise an
>>>>>>> abundance of caution if they knew that they were all fully &
>>>>>>> jointly liable for any debt sprees their company undertakes. All
>>>>>>> employees of every company, also being liable for their
>>>>>>> company's excesses, would effectively be the new whistleblowing
>>>>>>> regulators as it is in their interests that the company not
>>>>>>> overstretch itself lest they too become liable.
>> 
>>>>>>> Such a system of self-policing is by far cheaper, more
>>>>>>> omnipresent, more informed and more effective than external
>>>>>>> tax-funded regulation.
>> 
>>>>>> Could the board just take the money and disappear to another
>>>>>> country?
>> 
>>>>> Which they could also do in our present system.
>> 
>>>>>> There wouldn't be any way of getting them to return.
>> 
>>>>> Grudges have a way of following people around.
>> 
>>>> Presently there is a system of law and international cooperation.
>> 
>>>> Your system appears to think that it's down to the individual to
>>>> mete out justice.- Hide quoted text -
>> 
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>> 
>>> While the government of this system would have no jurisdiction over
>>> matters involving the grievance of individual citizen(s), groups of
>>> aggrieved citizens may decide to unite together temporarily to take
>>> down someone who has wronged them.
>> 
>> A bit like the Ku Klux Klan then?
>> 
>> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>> 
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> The good shall prevail. Unfounded racists would have justice visited
> upon them swiftly.

But the Ku Klux Klan do not believe that their racism is unfounded.

Ret.

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
 wrote:

>On Mar 27, 10:24 am, Roger Dewhurst  wrote:
>
>> > Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
>> > Let people self-police.
>>
>> That was pretty much the state of affairs before Peel.  We need to
>> return to the principles set out by Peel.
>
>No it wasn't!
>
>There were already parish constables in existence before Peel's time.

The parish watch
When Peel introduced police in a number of parishes in London he did
so by abolishing the parish watch.

>Justices of the Peace go back a lot further than these. The old Assize
>Court system is medieval in origin. Going back still further to tribal
>times, law was arbitrary and autocratically applied.
>
>There has never been a society in which everyone did as they pleased
>with respect to these matters. It's doubtful whether such a society
>could survive.
>
>Sir Robert Peel did not "invent" policemen.
>
>What he did do, was draw together the plethora of policing
>organisations and initiatives (e.g. the Bow Street Runners) both
>parochially and privately raised and organised, and rationalise  them
>into a single body of more relevance to the needs of an expanding
>metropolis in the 1840's.

I suggest reading some history.
Here's a good place to start
http://www.amazon.co.uk/English-Police-Political-Social-History/dp/0582257689