Chucktshoes

Yet another example of the terrible wrongness of laws that are malum prohibitum.   No victim, no crime.

Indian Ocean in the area of Reunion Island. LOTS of shark attacks. So many that they banned surfing.

It reminds me of a game of three card monte.

I would. Well, I would if the lever opened a trap door...

It's not blame shifting if it is true. Every administration in the modern era has helped build in the surveillance apparatus that is being used against US citizens. That's the danger of building these kinds of tools and granting these kinds of powers to the government in the first place. This guy might not be so bad but you are leaving something that would be very easy to abuse lying around and waiting for the next guy who it turns out is a wannabe tyrant.

Harry Reid May 18, 2005

I liked Pacific Rim. Mech Warrior vs Godzilla, what's not to love? Unplug brain and enjoy!

I have thought about these issues, and there are no easy answers. In my core I am a utopian but not a naive one. Much of the currently powerful will remain so, that can't be helped. The reason I called BS on your point about the redistrubution of amassed wealth is that it was the exact same sort of reasoning used in calls for reparations for slavery. What has happened in the past, though wrong as it may have been, cannot be addressed now through any sort of forced larceny on the inheritors of those enriched by that wrongdoing. To legitimize that sort of plunder under the auspices of "creating a level playing field" would simply be Marxism. I'm an ancap, not an ansoc. ;)   As I mentioned before, I have a large pragmatic streak and I understand most folks are scared of the idea of really being free, so in theory I could accept a return of our government to its initial state. The problem is that we know it doesn't work. Lysander Spooner summed up the problem quite nicely in his pamphlet "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority". If people could mind their own business and go about living their lives instead of other people's lives then it would work. That just doesn't happen though as the world is filled with insufferable busybodies and wannabe petty tyrants who wish to control what other people do in thier lives, on their property and in their homes. Government gives them a framework to enforce their will on others and the mantle of legitimacy because they took a vote on the issue and called it "democracy in action". If the choice is between something that is known to not work and something untried, I will go for the untried every time. Our governmental framework, while more successful than any other so far, doesn't work. Lysander had it right, the Constitution either explicity authorizes what we have, or was powerless to stop it. It just didn't work.

On seond thought, I'll leave that one alone.

Next time you plan to be out this way, hit me up as well. first beer is on me.

I run a plate carrier that anyone who was in the Marines in the last decade would recognize. Currently the setup is very basic as I haven't taken any courses or training lately to test it. I plan to address that this year as I am hoping to take a class with Max V. Tactical in the not too distant future. Anyways, here is my PC right now. [

I'm going to insert numbers into your post to help add clarity for myself as I address your points. 1. It can't. No system can. At least An Cap doesn't reward that corruption with the mantle of legitimacy and the power to enforce its will on the unwilling because it is "government". 2. That's a crap strawman argument that I shouldn't even acknowledge, but I will. Our current system ensures those with power and wealth earn more of both while preventing most real competition from outside the oligarchy. Take away their regulatory authority and watch it crumble without the mark of legitimacy for their violence. 3.Please don't make assumptions about what my assumptions are, odds are you are working from an incorrect position. I make no such assumption as you think I do here, I only posit that it is incumbent upon parties who voluntarily enter into contracts to be sure of the terms of those contracts. Without the government, voluntary property protection organizations would arise to take the place of courts. Imagine if the Better Business Bureau had the ability to enforce resolutions through arbitration or it would decline access to the market of its partners? That is but one of many possible avenues of seeking compensation for fraud. 4.The flip answer would be, how is that substantially any different than what we currently have? ---- Would a truly voluntary system solve all the problems of human nature and result in instant utopia? Nope. Not even close. If we could solve those problems then we wouldn't need government, yet it is because of those very problems that we shouldn't have one. At least my position doesn't confer legitimacy on those who would desire to impose their will on others by force. Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. - Lysander Spooner The essence of government is force, and most often that force is used to accomplish evil ends. - Walter Williams

I imagine Tanker's cuz just might be able to provide you with an address in Georgia. ;)

[quote name="Smith" post="1066102" timestamp="1384885928"] I'm with you on the principle. The problem is you have to ask what the alternative is. Anarchy is not the answer. Anarchy creates a vacuum in which those with the power to enforce their will dominate through force those who can not or will not resist. This is why our government decided to go the social contract route. Anarchy and Socialism both fail to account for human nature. That being said we are definitely relinquishing far to much personal liberty in favor of the collective. There is perfect balance that resides on the preverbal head of a pin. It's just not as easy as a with or without position.[/quote]I would disagree. I think that anarchy IS the answer, hence why I philosophically am an Anarcho-Capitalist (AnCap), though my realistic and pragmatic nature allows me to accept libertarianism even if I find it a bit too authoritative for my tastes.

I get what you are saying, I am rejecting the very premise it is built upon. I'll allow JayC to defend his own posts, but he was not unrelated in his points, he understood the point of what I wrote very well. You cannot separate state sovereignty from the idea of the social contract, especially since our government was built on social contract theory. I reject it in as much as I do not consent to surrender my rights either implicitly or explicitly. I do not consent. That actually plays into why I rent as opposed to own my home. As a renter I am under no illusion that I own the land my home stands on. If anyone thinks they own any land, try not paying the government its demanded rents (property taxes) and see what happens. To return to point, if your suggestion that the way to remove myself from this particular contract is to leave, my only question would be, "Why should I leave? They're the ones who suck."

Once again, in what way did I consent to this? Your position of my parents assuming this obligation for me seems an awful lot like when folks take out credit cards and utilities in their kids name 'cause their credit has already been ruined. Oh wait...

Exactly. Not only is my signature not found on Rousseau's fictional social contract, I do not consent to the abrogation of my rights simply because some group of folks got together and took a vote on the matter as if it meant something.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wo1-sI7MOQ[/media]

George is doing his damnedest to make it to the prohibited persons list. During the time leading up to and during the trial I don't think I ever claimed sainthood for Georgie boy. I only claimed that he was innocent of murder by reason of justified self defense. He apparently is also showing himself to be a giant douche and will likely end up paying for it. If he has done something illegal and is convicted of that crime then hopefully he will receive a just sentence for that crime. To continue to seek retribution for something he was acquitted of by a jury seems a little silly and more than a bit unjust. Georgie boy seems to have some serious issues and will suffer greatly if he doesn't get a handle on them. It still doesn't mean that St. Skittles didn't earn his fate that night.

I wonder if that speaks more about the impact of Cranston's portrayal of Walter these last 6 years than of his work as Hal. Perhaps there isn't enough time past BB to see Cranston as anything else. The weakness of WW was very much like Hal (minus the cartoonishness) in the beginning, and in seeing the transformation that took place over the course of the show that makes it very difficult to see the Hal character as anything close to resembling genuine.

I would recommend that you start with this video. In it she goes through multiple options for weapons, holsters & dress. My wife found it to be extremely informative and helpful.   [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogGBPVk5GQk[/media]

:lol:

http://www.faliaphotography.com/

Yeah. He sure wasn't lifting that like it was sixty.

I wonder if anybody will correct him and let him know that it is perfectly legal to build a gun from scratch. It would be worth it as I think this could have been done better without the 10/22 base.