I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other - Political Discussion

Home | Community | Message Board

You are not signed in.
New Account

Forum Index Search Posts Best Posts Active Topics Galleries FAQ User List Calendar Chat Store Random Growery

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop for:

pH Test Strips

Scales

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 [ show all ]

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other
#11347919 - 10/29/09 07:06 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

If it's not doing this job effectively, then it needs to be reformed in a timely manner. :sadyes:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11349149 - 10/29/09 09:40 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

The Government is an institution. Thus, it has its own purpose and endeavors. The fundamental role of the government isn't to protect us from each other.

The purpose of the Government is to protect the Government, advance the Government, and prolong the Government. We, as Citizens, are vehicles and tools used to do so. Government wasn't conceived for the betterment of society; that's an illusion. Kings weren't kings because they felt they had the duty to serve their people. Kings were kings to control the people for the betterment of the aristocracy.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 1,981
Last seen: 7 hours, 31 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11350199 - 10/30/09 04:30 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

the original intent of the US government was to defend the inalienable rights of its citizens: you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't interfere with someone else's right to do whatever the fuck they want. this purpose has been lost, and now we are left with:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The purpose of the Government is to protect the Government, advance the Government, and prolong the Government.

--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Yrat]
#11350259 - 10/30/09 05:14 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Yrat said:
the original intent of the US government was to defend the inalienable rights of its citizens: you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't interfere with someone else's right to do whatever the fuck they want. this purpose has been lost, and now we are left with:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The purpose of the Government is to protect the Government, advance the Government, and prolong the Government.

Yes, all thanks to our aggressively free form of capitalism. Free enterprise in its purest form is impossible because it is unsustainable. But we're slowly getting there..

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11350500 - 10/30/09 07:21 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Yrat said:
the original intent of the US government was to defend the inalienable rights of its citizens: you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't interfere with someone else's right to do whatever the fuck they want. this purpose has been lost, and now we are left with:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The purpose of the Government is to protect the Government, advance the Government, and prolong the Government.

Yes, all thanks to our aggressively free form of capitalism. Free enterprise in its purest form is impossible because it is unsustainable. But we're slowly getting there..

This does not follow. Please reason it out for us rather than just post the first thing that comes to your mind.

Thank you.

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Redstorm]
#11350526 - 10/30/09 07:28 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

No it doesn't follow because we don't have a free market and therefore real capitalism in America.

Asshats like Michael Moore cause lots of trouble when they blame economic woes on capitalism that does not exist.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11351185 - 10/30/09 10:21 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I actually agree with the lad. The government's role is to protect us from each other ("each other" occasionally being murderers rapists thieves etc.). It is not the government's role to protect us from ourselves.

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

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11351218 - 10/30/09 10:29 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

The enforcement of contracts and protection of private property is important.

That is why it is wrong for government to tax property.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger

Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,247
Last seen: 7 months, 22 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11351344 - 10/30/09 10:54 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
No it doesn't follow because we don't have a free market and therefore real capitalism in America.

Asshats like Michael Moore cause lots of trouble when they blame economic woes on capitalism that does not exist.

Mr.Al, do you know why regulations exist? To correct problems that have occurred as a result of free market practices.

For example, have you ever heard of the Glass–Steagall Act and do you know why it was passed? (to help prevent another great depression) And do you know it was repealed? (because there are idiots out there who believe regulation is bad, no matter how good it is) And do you know why it's going to be implemented again?

--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#11351438 - 10/30/09 11:08 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

We do not have a free market. Are you suggesting that we regulate a non-existent free market?

Mal-investment can not be prevented by regulation.

The Glass–Steagall Act is an attempt to address the symptoms of a problem, not the underlying causes.

It is foolish to scream greed whenever there are systematic problems. The "regulators" at the federal reserve have been responsible for artificially low interest rates that create systemic malinvestment.

Speculating becomes more profitable than real production with central economic planners in charge.

Again, looking at the mortgage meltdown that precipitated market crashes (because mortgage money that was repackaged as "AAA" rated was used for market investment domestically and internationally) we find that easy money came from low interest rates and legislation like the C.R.A.

Without the housing boom there would have not been huge mal-investment in Wallstreet.

Can you see how mal-investment in one sector of the economy can create bubbles elsewhere?!?

Regulate and you will simply see the bubble form elsewhere.

Regulation addresses symptoms and cures nothing.

Instead of trying to "fix one thing" think of it as a system.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/30/09 11:22 AM)

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11351882 - 10/30/09 12:13 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The Government is an institution.

Does the populace have control over this institution, or does this institution have control over the populace? :undecided:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Thus, it has its own purpose and endeavors.

If populace has control over this institution, then the populace chooses its own purposes and endeavors; if this institution has control over the populace, then it is its prerogative to choose its own purposes and endeavors.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The fundamental role of the government isn't to protect us from each other.

IMO, the validity of this statement depends on whether or not the populace has control over this institution, or if this institution have control over the populace; your statement can't be verified until those questions are answered.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The purpose of the Government is to protect the Government, advance the Government, and prolong the Government. We, as Citizens, are vehicles and tools used to do so.

IMO, I think your former statement may possibly depend on whether or not the populace has control over this institution, or if this institution have control over the populace; as for your latter statement, aren't we, the citizens, the same thing as the government? :confused:

How do you know that the government isn't our (the citizens') tool, as opposed to us being tools for it? :strokebeard:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Government wasn't conceived for the betterment of society; that's an illusion.

Care to back this statement up with a logically sound argument?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Kings weren't kings because they felt they had the duty to serve their people. Kings were kings to control the people for the betterment of the aristocracy.

America is not an empire, it's a federal democracy (I think...)

Quote:

Yrat said:
the original intent of the US government was to defend the inalienable rights of its citizens: you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't interfere with someone else's right to do whatever the fuck they want. this purpose has been lost, and now we are left with:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The purpose of the Government is to protect the Government, advance the Government, and prolong the Government.

Well, if this is true, then it needs to change. Now. :mad:

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
It is not the government's role to protect us from ourselves.

Fuck no it's not. :nonono:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Edited by Poid (02/16/10 06:31 PM)

Post Extras:

Deltron3030
Stranger

Registered: 07/18/09
Posts: 1,913
Last seen: 23 hours, 56 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11352128 - 10/30/09 12:53 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

we give up a little bit of liberty in order for the government to keep us safe. the problem is the government keeps on taking more and more of our liberty under the guise of keeping us safe.

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

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Deltron3030]
#11352160 - 10/30/09 01:00 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Deltron3030 said:
we give up a little bit of liberty in order for the government to keep us safe.

Is it always necessary to give up some of our liberties in order to have the government keep us safe from each other?

Quote:

Deltron3030 said:
the problem is the government keeps on taking more and more of our liberty under the guise of keeping us safe.

If this is true, then that is a problem. :mad2:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Edited by Poid (10/30/09 01:15 PM)

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11352226 - 10/30/09 01:11 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Is it always necessary to give up some of our liberties in ourder to have the government keep us safe from each other?

Yes. In a state of nature where government does not exist, total freedom exists. This is not a good thing, in my opinion, because total freedom means I can walk into my neighbor's house, rape his wife, eat all their food, and then sell his children into slavery.

