User Controls
Freedom or Security
-
2015-09-21 at 1:03 AM UTC
Defending ones life is never murder. I don't believe in shooting looters or killing people for stealing stuff; but I see nothing wrong with a man or a woman defending their home, where they lay their head and raise their family, with lethal force.
Murder is a legal term and many (perhaps most) jurisdictions have situations under which self defense with lethal force constitutes murder. -
2015-09-21 at 1:26 AM UTC
Only dumb beta pussies are so scared of the world that they think literally every member of the citizenry needs to be able to murder at the drop of a hat. Like I always catch flack for having a Hobbesian outlook but you do too, you're just too oblivious to realize what it entails.
I don't see what the Hobbesian Trap has to do with being able to take care of yourself without needing someone else to do it for you. -
2015-09-21 at 2:57 AM UTC
Murder is a legal term and many (perhaps most) jurisdictions have situations under which self defense with lethal force constitutes murder.
Yeah, technically, you are correct
but I will murder any motherfucker who comes into my inner sanctum with out permission while I am occupying it, because I consider that they have ill intent if they are forcibly entering my property.
and I will also murder anyone who threatens any of my loved ones with any sort of weapon
but only in the heat of the moment, I would not like, go home and get a weapon or anything
luckily we are allowed to be armed in this state -
2015-09-21 at 3:28 AM UTC
I don't see what the Hobbesian Trap has to do with being able to take care of yourself without needing someone else to do it for you.
Specifically it illustrates why decentralization of security responsibility is a bad idea. The reason I brought it up though was that the idea that we all need to have lethal force usable at personal discretion (as opposed to something like a military which requires some non-personal (usually) decision process to be used) relies on the notion that such "defense" is necessary, this is Hobbes' controversial point. You usually land in the wing nut libertarian camp so it's ironic that on this issue you, like me, accept the Hobbesian premise, you just don't grasp what it implies (that strong central government is necessary as opposed to, as you would believe, that we all just need bigger sticks to defend ourselves from each other) -
2015-09-21 at 4:20 PM UTC
Specifically it illustrates why decentralization of security responsibility is a bad idea. The reason I brought it up though was that the idea that we all need to have lethal force usable at personal discretion (as opposed to something like a military which requires some non-personal (usually) decision process to be used) relies on the notion that such "defense" is necessary, this is Hobbes' controversial point. You usually land in the wing nut libertarian camp so it's ironic that on this issue you, like me, accept the Hobbesian premise, you just don't grasp what it implies (that strong central government is necessary as opposed to, as you would believe, that we all just need bigger sticks to defend ourselves from each other)
There would have to be a strictly divisive nature about it, even if you go down both roads. It's like, we can't have the best of both worlds, no matter which direction we take. So, in that case, I'd rather be responsible for the bad things which will ultimately happen to me either way, than have somebody else be responsible for what happens to me. It's not really about wanting to be divisive just for the sake of being divisive, it's just owning your own life and what happens to you, and how you get to react to the world, not someone else reacting for you. -
2015-09-23 at 5:31 PM UTC
There would have to be a strictly divisive nature about it, even if you go down both roads. It's like, we can't have the best of both worlds, no matter which direction we take. So, in that case, I'd rather be responsible for the bad things which will ultimately happen to me either way, than have somebody else be responsible for what happens to me. It's not really about wanting to be divisive just for the sake of being divisive, it's just owning your own life and what happens to you, and how you get to react to the world, not someone else reacting for you.
But you have to demonstrate more than just "neither (presumably you mean the left/right or security/freedom dichotomy) is perfect". You have to show how decentralized security responsibility is better than other imperfect alternatives. In particular decentralization precludes certain people from security and lacks the economy of scale that a professional police force can take advantage of. Also there's no accounting in such a system for justice. Normal libertarians can handwave with some bullshit about "people can take care of eachother" or something but you've already cut off that avenue by proposing we need person-lethal-force in the first place. -
2015-09-24 at 1:06 AM UTC
But you have to demonstrate more than just "neither (presumably you mean the left/right or security/freedom dichotomy) is perfect". You have to show how decentralized security responsibility is better than other imperfect alternatives. In particular decentralization precludes certain people from security and lacks the economy of scale that a professional police force can take advantage of. Also there's no accounting in such a system for justice. Normal libertarians can handwave with some bullshit about "people can take care of eachother" or something but you've already cut off that avenue by proposing we need person-lethal-force in the first place.
