On Mar 27, 8:20 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 8:13 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >> Alang wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:49:03 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
> >>>  wrote:
>
> >>>> 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?
>
> >>> Do you not trust your friends and neighbours not to kill you?
>
> >> It does not surprise me one iota that you are supporting the
> >> cretinous 'oppressed subject' and his ludicrous views Alan!!
>
> >> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > As usual our resident police officer as is typical of his ilk has not
> > provided one shred of evidence as to why it won't work, and instead
> > resorts to character assassination and fear mongering. What a nice
> > little droid.
>
> This whole thread is *full* of evidence as to why your ludicrous proposals
> would not work, and not just from me either.

Well then, perhaps they slipped my attention but you shouldn't have a
problem citing them. Go ahead, cite me some reasoned arguments with
evidence in this thread why the proposals won't work. :)

> The fact that only a couple of
> nuts have supported your views (and then only partially) must suggest
> something to you surely?

Most people are afraid of change. It must be brought to them before
they realise it is a good thing.

> Sane people do not want a 'laws of the jungle' society. For all it's
> failings, our present system is infinitely better than what you are
> proposing. Summary execution for *perceived* wrong-doing without trial?
> Don't make me laugh.

I never said that. Typical plod tactics to bait and switch and lie
through their teeth.

Summary execution by anyone is after a trial has established guilt of
them being a killer. After that their life is forfeit. They may yet
live if they get out of the country or are good at dodging bullets.

The only time when killing is sanctioned beyond what the courts deem
is if someone is an immediate mortal threat to others.

On Mar 27, 10:47 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 8:20 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >> Oppressed Subject wrote:
> >>> On Mar 26, 8:13 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >>>> Alang wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:49:03 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
> >>>>>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>> 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?
>
> >>>>> Do you not trust your friends and neighbours not to kill you?
>
> >>>> It does not surprise me one iota that you are supporting the
> >>>> cretinous 'oppressed subject' and his ludicrous views Alan!!
>
> >>>> Ret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> As usual our resident police officer as is typical of his ilk has
> >>> not provided one shred of evidence as to why it won't work, and
> >>> instead resorts to character assassination and fear mongering. What
> >>> a nice little droid.
>
> >> This whole thread is *full* of evidence as to why your ludicrous
> >> proposals would not work, and not just from me either.
>
> > Well then, perhaps they slipped my attention but you shouldn't have a
> > problem citing them. Go ahead, cite me some reasoned arguments with
> > evidence in this thread why the proposals won't work. :)
>
> I have no intention of wasting my time. Just look back through the thread> you'll find plenty of examples for yourself.

LOL because you can't. Blatant dodge.

>
>
> >> The fact that only a couple of
> >> nuts have supported your views (and then only partially) must suggest
> >> something to you surely?
>
> > Most people are afraid of change. It must be brought to them before
> > they realise it is a good thing.
>
> You *have* brought it to them - and they've rejected it as the ravings of a
> lunatic!!

No they haven't. Your binary mind can not accept that people may not
want anarcho capitalism in its purest form but they are willing to
accept parts of it. In fact the BBAC group meted out part of my
anarcho capitalist vision recently, so part of it is reality whether
you like it or not.

>
>
> >> Sane people do not want a 'laws of the jungle' society. For all it's
> >> failings, our present system is infinitely better than what you are
> >> proposing. Summary execution for *perceived* wrong-doing without
> >> trial? Don't make me laugh.
>
> > I never said that. Typical plod tactics to bait and switch and lie
> > through their teeth.
>
> Yes you *have* said that - on several occasions. Here is a couple:
>
> "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."

This is peer review for the deed of the customer hosing down the
board. There should be one for the board's negligence previously. If
there wasn't, there will still be peer review for the customer's
deeds.

> "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."

Did you read the bit about him being labelled a killer before he was
deserving of summary execution? Or is even basic comprehension beyond
you as a plod?

> So it's you who is lying through his teeth is it not?

No it is not. It is you who is unable to read, too entrenched to
contemplate change and too brainwashed to hoping for something better.

>
>
> > Summary execution by anyone is after a trial has established guilt of
> > them being a killer. After that their life is forfeit. They may yet
> > live if they get out of the country or are good at dodging bullets.
>
> > The only time when killing is sanctioned beyond what the courts deem
> > is if someone is an immediate mortal threat to others.
>
> That is not what you have said above is it?

It is. Read again please.