That is, provided that I am stronger than him.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Redstorm]
#11352273 - 10/30/09 01:18 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Quote:

Is it always necessary to give up some of our liberties in ourder to have the government keep us safe from each other?

Yes. In a state of nature where government does not exist, total freedom exists. This is not a good thing, in my opinion, because total freedom means I $Formula: 0$ walk into my neighbor's house, rape his wife, eat all their food, and then sell his children into slavery.

You can do all that, but that doesn't mean you necessarily will. So, again, is it always necessary to give up some of our liberties in order to have the government keep us safe from each other?

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11352365 - 10/30/09 01:35 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Yes, of course it is. Just because I will or will not do something is irrelevant. You don't have to exercise your rights in order to have them.

Having the ability to do absolutely anything one wants is true, absolute freedom (or liberty). This state is incompatible with the existence of government because of the existence of laws. To protect us from each other, rules for the use of force by against citizens is made. By carrying out force, certain acts committed by citizens are considered unacceptable, so the total freedom present during the state of nature is no longer present.

(That was pretty summarized. If you're interested in a more detailed account, check out John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government).

Debate can be had about whether TOO MUCH liberty has to be given up to allow the government to protect us from each other, though.

Post Extras:

Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 1,981
Last seen: 7 hours, 31 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Redstorm]
#11352762 - 10/30/09 02:45 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Quote:

Is it always necessary to give up some of our liberties in ourder to have the government keep us safe from each other?

Yes. In a state of nature where government does not exist, total freedom exists. This is not a good thing, in my opinion, because total freedom means I can walk into my neighbor's house, rape his wife, eat all their food, and then sell his children into slavery.

That is, provided that I am stronger than him.

you could do those things right now if you truly wanted to, and we certainly do not live in a government-free society. how is your argument valid?

i think that you mean in a government-free society, there would be no repercussions for such actions. there would be no authority figure to dole out appropriate justice. this is very different from "protecting us from one another."

--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Redstorm]
#11352809 - 10/30/09 02:54 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Yes, of course it is.

So you believe that it is always necessary to give up some of our liberties in order to have the government keep us safe from each other?

Quote:

Redstorm said:
You don't have to exercise your rights in order to have them.

"You have the right to remain silent" :cop:

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Having the ability to do absolutely anything one wants is true, absolute freedom (or liberty). This state is incompatible with the existence of government because of the existence of laws. To protect us from each other, rules for the use of force by against citizens is made. By carrying out force, certain acts committed by citizens are considered unacceptable, so the total freedom present during the state of nature is no longer present.

You voted "No", didn't you?

Quote:

Redstorm said:
(That was pretty summarized. If you're interested in a more detailed account, check out John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government).

I may check it out sometime in the future, thanks for the reference :mushroom2:

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Debate can be had about whether TOO MUCH liberty has to be given up to allow the government to protect us from each other, though.

IMO, the extent of the loss of liberty should reflect how much necessary action there is needed in order to make us safe from each other.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Yrat]
#11352913 - 10/30/09 03:09 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

i think that you mean in a government-free society, there would be no repercussions for such actions.

Yes, this.

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Redstorm]
#11352921 - 10/30/09 03:11 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

You voted "No", didn't you?

I didn't vote, but if I did I would have voted yes.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Redstorm]
#11353129 - 10/30/09 03:38 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Quote:

You voted "No", didn't you?

I didn't vote...

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

explosiveoxygen
Prophet of TGMM

Registered: 07/10/09
Posts: 1,250

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11353158 - 10/30/09 03:42 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Seems the Government protects ourselves from ourselves in many instances.

--------------------
The Great Mycelium (TGMM) is more than you and me, we are all part of One.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: explosiveoxygen]
#11353186 - 10/30/09 03:46 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I believe the government's fundamental duty is to protect individual's from other individuals; it's basically about making sure we are safe from each other.

Of course, though, humans will always want as much freedom as possible! :robblerobble:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Edited by Poid (11/13/09 03:38 PM)

Post Extras:

Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 148,835
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11354737 - 10/30/09 08:36 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I actually agree with the lad. The government's role is to protect us from each other ("each other" occasionally being murderers rapists thieves etc.). It is not the government's role to protect us from ourselves.

they're doing a shitty job of protecting the people, I dont have a
publicly funded security detail following me everywhere to ensure I dont
get robbed, raped and murdered, millions of dead rape victims might want
to inquire about a refund since government hasnt done their job

--------------------
The Pub is not the Ron Paul Forums, please place your outdated Ron Paul
crap in one of the 9000 other Ron Paul threads I've not yet locked

here's a great one to start with
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/14654513#14654513

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Prisoner#1]
#11357157 - 10/31/09 11:06 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I feel like there are a lot of random murderers and serial killers in somewhere the midst of the USA's populace; the government needs spend most of its efforts to eradicate these kind of people, IMO, or else said government needs to be reformed in a timely manner.
:laser:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Edited by Poid (02/16/10 06:40 PM)

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11361541 - 11/01/09 08:05 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
I feel like there are a lot of random murderers and serial killers in somewhere in the midst of the USA's populace; the government needs spend most of its efforts to eradicate these kind of people, IMO, or else said government needs to be reformed in a timely manner.

That is pretty idiotic given that government is what does the most murdering of all.

You want government to have a monopoly on murder.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11362667 - 11/01/09 12:24 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
You want government to have a monopoly on murder.

I want government to prevent murder from ever occurring, by any means necessary. :obamadre:

Edited by Poid (11/02/09 09:36 AM)

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Redstorm]
#11367078 - 11/02/09 02:00 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Yrat said:
the original intent of the US government was to defend the inalienable rights of its citizens: you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't interfere with someone else's right to do whatever the fuck they want. this purpose has been lost, and now we are left with:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The purpose of the Government is to protect the Government, advance the Government, and prolong the Government.

Yes, all thanks to our aggressively free form of capitalism. Free enterprise in its purest form is impossible because it is unsustainable. But we're slowly getting there..

This does not follow. Please reason it out for us rather than just post the first thing that comes to your mind.

Thank you.

I think it's pretty straight forward. Think of Carnegie. Think of the rights of corporations; then and now.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11367083 - 11/02/09 02:01 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

Mr.Al said:
You want government to have a monopoly on murder.

I want government to [prevent murder from ever occurring, by any means necessary.

By any means? Does that include murder?

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11368212 - 11/02/09 09:41 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

Mr.Al said:
You want government to have a monopoly on murder.

I want government to [prevent murder from ever occurring, by any means necessary.

By any means? Does that include murder?

So do you not believe in the death penalty??? :what:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11370129 - 11/02/09 02:17 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Again, you are not looking at the fact that government murders far more than serial killers or other dregs of society.

Government is capable of, and has participated in already, mass murder on scales that are difficult to conceptualize.

Yet, you want Big Brother government to "protect you".

Man up and learn how to protect yourself instead of seeing the godless state as the answer to your own personal weakness.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11370205 - 11/02/09 02:27 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Again, you are not looking at the fact that government murders far more than serial killers or other dregs of society.

What makes you think that I am unaware of this fact?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government is capable of, and has participated in already, mass murder on scales that are difficult to conceptualize.