But one the other hand, if people know they'll get dead if they fuck someone over, there would probably be a lot less problems in the world. For example, even if you justifiably kill someone, someone could come and kill you, too, if they feel it was unjustified. That forces people to carefully consider the probable consequences when they feel like getting stupid, whether they are in the right or wrong would be immaterial. Bunch of crooked bankers? No problem. We'll just string the fuckers up. Wouldn't find too many crooked bankers flaunting it in that kind of world. I kind of like the natural simplicity of having no laws. I like the law of the jungle. -
2015-09-24 at 1:38 AM UTC
But one the other hand, if people know they'll get dead if they fuck someone over, there would probably be a lot less problems in the world. For example, even if you justifiably kill someone, someone could come and kill you, too, if they feel it was unjustified. That forces people to carefully consider the probable consequences when they feel like getting stupid, whether they are in the right or wrong would be immaterial. Bunch of crooked bankers? No problem. We'll just string the fuckers up. Wouldn't find too many crooked bankers flaunting it in that kind of world. I kind of like the natural simplicity of having no laws. I like the law of the jungle.
If you had to live by the law of the jungle you would be tiger poop. -
2015-09-24 at 10:31 AM UTC
If you had to live by the law of the jungle you would be tiger poop.
^ not scary
-
2015-09-24 at 12:30 PM UTC
^ not scary
Maybe, maybe not, but it's still the stone cold truth. -
2015-09-25 at 4:29 AM UTC
But one the other hand, if people know they'll get dead if they fuck someone over, there would probably be a lot less problems in the world. For example, even if you justifiably kill someone, someone could come and kill you, too, if they feel it was unjustified. That forces people to carefully consider the probable consequences when they feel like getting stupid, whether they are in the right or wrong would be immaterial. Bunch of crooked bankers? No problem. We'll just string the fuckers up. Wouldn't find too many crooked bankers flaunting it in that kind of world. I kind of like the natural simplicity of having no laws. I like the law of the jungle.
Except that we find, empirically, that this simply isn't true. -
2015-09-25 at 4:42 AM UTC
Except that we find, empirically, that this simply isn't true.
I'll have you back that claim up with some actual numbers if you'd be so kind. -
2015-09-25 at 6:16 AM UTC
I'll have you back that claim up with some actual numbers if you'd be so kind.
It's worth pointing out I don't strictly need to in order to make my point. It's spectral who's making the positive claim here (that making it easier for the citizenry to kill people will reduce incidence of crime), at most I would have to back out of my statement that his initial claim is false leaving any reasonable person to a state of agnosticism at best. It is, however, easy enough to find evidence of how the risk of death, above and beyond incarceration, does not give have good evidence in support of its efficacy in reducing the crime for which it is a punishment: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf -
2015-09-25 at 3:03 PM UTC
It's worth pointing out I don't strictly need to in order to make my point. It's spectral who's making the positive claim here (that making it easier for the citizenry to kill people will reduce incidence of crime), at most I would have to back out of my statement that his initial claim is false leaving any reasonable person to a state of agnosticism at best. It is, however, easy enough to find evidence of how the risk of death, above and beyond incarceration, does not give have good evidence in support of its efficacy in reducing the crime for which it is a punishment: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf
You do realize that the study you've linked to is on how the death penalty is a deterrence or not? I'll agree that this is a reasonable(meh) argument against spectral's claim, if we assume the incidence of murderers getting caught is 100%(Which it's not by the way). Since he said: "if people know they'll get dead if they fuck someone over, there would probably be a lot less problems in the world". And failed to provide significant details pertaining to the issue of private gun ownership.
However it's not evidence that supports that private gun ownership doesn't work as a deterrence to criminals. The distinction i'd make here is that with private gun ownership the risk of death or severe bodily harm on the part of the criminal is increased exponentially due to the immediacy of the situation. -
2015-09-25 at 5:36 PM UTC
You do realize that the study you've linked to is on how the death penalty is a deterrence or not? I'll agree that this is a reasonable(meh) argument against spectral's claim, if we assume the incidence of murderers getting caught is 100%(Which it's not by the way). Since he said: "if people know they'll get dead if they fuck someone over, there would probably be a lot less problems in the world". And failed to provide significant details pertaining to the issue of private gun ownership.
