Pro-gun myths busted

[z31maniac]

Wow, you're literally the first person to say that.

In real life, or in this thread.

You sir, are a master internet trolling. One internetz to you.

[BLACKCHARM88]

Cars kill a bunch of people, maybe we should ban them to so we can live in a bubble boy world.

[The Dark Side of Will]

The other concept of "people working it out" means that if that thief is caught he is expelled from the community, under more extreme circumstances the thief would be punished to varying degrees as determined by the people. This is where we would be taking a huge step backwards as far as what most people would consider modern civility. In my mind, it's a damn good deterrent for not doing something stupid, others would argue that it's impossible to hold these people to their actions as they can't control themselves. Anyway, our modern society is a result of baby steps towards "civility" and many would argue it's a good thing while others could argue it's unsustainable. Meh...I'm tired and rambling, feel free to disregard.

The Libertarian definition of crime is that an action is only a crime if it causes death, injury, harm, damages or loss to a victim. IE, if there's no victim, no crime has been committed.

The victim-centric definition of crime leads to the understanding that the most important aspect of "justice" is restitution to the victim, and NOT punishment of the perpetrator. Our current system has it exactly backwards.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I believe a situation lacking in set laws or a firm state (I hate to use the word "anarchy", there are so many connotations, good and bad, attached to it) can work in small, homogeneous groups. It's when the groups become large and/or heterogeneous that rules, laws and governance suddenly become more necessary in order to resolve disputes.

"Dunbar's Number" is the point at which the transition occurs... that's a group of about 150.

[CorvallisBMW]

The other concept of "people working it out" means that if that thief is caught he is expelled from the community, under more extreme circumstances the thief would be punished to varying degrees as determined by the people. This is where we would be taking a huge step backwards as far as what most people would consider modern civility. In my mind, it's a damn good deterrent for not doing something stupid, others would argue that it's impossible to hold these people to their actions as they can't control themselves. Anyway, our modern society is a result of baby steps towards "civility" and many would argue it's a good thing while others could argue it's unsustainable. Meh...I'm tired and rambling, feel free to disregard.

I don't think it's rambling, actually I agree with you. However in the greater context of the development of civilization, I don't claim to be an expert. I'll leave that to the philosophers.

[ParsedOut]

I suppose there is some anonymity in numbers, sure. But consider that most people are not thieves, therefor in a group of 5 or 6 there is unlikely to be a thief. But in a group of 100 those odds increase. The same could be said for people with other criminal inclinations, or mental disorders, or other issues that might cause friction between people. You also make it much harder to maintain homogeneity, so opinions now differ more frequently and by larger amounts.

The other concept of "people working it out" means that if that thief is caught he is expelled from the community, under more extreme circumstances the thief would be punished to varying degrees as determined by the people. This is where we would be taking a huge step backwards as far as what most people would consider modern civility. In my mind, it's a damn good deterrent for not doing something stupid, others would argue that it's impossible to hold these people to their actions as they can't control themselves. Anyway, our modern society is a result of baby steps towards "civility" and many would argue it's a good thing while others could argue it's unsustainable. Meh...I'm tired and rambling, feel free to disregard.

[frankenbeemer]

Hobbes probably wouldn't agree. Neither would Alfred Marshall. Mill might, but he saw the state as a tool to let people experience fulfillment through freedom from fear of others.

Great minds.

They don't post here.

Laughed out loud, thanks, I needed that.

[CorvallisBMW]

You can't easily rob from one if your 5 friends, but it is very easy to fleece someone from 100 and point the finger at someone else.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I suppose there is some anonymity in numbers, sure. But consider that most people are not thieves, therefor in a group of 5 or 6 there is unlikely to be a thief. But in a group of 100 those odds increase. The same could be said for people with other criminal inclinations, or mental disorders, or other issues that might cause friction between people. You also make it much harder to maintain homogeneity, so opinions now differ more frequently and by larger amounts.

[marshallnoise]

I believe a situation lacking in set laws or a firm state (I hate to use the word "anarchy", there are so many connotations, good and bad, attached to it) can work in small, homogeneous groups. It's when the groups become large and/or heterogeneous that rules, laws and governance suddenly become more necessary in order to resolve disputes. Really it's simple human nature; you can easily get along with a group of 5 friends and decide what movie you want to go see that night, but a group of 100 strangers? Highly unlikely.

You can't easily rob from one if your 5 friends, but it is very easy to fleece someone from 100 and point the finger at someone else.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[CorvallisBMW]

I know what anarchy is, not saying you're suggesting that...simply stating that based on your opinion anarchy might actually work. Lack of "nations", "superiority" and "men left to their own devices".

I believe a situation lacking in set laws or a firm state (I hate to use the word "anarchy", there are so many connotations, good and bad, attached to it) can work in small, homogeneous groups. It's when the groups become large and/or heterogeneous that rules, laws and governance suddenly become more necessary in order to resolve disputes. Really it's simple human nature; you can easily get along with a group of 5 friends and decide what movie you want to go see that night, but a group of 100 strangers? Highly unlikely.

[marshallnoise]

Funny and sad.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

There is a lot of point missing going on combined with rabbit trailing. Oh well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

That's all that ever happens in this forum. Points are made, points are missed, arguments ensue and insults are thrown. Might as well try to see some humor in it.

[marshallnoise]

There is a lot of point missing going on combined with rabbit trailing. Oh well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

Great minds.

They don't post here.

Hahaha, I had to laugh. Thx man.

[einhander]

Hobbes probably wouldn't agree. Neither would Alfred Marshall. Mill might, but he saw the state as a tool to let people experience fulfillment through freedom from fear of others.

Great minds.

They don't post here.