Can you give us some specific supporting examples, please?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Yet, you want Big Brother government to "protect you".

If "Big Brother" is even existing, what I want is him to protect me from all the crazies in this world.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Man up and learn how to protect yourself instead of seeing the godless state as the answer to your own personal weakness.

If I had one of these, I'd be set! :awesome:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11370245 - 11/02/09 02:33 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Dick Cheney...

All of those people have been responsible for the death of millions.

Remember also that the people usually do not want to go to war. It is government that makes that decision and cares not how many become cannon fodder.

Big Brother is a reference to 1984, that should be have been essential reading for you in grade school.

Get caught up on that. The movie version is good too.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11370284 - 11/02/09 02:38 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Dick Cheney...

All of those people have been responsible for the death of millions.

So what's your point in saying that the "government murders far more than serial killers or other dregs of society."?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Remember also that the people usually do not want to go to war.

Bullshit.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
It is government that makes that decision and cares not how many become cannon fodder.

So.....

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Big Brother is a reference to 1984...

I know.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
The movie version is good too.

So I've heard. :thumbup:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11370440 - 11/02/09 02:57 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

My point is that you want the perpetrator of mass murder to protect you from dangerous people.

People don't want to go to war until something happens that government uses to manipulate the masses...

Recall the sinking of the Lusitania prior to America's involvement in WWI?

The Germans put some ads in American papers telling civilians not to ride the Lusitania, because they said they would sink it if it made it's voyage.

WWII American intelligence had intercepted messages from Japanese Admiral Yamamoto's fleet regarding the Pearl Harbor attack. We had plenty of warning, but made no preparations.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin attack that brought us into Vietnam? Turns out that was a false flag attack...

What I am telling you is that government is far less trustworthy than the population. You would do well to be more concerned about the government than random serial killers.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11370481 - 11/02/09 03:02 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
My point is that you want the perpetrator of mass murder to protect you from dangerous people.

The government isn't necessarily a "perpetrator of mass murder".

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
People don't want to go to war until something happens that government uses to manipulate the masses...

This may be the case sometimes, but are you suggesting that there is never a legitimate cause for war?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
What I am telling you is that government is far less trustworthy than the population.

Why are you telling me things I already know?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
You would do well to be more concerned about the government than random serial killers.

No, I personally wouldn't, and you don't know enough about my personal situation to make that statement with any sort of confidence.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11370483 - 11/02/09 03:02 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Why do you use "godless" as if it was an insult?

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Redstorm]
#11370554 - 11/02/09 03:11 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Why do you use "godless" as if it was an insult?

Government does NOT like the idea of something more powerful than itself.

That is why even politicians who like to appear on camera in churches are people I think of as "godless".

It is the humility lacking inside of them that I take offense to.

Government starts with the doctrine that man will do the wrong thing unless he is threatened with punishment.

Funny thing is that government itself appears to project it's own shortcomings upon the populace that it governs...

Simply put, personal development is doing the right thing without fear of punishment or hope for reward.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11370591 - 11/02/09 03:15 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government does NOT like the idea of something more powerful than itself.

Proof?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
That is why even politicians who like to appear on camera in churches are people I think of as "godless".

If you say so...

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government starts with the doctrine that man will do the wrong thing unless he is threatened with punishment.

Can you provide us with a link for this "doctrine"?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Funny thing is that government itself appears to project it's own shortcomings upon the populace that it governs...

How so?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Simply put, personal development is doing the right thing without fear of punishment or hope for reward.

What is the "right thing"?

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11370647 - 11/02/09 03:21 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Your conscience is the internal compass that can clue you in to the right thing.

It is pretty obvious that government is growing out of control. It is a power hunger leviathan that cares not for people's inalienable rights. Hence again, government is godless. Disrespecting inalienable rights is certainly godless behavior.

Government does not have that internal compass that individual people have. It projects it's dangerous lack of discernment regarding right from wrong onto the populace.

My position is that government needs to be controlled, not the people.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11370685 - 11/02/09 03:25 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Your conscience is the internal compass that can clue you in to the right thing.

There is no such thing as "the right thing"; one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. :osama:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
It is pretty obvious that government is growing out of control.

Can you please be specific?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
It is a power hunger leviathan that cares not for people's inalienable rights. Hence again, government is godless. Disrespecting inalienable rights is certainly godless behavior.

I don't feel too oppressed, the main thing I want the government to do is protect me from the random crazies in the world.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government does not have that internal compass that individual people have. It projects it's dangerous lack of discernment regarding right from wrong onto the populace.

Please prove specific examples for us.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
My position is that government needs to be controlled, not the people.

Did you not vote or something?

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis

Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 1,991
Loc: Texas

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11370802 - 11/02/09 03:36 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Another way to say it is that the governments role is to protect individuals from the initiation of force by other individuals.

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11370972 - 11/02/09 03:56 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

Mr.Al said:
You want government to have a monopoly on murder.

I want government to [prevent murder from ever occurring, by any means necessary.

By any means? Does that include murder?

So do you not believe in the death penalty???

Honestly, no I do not. Legalizing the death penalty allows the government to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die. They're practically playing God themselves. That's fucking despicable.

Life sentences are another matter.

And the death penalty is not the only way a government can kill. Giving weapons to Israel is a blatant gesture of supporting murder. And Israel is just one example of many.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 148,835
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11371063 - 11/02/09 04:11 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Legalizing the death penalty allows the government to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die.

it's the jury that decides guilt or innocence, not the government, if
they're found guilty it was by a jury of people like ourselves, not by
the president or johnny congressman

Quote:

And the death penalty is not the only way a government can kill. Giving weapons to Israel is a blatant gesture of supporting murder. And Israel is just one example of many.

like the government doesnt give bullets to iraqi insurgents :crazy2:

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Prisoner#1]
#11371177 - 11/02/09 04:24 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Legalizing the death penalty allows the government to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die.

it's the jury that decides guilt or innocence, not the government, if
they're found guilty it was by a jury of people like ourselves, not by
the president or johnny congressman

Quote:

And the death penalty is not the only way a government can kill. Giving weapons to Israel is a blatant gesture of supporting murder. And Israel is just one example of many.

like the government doesnt give bullets to iraqi insurgents

Sure, the jury has the last say whether or not someone gets murdered using taxpayers' dollars, but the government had the initial OK for it to even be legal. If it weren't legal, it wouldn't exist. And legality lies within the legislative and judicial powers of the government.

And yes. The government does a lot of sketchy shit. That's my point. We give others the means to kill and pose it as a good cause, or anti-terrorism; any bullshit the government can conjure up and spew. But Poid seems to believe that preventing murder by committing murder is rational. I am simply attempting to refute that claim.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11371243 - 11/02/09 04:35 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I am godless, yet I do not believe in the things you stated above.

There is nothing inherent in not believing in fairy tales which makes you more susceptible to violating others' rights. In fact, quite the opposite could be debated.

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11371367 - 11/02/09 04:55 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

It should be obvious to you that big government has bankrupted America.

You don't feel too oppressed?!?

No amount of oppression is acceptable.

You are mistaken if you think that voting stops shenanigans in government.