However it's not evidence that supports that private gun ownership doesn't work as a deterrence to criminals. The distinction i'd make here is that with private gun ownership the risk of death or severe bodily harm on the part of the criminal is increased exponentially due to the immediacy of the situation.
But the argument for widespread private gun ownership has the same issue: criminals can still get away with crimes. If a burglar rips off your place while you're at work you could have an atomic weapon at your disposal yet you're no more likely to be able to catch the thief. In fact one would suspect a professional police force will have a better chance of catching criminals than an armed populous since they have the time, training, and resources to pursue for much longer than a purely economically motivated individual (at some point you have to call off the chase and get back to work, the police can keep a case open for years if necessary). And this is to say nothing the injustices we can reasonably expect to see in a world where a person with enough personal confidence in their accusation is judge, jury, and executioner. -
2015-09-25 at 6 PM UTCIn my experience, the police don't give a fuck about catching burglars or thieves. 'call off the chase?' they don't even get off their fat asses to begin a chase. But if there's drugs out there, they are on that shit quicker than you can say 'forfeiture proceedings'.
-
2015-09-25 at 7:43 PM UTC
But the argument for widespread private gun ownership has the same issue: criminals can still get away with crimes. If a burglar rips off your place while you're at work you could have an atomic weapon at your disposal yet you're no more likely to be able to catch the thief.
Sure, but if private gun ownership would be widespread. The more severe crimes which actually involve two people facing each other(Think murder, rape robbery) would decline because of the increased risk to the would be rapist or whatever.In fact one would suspect a professional police force will have a better chance of catching criminals
Sure, a specialized group of people would have a better chance of catching a criminal but not stopping the crime from happening.And this is to say nothing the injustices we can reasonably expect to see in a world where a person with enough personal confidence in their accusation is judge, jury, and executioner.
You seem to have little faith in people, but that's a topic for another day. Here's my argument: I am pretty sure, that a regular citizen can recognize a situation wherein the use of deadly force would be appropriate. It's kind of hard to miss that you're being robbed when you have a gun or a knife in your face for instance.
-
2015-09-26 at 2:22 AM UTC
Sure, but if private gun ownership would be widespread. The more severe crimes which actually involve two people facing each other(Think murder, rape robbery) would decline because of the increased risk to the would be rapist or whatever.
You'll need to demonstrate that, and the degree of such a decline (because the benefit will need to be weighed against any increase in rates of gun violence or general crime for which the police are a deterrent today).Sure, a specialized group of people would have a better chance of catching a criminal but not stopping the crime from happening.
Spectrals argument was deterrence from the start, if you're going to say that guns are good because criminals will be deterred by threat of being shot then you seem to owe us an account of why the threat of capture by the police (which you to admit is more reliable) is less effective.You seem to have little faith in people, but that's a topic for another day. Here's my argument: I am pretty sure, that a regular citizen can recognize a situation wherein the use of deadly force would be appropriate. It's kind of hard to miss that you're being robbed when you have a gun or a knife in your face for instance.
Fine, most people would probably never commit murder in a modern society with widespread gun ownership that was otherwise unchanged. But the issue is that there are enough people who aren't "regular citizens" to make such policy a win. One person with a gun can do a significant amount of damage and consider that even normal people have moments of poor decision making, they might be under the influence of something or momentarily enrage to the point of being willing to kill where they usually wouldn't.
-
2015-09-26 at 3:21 AM UTC
You do realize that the study you've linked to is on how the death penalty is a deterrence or not? I'll agree that this is a reasonable(meh) argument against spectral's claim, if we assume the incidence of murderers getting caught is 100%(Which it's not by the way). Since he said: "if people know they'll get dead if they fuck someone over, there would probably be a lot less problems in the world". And failed to provide significant details pertaining to the issue of private gun ownership.
However it's not evidence that supports that private gun ownership doesn't work as a deterrence to criminals. The distinction i'd make here is that with private gun ownership the risk of death or severe bodily harm on the part of the criminal is increased exponentially due to the immediacy of the situation.