I mean that laws are needed to keep government in check.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Redstorm]
#11371396 - 11/02/09 05:00 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

You are free to believe what you wish to. I do not have any problems with atheists. Some of them live by the idea of doing the right thing without fear of punishment or hope for reward. We tend to see what we want to see.

My point is that government, which has shown itself to be immoral and capable of heinous acts on a mass scale, should be under control of the people (not the other way around). It was that point of view that made the U.S. a constitutional republic. Government must keep it's place, it is not above the law.

Edited by Mr.Al (11/02/09 05:02 PM)

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11372099 - 11/02/09 06:44 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
Another way to say it is that the governments role is to protect individuals from the initiation of force by other individuals.

Whatever floats your boat. :thumbup:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Poid said:
So do you not believe in the death penalty???

They're practically playing God themselves. That's fucking despicable.

I think people like McVeigh are despicable.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Life sentences are another matter.

They sure are! :lol:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
And the death penalty is not the only way a government can kill. Giving weapons to Israel is a blatant gesture of supporting murder. And Israel is just one example of many.

We're not talking about foreign politics here, we're talking about the fact that I believe the government needs to keep each of us safe from each other, and that this is it's main function.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Legalizing the death penalty allows the government to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die.

it's the jury that decides guilt or innocence, not the government, if
they're found guilty it was by a jury of people like ourselves, not by
the president or johnny congressman

Quote:

And the death penalty is not the only way a government can kill. Giving weapons to Israel is a blatant gesture of supporting murder. And Israel is just one example of many.

like the government doesnt give bullets to iraqi insurgents

Sure, the jury has the last say whether or not someone gets murdered using taxpayers' dollars, but the government had the initial OK for it to even be legal. If it weren't legal, it wouldn't exist. And legality lies within the legislative and judicial powers of the government.

And yes. The government does a lot of sketchy shit. That's my point. We give others the means to kill and pose it as a good cause, or anti-terrorism; any bullshit the government can conjure up and spew. But Poid seems to believe that preventing murder by committing murder is rational.

Yes, I believe that if a thug was pointing a loaded pistol at my face, a police officer (i.e.- the government) murdering said thug would be rational.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11373418 - 11/02/09 09:27 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

RationalEgo said:
Another way to say it is that the governments role is to protect individuals from the initiation of force by other individuals.

Whatever floats your boat.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Poid said:
So do you not believe in the death penalty???

They're practically playing God themselves. That's fucking despicable.

I think people like McVeigh are despicable.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Life sentences are another matter.

They sure are!

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
And the death penalty is not the only way a government can kill. Giving weapons to Israel is a blatant gesture of supporting murder. And Israel is just one example of many.

We're not talking about foreign politics here, we're talking about the fact that I believe the government needs to keep each of us safe from each other, and that this is it's main function.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Legalizing the death penalty allows the government to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die.

it's the jury that decides guilt or innocence, not the government, if
they're found guilty it was by a jury of people like ourselves, not by
the president or johnny congressman

Quote:

And the death penalty is not the only way a government can kill. Giving weapons to Israel is a blatant gesture of supporting murder. And Israel is just one example of many.

like the government doesnt give bullets to iraqi insurgents

Sure, the jury has the last say whether or not someone gets murdered using taxpayers' dollars, but the government had the initial OK for it to even be legal. If it weren't legal, it wouldn't exist. And legality lies within the legislative and judicial powers of the government.

And yes. The government does a lot of sketchy shit. That's my point. We give others the means to kill and pose it as a good cause, or anti-terrorism; any bullshit the government can conjure up and spew. But Poid seems to believe that preventing murder by committing murder is rational.

Yes, I believe that if a thug was pointing a loaded pistol at my face, a police officer (i.e.- the government) murdering said thug would be rational.

So, you don't like thugs or McVeigh's. Understandable. But when you talk about government, you can't focus on domestic policies. That's absurd. That's like saying you only like to look at the head of a coin and not the tail because you think it's more important. :wtf:

When you bring up government, you have to expect a discussion on global affairs. If not, the discussion is pretty much worthless. And for you to condone the death penalty and not the support of mass murder, your stance is looking pretty hypocritical. You're just sitting there and refuting our claims with opinions.

Let's hear something from you. Let's hear your perspective. Why do you believe in the death penalty? Why do you disregard foreign policies? Why do you think the fundamental role of the government is to protect ourselves from each other?

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11373482 - 11/02/09 09:34 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

And if the government (i.e. the police officer) killed the thug with the loaded pistol in front of your face, it saved a life by taking one.

1 - 1 = 0

If the government didn't do anything about it, then you'd die and the thug would live.

1 - 1 = 0

It's the same thing. The only argument here is just a debate of ethics/morality. Who's to say that you deserve to live more than the thug? What if the thug had to make ends by robbing you of your cash to feed 4 other mouths at home? What if you were planning on robbing someone, but he happened to get you first?

Situations are situations, but principle never changes. You kill a man means you take a life. It doesn't matter who shot the bullet, policeman or gangster. If you shoot someone dead, you are a murderer. End of story. That is a fact and not an opinion.

And granting the right to kill to the government is just as deadly, if not substantially more, as giving a thug a gun.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11374918 - 11/03/09 05:21 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Situations are situations, but principle never changes. You kill a man means you take a life. It doesn't matter who shot the bullet, policeman or gangster. If you shoot someone dead, you are a murderer. End of story. That is a fact and not an opinion.

Even in cases of self-defense?

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Redstorm]
#11375355 - 11/03/09 07:49 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

The way that I look at it is: It's not just your life at stake. If there is a dangerous individual who is willing to attack you with lethal force for no good reason, it follows that he would do the same to another.

Destroying that which is a threat to others is a just act.

Anything less is condoning the murder of innocents.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11375526 - 11/03/09 08:23 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
And for you to condone the death penalty and not the support of mass murder, your stance is looking pretty hypocritical.

I condone the mass murder of thugs, not innocent people who are living in peace. :wtf:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Why do you believe in the death penalty?

You know, I haven't put too much thought into why I agree with the death penalty; I could say that it is an agreeable "policy", for lack of a better term, because of its deterrent effects, but it wouldn't deter suicidal martyrs. It would deter a good deal of thugs who want to kill but don't want to die, but that's about where its power as a deterrent ends. :shrug:

I believe that I should be able to kill another person in cases of self-defense, and in cases where I could save another person's life; by imposing the death penalty on a thug, the country at large is defending itself and all its citizens' lives.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Why do you disregard foreign policies?

I don't.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Why do you think the fundamental role of the government is to protect ourselves from each other?

Why the else would I want such a powerful entity to exist? Earth isn't a safe place, my friend. :nonono:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
The way that I look at it is: It's not just your life at stake. If there is a dangerous individual who is willing to attack you with lethal force for no good reason, it follows that he would do the same to another.

Destroying that which is a threat to others is a just act.

Anything less is condoning the murder of innocents.

So where are we in disagreement here? :confused:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11375549 - 11/03/09 08:28 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

We are in disagreement because I see the individual as having the discernment to apply deadly force correctly against a threat. It is at the time that the threat becomes evident.

Government kills innocent people. Government does not apply deadly for with the necessary restraint.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11375584 - 11/03/09 08:35 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
We are in disagreement because I see the individual as having the discernment to apply deadly force correctly against a threat. It is at the time that the threat becomes evident.

We agree on this point.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government kills innocent people.

I don't agree with the government doing this.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government does not apply deadly for with the necessary restraint.

It doesn't have to.

So, again, where are we in disagreement?

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11375591 - 11/03/09 08:37 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

We are in disagreement because I see that government has been irresponsible with deadly force and therefore I don't see why it should be trusted with it.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11375612 - 11/03/09 08:41 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I'm speaking about my beliefs, no? We are speaking in hypotheticals in this thread, my friend. :sadyes:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11375658 - 11/03/09 08:50 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I feel that it is naive to trust even a "hypothetical" government.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11375699 - 11/03/09 08:56 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

So you condone anarchy?

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11375712 - 11/03/09 08:59 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Higher organization can occur without control.

Government may shrink and start taking care of only it's specific job description.

If government continues on it's present path the medium of exchange would be destroyed and people will "lose faith" in it anyway.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11375737 - 11/03/09 09:02 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Higher organization can occur without control.

How?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government may shrink and start taking care of only it's specific job description.

But isn't it "naive to trust even a "hypothetical" government."?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
If government continues on it's present path the medium of exchange would be destroyed and people will "lose faith" in it anyway.

How can you know this for sure?

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11376865 - 11/03/09 12:00 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I condone the mass murder of thugs, not innocent people who are living in peace.

So you don't consider their situation at all? You don't consider why such people are driven to murder in the first place? Instead of trying to treat the societal problems at their source, you'd rather just eliminate that branch of society when it finally reaches the breaking point? I'm curious on your stance on the war on drugs... but that's another matter.

And what of the innocent people who were unlucky enough to be sentenced to death by mistake (yes, it does happen)? Tough shit, eh?

--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11377249 - 11/03/09 12:59 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Thugs and murderers are just misunderstood. Why, if they had had more nurturing parents and a local Montessori school, they would surely be rescuing stray cats in Korea. Or something likewise touchy-feely stupid.

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

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11377332 - 11/03/09 01:12 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Prove that they wouldn't.

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11377359 - 11/03/09 01:16 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

You want him to prove a negative?

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11377368 - 11/03/09 01:17 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

I condone the mass murder of thugs, not innocent people who are living in peace.

So you don't consider their situation at all?

Whose situation? Be clear.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
You don't consider why such people are driven to murder in the first place?

Of course I consider that, but their reasons don't matter to me much at all when they are pointing a pistol at my face.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Instead of trying to treat the societal problems at their source, you'd rather just eliminate that branch of society when it finally reaches the breaking point?

Quote me where I said or implied any of this.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
I'm curious on your stance on the war on drugs

The government has absolutely no business to control drugs, IMO.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
And what of the innocent people who were unlucky enough to be sentenced to death by mistake (yes, it does happen)? Tough shit, eh?

I am against people who are given the death penalty when the only evidence that their conviction is based on is circumstantial; of course I feel for the wrongly accused... :strokebeard:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11377417 - 11/03/09 01:24 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

The person who was senteced to die, of course.

Quote:

Of course I consider that, but their reasons don't matter to me much at all when they are pointing a pistol at my face.

And how does giving them the death penalty stop them from pointing the pistol in your face?

Quote:

Quote me where I said or implied any of this.

You said you're okay with the 'mass-murder' of thugs.

Quote:

I am against people who are given the death penalty when the only evidence that their conviction is based on is circumstantial; of course I feel for the wrongly accused...

As long as there is a death penalty, people will die innocently. See, in your previous posts, I believe you just assumed that everyone who is sentenced to die deserves it. Or at least that's how it came off. So considering that fact, do you still support the death penalty?

Furthermore, how does killing a person that killed a person fix anything?

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11377497 - 11/03/09 01:35 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
The person who was senteced to die, of course.

Quote:

Of course I consider that, but their reasons don't matter to me much at all when they are pointing a pistol at my face.

And how does giving them the death penalty stop them from pointing the pistol in your face?

They won't be alive.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Quote me where I said or implied any of this.

You said you're okay with the 'mass-murder' of thugs.

Well, the term 'thug' is extremely ambiguous, so I guess I need to be more specific in order for us to communicate efficiently.

I am OK with the mass murder of thugs who, after going through a correctional facility's program (due to being convicted of a violent crime), continue on with their violent behavior; the risk factor is just too great for me to give a shit about them after that.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

I am against people who are given the death penalty when the only evidence that their conviction is based on is circumstantial; of course I feel for the wrongly accused...

As long as there is a death penalty, people will die innocently.

Nope, not necessarily; I wonder what you're basing this nonsense on...

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
See, in your previous posts, I believe you just assumed that everyone who is sentenced to die deserves it. Or at least that's how it came off. So considering that fact, do you still support the death penalty?

I clearly stated my stance on the death penalty, and it hasn't changed the last couple of minutes.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Furthermore, how does killing a person that killed a person fix anything?

I'm not going over this again, I've already explained the potential deterrent factor of the death penalty, amongst other things; just go back and read my previous exchanges with Mr.Al if you really want to know my answer to this question.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Edited by Poid (11/03/09 01:44 PM)

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11382481 - 11/04/09 08:34 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Quote:
pothead_bob said:
The person who was senteced to die, of course.

Quote:
Of course I consider that, but their reasons don't matter to me much at all when they are pointing a pistol at my face.

And how does giving them the death penalty stop them from pointing the pistol in your face?

They won't be alive.

Hold up here. We're talking about the death penalty. At least that's what I've been talking about. So let me ask again, how will the death penalty stop them from pointing the pistol in your face? By the way, the death penalty is administered after the suspect is proven guilty and sentenced to die by a jury of his fellow citizens. A cop shooting the guy is not the death penalty.

Quote:

Quote:
pothead_bob said:

Quote:
I am against people who are given the death penalty when the only evidence that their conviction is based on is circumstantial; of course I feel for the wrongly accused...

As long as there is a death penalty, people will die innocently.

Nope, not necessarily; I wonder what you're basing this nonsense on...

Gee, I wonder...

Quote:

I clearly stated my stance on the death penalty, and it hasn't changed the last couple of minutes.

No, actually, you weren't too clear on your stance. All I got out of your previous posts is that you're for the death penalty (although you're not sure why), but your not okay when only circumstantial evidence is used (would a death sentence even be administered if only circumstantial evidence were available?). What about when the direct evidence is a persons testimony?

Quote:

You know, I haven't put too much thought into why I agree with the death penalty; I could say that it is an agreeable "policy", for lack of a better term, because of its deterrent effects, but it wouldn't deter suicidal martyrs. It would deter a good deal of thugs who want to kill but don't want to die, but that's about where its power as a deterrent ends.

Quote:

Quote:
pothead_bob said:
Furthermore, how does killing a person that killed a person fix anything?

I'm not going over this again, I've already explained the potential deterrent factor of the death penalty, amongst other things; just go back and read my previous exchanges with Mr.Al if you really want to know my answer to this question.

Just like the war on drugs has curbed drug use in America since its inception.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11383223 - 11/04/09 10:48 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
A cop shooting the guy is not the death penalty.

It's still a death penalty. :lol:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Gee, I wonder...

Those are trends; what don't you get about the term 'not necessarily'?

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
What about when the direct evidence is a persons testimony?

That's definitely not enough, IMO; I can go to the police station right now and tell them that I've murdered someone, but they cannot convict me until there is evidence. They might arrest me, and they might even conduct a trial, but if there's not enough evidence to prove that I actually killed someone, then I wouldn't be convicted of murder.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Just like the war on drugs has curbed drug use in America since its inception.

Fuck the war on drugs. :thebird:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 148,835
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11383353 - 11/04/09 11:06 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Sure, the jury has the last say whether or not someone gets murdered using taxpayers' dollars, but the government had the initial OK for it to even be legal. If it weren't legal, it wouldn't exist. And legality lies within the legislative and judicial powers of the government.

the other option would be that if you bring harm to me I would wreak
destruction on you and all that you knew, without that judicial
jurisdiction we're in the realm of vigilante justice, no trials, just
lot's of executions by those that felt slighted so now instead of the
fate being decided by 12 impartial jurors it's decided by one angry
person or an angry mob...

Quote:

We give others the means to kill and pose it as a good cause

and many take it upon themselves to kill

Post Extras:

Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 148,835
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11383366 - 11/04/09 11:08 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Just like the war on drugs has curbed drug use in America since its inception.

unlike the war on drugs, if you're executed you dont have the chance to become a repeat offender

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11384167 - 11/04/09 12:53 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Quote:
pothead_bob said:
Gee, I wonder...

Those are trends; what don't you get about the term 'not necessarily'?

Well, I assumed we were talking about the real world here.

Quote:

That's definitely not enough, IMO; I can go to the police station right now and tell them that I've murdered someone, but they cannot convict me until there is evidence. They might arrest me, and they might even conduct a trial, but if there's not enough evidence to prove that I actually killed someone, then I wouldn't be convicted of murder.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but you incriminating yourself by saying that you killed them would be the evidence. Or a witness testifying that you killed them would be the evidence. At any rate, testimony from witnesses has been used as grounds for administering the death penalty before, like with Gregory Lynn Summers, executed in Texas, 2006 http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=5306 .

We could argue all day about what is and is not correct grounds for sentencing somebody to die, but everybody will never be in agreement. I don't think anybody's system will be perfect, either. Mistakes will still be made and these are human lives we're talking about. The only failsafe solution, in my opinion, is to not even have capital punishment.

Quote:

Fuck the war on drugs.

Couldn't agree more, but my point is that just like imprisoning people and potentially ruining their lives isn't effective as a deterrent to stop them from doing drugs, I don't believe that having capital punishment is much of a deterrent to someone who is either committed to killing somebody or who is mentally fucked up and wants to abduct, rape and then eat small girls. I highly doubt the latter, especially, gives much of a shit of possibly being sentenced to death if they're caught.

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Prisoner#1]
#11384201 - 11/04/09 12:57 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Quote:
pothead_bob said:
Just like the war on drugs has curbed drug use in America since its inception.

unlike the war on drugs, if you're executed you dont have the chance to become a repeat offender

You also don't have a chance to appeal your case and prove your innocence after you're executed, unlike the war on drugs.

Quote:

Georgia Board to Pardon Woman 60 Years After Her Execution - The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has announced that it will issue a formal pardon this month for Lena Baker (pictured), the only woman executed in the state during the 20th century. The document, signed by all five of the current board members, will note that the parole board's 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency and allow her execution was "a grievous error, as this case called out for mercy." Baker, an African American, was executed for the murder of Ernest Knight, a white man who hired her . Baker was tried, convicted, and sentenced to die in one day by an all-white, all-male jury. Baker claimed she shot Knight in self-defense after he locked her in his gristmill and threatened her with a metal pipe. The pardon notes that Baker "could have been charged with voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, for the death of E.B. Knight." The average sentence for voluntary manslaughter is 15 years in prison. Baker's picture and her last words are currently displayed near the retired electric chair at a museum at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 16, 2005). See Race, Clemency and Women.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11384264 - 11/04/09 01:03 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Quote:
pothead_bob said:
Gee, I wonder...

Those are trends; what don't you get about the term 'not necessarily'?

Well, I assumed we were talking about the real world here.

What is the title of this thread? :strokebeard:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

That's definitely not enough, IMO; I can go to the police station right now and tell them that I've murdered someone, but they cannot convict me until there is evidence. They might arrest me, and they might even conduct a trial, but if there's not enough evidence to prove that I actually killed someone, then I wouldn't be convicted of murder.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but you incriminating yourself by saying that you killed them would be the evidence. Or a witness testifying that you killed them would be the evidence. At any rate, testimony from witnesses has been used as grounds for administering the death penalty before, like with Gregory Lynn Summers, executed in Texas, 2006 http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=5306 .

There needs to be real evidence, dude.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
We could argue all day about what is and is not correct grounds for sentencing somebody to die, but everybody will never be in agreement. I don't think anybody's system will be perfect, either. Mistakes will still be made and these are human lives we're talking about. The only failsafe solution, in my opinion, is to not even have capital punishment.

People who kill are pieces of shit and a waste of resources; you know how much money it costs to keep an inmate in a prison for life? A shitload of our money to keep this asshole who wants to kill us and our friends and family.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Couldn't agree more, but my point is that just like imprisoning people and potentially ruining their lives isn't effective as a deterrent to stop them from doing drugs, I don't believe that having capital punishment is much of a deterrent to someone who is either committed to killing somebody or who is mentally fucked up and wants to abduct, rape and then eat small girls. I highly doubt the latter, especially, gives much of a shit of possibly being sentenced to death if they're caught.

Now you're getting into the 'insanity plea'; that's a whole 'nother arena! :yesnod:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11384374 - 11/04/09 01:14 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

What is the title of this thread?

I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other

Point?

Quote:

There needs to be real evidence, dude.

Obviously there needs to be a dead person, but if you confess to being the murderer, you'll be charged based on your testimony.

Quote:

People who kill are pieces of shit and a waste of resources; you know how much money it costs to keep an inmate in a prison for life? A shitload of our money to keep this asshole who wants to kill us and our friends and family.

I do, as a matter of fact.

Between $13,000 and $45,000 per year. Now, do you know how much it costs to keep a prisoner on death row?

Quote:

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Quote:

Maryland
New Study Reveals Maryland Pays $37 Million for One Execution

A new study released by the Urban Institute on March 6, 2008 forecasted that the lifetime expenses of capitally-prosecuted cases since 1978 will cost Maryland taxpayers $186 million. That translates into at least $37.2 million for each of the state’s five executions since the state reenacted the death penalty. The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.) The study examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that those cases will cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not existed as a punishment. At every phase of a case, according to the study, capital murder cases cost more than non-capital murder cases.

Of the 162 capital cases, there werer 106 cases in which a death sentence was sought but not handed down in Maryland. Those cases cost the state an additional $71 million compared to the cost non-death penalty cases. Those costs were incurred simply to seek the death penalty where the ultimate outcome was a life or long-term prison sentence.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Oh and you are once again assuming that the person on death row is, in fact, guilty. As I have proved before, that is not always the case. Think of that before you start calling them pieces of shit who are a waste of resources.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11390952 - 11/05/09 12:38 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

What is the title of this thread?

I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other

Point?

This thread is about what I believe the government "should" be like, not about how it realistically is or can be.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

There needs to be real evidence, dude.

Obviously there needs to be a dead person, but if you confess to being the murderer, you'll be charged based on your testimony.

I may be charged, but I won't be convicted.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

People who kill are pieces of shit and a waste of resources; you know how much money it costs to keep an inmate in a prison for life? A shitload of our money to keep this asshole who wants to kill us and our friends and family.

I do, as a matter of fact.

Between $13,000 and $45,000 per year. Now, do you know how much it costs to keep a prisoner on death row?

A lot more; why not kill 'em faster? :borfase:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Oh and you are once again assuming that the person on death row is, in fact, guilty.

Oh, and you are, once again, guilty of psychologically projecting. :egyptian:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
As I have proved before, that is not always the case. Think of that before you start calling them pieces of shit who are a waste of resources.

I said "people who kill", not death row inmates.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11391396 - 11/05/09 01:40 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

This thread is about what I believe the government "should" be like, not about how it realistically is or can be.

copout. I'm challenging your views on the death penalty which you have claimed to support. However, it's becoming clear that you have no logical basis for supporting it. When I respond to you with facts and sources, you respond with one-liners that don't address the points I bring up.

Quote:

I may be charged, but I won't be convicted.

Whether or not you are convicted will come down to the decision of the jury based on the evidence presented. Testimonies can and will be used as evidence.

Quote:

A lot more; why not kill 'em faster?

Yeah, good solution.

How old r u by the way?

Quote:

Oh, and you are, once again, guilty of psychologically projecting.

oh yeah I forgot you're talking about the United States of Fantasy where you magically know who is guilty of murder and who is not. Sorry I assumed that when you said you supported the death penalty you were talking about the one where a person is convicted of a crime by a jury, sentenced to death by a jury, and then executed at some date in the future as opposed to the one where poid is all knowing and where no mistakes can be made in administering justice.

Quote:

I said "people who kill", not death row inmates.

Of course. Well then let me ask you this. Do you support the death penalty that requires the use of a justice system involving mortals and not omnipotent beings? If not, then could you please explain the way the death penalty that you're talking about works? If you don't know what you're talking about and don't know why you said you support the death penalty, is there any chance you could admit that?

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11391456 - 11/05/09 01:50 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

This thread is about what I believe the government "should" be like, not about how it realistically is or can be.

copout. I'm challenging your views on the death penalty which you have claimed to support. However, it's becoming clear that you have no logical basis for supporting it. When I respond to you with facts and sources, you respond with one-liners that don't address the points I bring up.

I already explained pretty damn clearly when I believe the death penalty is appropriate; this comment here was not intended to be a justification for my beliefs regarding the death penalty, it was aimed at a comment you made earlier that was something like, "I thought we were talking about the real world?".

I didn't cop out of anything. :shake:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

I may be charged, but I won't be convicted.

Whether or not you are convicted will come down to the decision of the jury based on the evidence presented. Testimonies can and will be used as evidence.

Quote:

A lot more; why not kill 'em faster?

Yeah, good solution.

How old r u by the way?

What a sense of humor you got on your shoulders there, boy! :congrats:

20.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Oh, and you are, once again, guilty of psychologically projecting.

oh yeah I forgot you're talking about the United States of Fantasy...

You're the one who is making fantasies about my thoughts. :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
...where you magically know who is guilty of murder and who is not. Sorry I assumed that when you said you supported the death penalty you were talking about the one where a person is convicted of a crime by a jury, sentenced to death by a jury, and then executed at some date in the future as opposed to the one where poid is all knowing and where no mistakes can be made in administering justice.

This is what I meant; more projections... :cuckoo:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Do you support the death penalty that requires the use of a justice system involving mortals and not omnipotent beings?

What kind of fucking question is this? :what:

Whether the beings involved in said death penalty are mortal or "omnipotent" has nothing no bearing on my opinion. :etjesus:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
If not, then could you please explain the way the death penalty that you're talking about works? If you don't know what you're talking about and don't know why you said you support the death penalty, is there any chance you could admit that?

Not every US state enforces the death penalty; I am aware of many of the flaws that exist throughout the prison system, not just the those that exist within the death penalty. I don't completely agree with every state's administration of the death penalty, nor do I know every single little tid-bit of information for every state regarding the death penalty.

All I know is that if there's a dangerous criminal out there that is going to kill people no matter what, I want him dead.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11395855 - 11/06/09 03:55 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Have you considered that government is often an example of a mass murderer on the largest scale?

I would say that giving government the "right" to kill people is a dangerous precedent.

Government likes to stretch the limits of it's mandated powers and it is naive to the extreme to think that government will only put dangerous felons to death.

That is the problem here, Poid.

Government historically lacks restraint. Sometimes the individual has the restraint to determine when someone needs to be put down. Id est: If a burglar breaks into Granny's home I truly hope she rips him apart with her shotgun.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11396651 - 11/06/09 08:18 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I already explained pretty damn clearly when I believe the death penalty is appropriate

Pretty damn clear?

Let's see what you've said on the matter thus far...

Quote:

So do you not believe in the death penalty???

Quote:

You know, I haven't put too much thought into why I agree with the death penalty; I could say that it is an agreeable "policy", for lack of a better term, because of its deterrent effects, but it wouldn't deter suicidal martyrs. It would deter a good deal of thugs who want to kill but don't want to die, but that's about where its power as a deterrent ends.

I believe that I should be able to kill another person in cases of self-defense, and in cases where I could save another person's life; by imposing the death penalty on a thug, the country at large is defending itself and all its citizens' lives.

Quote:

I am against people who are given the death penalty when the only evidence that their conviction is based on is circumstantial; of course I feel for the wrongly accused...

Quote:

I am OK with the mass murder of thugs who, after going through a correctional facility's program (due to being convicted of a violent crime), continue on with their violent behavior; the risk factor is just too great for me to give a shit about them after that.

Quote:

People who kill are pieces of shit and a waste of resources; you know how much money it costs to keep an inmate in a prison for life? A shitload of our money to keep this asshole who wants to kill us and our friends and family.

Quote:

I said "people who kill", not death row inmates.

That is everything you have said about your views on the death penalty. You basically said:
1) you believe it has deterrant effects, but not for martyrs... only for people who don't want to die,
2) you believe imposing the death penalty saves lives,
3) you're against the death penalty when the only evidence is circumstantial,
4) you admit that mistakes are made in determining who get's the death penalty,
5) you're okay with the death penalty after the person has been convicted and after the criminal goes through a correction program and doesn't change,
6) you believe 'people who kill' are too expensive to imprison for life and that they should be killed instead.

That is all one can gather from your posts.

Now, as for #1, you agree that the death penalty doesn't work for someone who doesn't care about dying. I think it's safe to say that many of the psychopaths we're talking about here that would commit atrocious crimes don't give a shit about death. Just look at school shootings for instance. The outcome is almost always the shooter taking his own life. Furthermore, what kind of deterrant effect does it have when the criminal doesn't even know whether they will be sentenced to death or not? They may just get 10 years or one life sentence. Do you really think they're thinking about what their sentence will be when they're plotting to kill someone or a group of people?

#2 makes no sense. How does killing somebody safe a life? Considering that otherwise, if you don't kill that person, they will be locked away from society for life.

#3 and #4 are both features of the current use of the death penalty. Of course, you said you weren't talking about the 'real world', but only your 'beliefs'. This, despite the fact that you used McVeigh as support for your agreement with the death penalty by showing his picture. So sorry for assuming you were talking about the 'real world' after you used an example from the 'real world'

#5 - I'm curious to know how you would test to see if a criminal has 'changed their violent ways'. Let them loose? But that would endanger more people, and you're all for saving lives, right? So how? And I can't seem to remember McVeigh being given a chance to 'change his violent ways'... And yet you used him as an example despite such an example being against your personal beliefs, but yeah, you were 'completely clear' on your views on the death penalty.

#6 - I proved you wrong on this one; however, you turn to humor instead of addressing the point, and then try to say you weren't 'copping out'. You make a distinction between 'people who kill' and 'death row inmates'... We're talking about administering the death penalty here. How do you administer it to 'people who kill' without them, at some point, being on death row? And remember from point #5, you only agree with the death penalty after a person is convicted of a crime and after the criminal goes through a correction program and doesn't change... wonder how expensive that second part would be, since you express worry of cost? So if they're convicted, and they have to be, according to you, what do you do with them then?

How about instead of accusing me of 'projecting' you actually address some of my questions or at least clear up some of the inconsistencies I've pointed out?

Quote:

What kind of fucking question is this?
Whether the beings involved in said death penalty are mortal or "omnipotent" has nothing no bearing on my opinion.

Well, error is a current feature of the death penalty, and from #4 above, you seem to admit that. So you're okay with innocent people possibly being put to death as a side effect of the death penalty which you agree with? Please, instead of just accusing me of 'projecting', just answer the question. Unless an 'omnipotent' being is involved in deciding who gets the death penalty and who doesn't, there is always the chance that an innocent person will be accused. Feel free to prove otherwise, but that's the kind of 'question' that was.

Quote:

Not every US state enforces the death penalty; I am aware of many of the flaws that exist throughout the prison system, not just the those that exist within the death penalty. I don't completely agree with every state's administration of the death penalty, nor do I know every single little tid-bit of information for every state regarding the death penalty.

All I know is that if there's a dangerous criminal out there that is going to kill people no matter what, I want him dead.

So basically, you're saying you agree there are problems with the death penalty, but you still agree with it, overall (or at least your version of it, which I have many questions about). As for your last statement, how does the death penalty stop a person from killing? It's detterent effect? You even admitted that doesn't always work. Just look at how many people still steal, still sell drugs, still murder, despite the fact that the chances of them going to prison are good. People don't give a shit. They're going to do what they want to do. I think the detterent effects are bullshit, but again, please, feel free to prove otherwise.

If the person is locked up forever and can never hurt another person, that's not good enough for you?

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11398558 - 11/06/09 01:07 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Have you considered that government is often an example of a mass murderer on the largest scale?

Of course I have, and I don't believe that this is something that the government needs to be given the power to do.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
I would say that giving government the "right" to kill people is a dangerous precedent.

It can be, but I don't believe that any of the potential future dangers caused by a government are appropriate. :shrug:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government likes to stretch the limits of it's mandated powers and it is naive to the extreme to think that government will only put dangerous felons to death.

That's what checks and balances are for; obviously, this isn't going to necessarily happen, it's just, IYO, at least a somewhat likely outcome. :shrug:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government historically lacks restraint.

...and I don't believe that this sort of thing is appropriate. :shrug:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Sometimes the individual has the restraint to determine when someone needs to be put down. Id est: If a burglar breaks into Granny's home I truly hope she rips him apart with her shotgun.

What if the burglar kills Granny, and then gets caught by the police soon afterwords? :strokebeard:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
That is everything you have said about your views on the death penalty. You basically said:
1) you believe it has deterrant effects, but not for martyrs... only for people who don't want to die,
2) you believe imposing the death penalty saves lives,
3) you're against the death penalty when the only evidence is circumstantial,
4) you admit that mistakes are made in determining who get's the death penalty,
5) you're okay with the death penalty after the person has been convicted and after the criminal goes through a correction program and doesn't change,
6) you believe 'people who kill' are too expensive to imprison for life and that they should be killed instead.

That seems just about right. :thumbup:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
That is all one can gather from your posts.

Now, as for #1, you agree that the death penalty doesn't work for someone who doesn't care about dying.

I said it might not work, I didn't say that it necessarily won't be effective against these type of people.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
I think it's safe to say that many of the psychopaths we're talking about here that would commit atrocious crimes don't give a shit about death. Just look at school shootings for instance. The outcome is almost always the shooter taking his own life.

All "school shooters" may be suicidal psychopaths, but not all psychopaths are suicidal "school shooters"; please provide a source for the claim that "...many of the psychopaths we're talking about here that would commit atrocious crimes don't give a shit about death."

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Furthermore, what kind of deterrant effect does it have when the criminal doesn't even know whether they will be sentenced to death or not?

It can deter the criminal who was caught after the fact, and the criminal who has not yet killed. :shrug:

Or, it can deter neither of them. :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
They may just get 10 years or one life sentence. Do you really think they're thinking about what their sentence will be when they're plotting to kill someone or a group of people?

I don't know, they may, or they may not. :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
#2 makes no sense. How does killing somebody safe a life? Considering that otherwise, if you don't kill that person, they will be locked away from society for life.

They can escape, they can be a danger to other inmates; those are two reasons right there.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
#3 and #4 are both features of the current use of the death penalty. Of course, you said you weren't talking about the 'real world', but only your 'beliefs'. This, despite the fact that you used McVeigh as support for your agreement with the death penalty by showing his picture. So sorry for assuming you were talking about the 'real world' after you used an example from the 'real world'

I am talking about how I want the "real world" to be like in the future; McVeigh is already history. :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
#5 - I'm curious to know how you would test to see if a criminal has 'changed their violent ways'.

An intense psychological evaluation, parole, probation, etc... :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
But that would endanger more people, and you're all for saving lives, right?

I suppose it would be up to the government to decide what to do with this person. :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
So how? And I can't seem to remember McVeigh being given a chance to 'change his violent ways'...

He already did the deed; the people who need to be given a second chance are the ones who either haven't killed, but seem to be likely to kill, and/or the ones who haven't committed as atrocious a crime as McVeigh did.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
And yet you used him as an example despite such an example being against your personal beliefs, but yeah, you were 'completely clear' on your views on the death penalty.

Obviously, you've made a somewhat comprehensive list of my stated beliefs thus far regarding the death penalty; have I been unclear as of yet? :confused:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
#6 - I proved you wrong on this one; however, you turn to humor instead of addressing the point, and then try to say you weren't 'copping out'. You make a distinction between 'people who kill' and 'death row inmates'... We're talking about administering the death penalty here. How do you administer it to 'people who kill' without them, at some point, being on death row?

There is a distinction; not all death row inmates are guilty. :shrug:

To answer your question: A fair trial.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
And remember from point #5, you only agree with the death penalty after a person is convicted of a crime and after the criminal goes through a correction program and doesn't change...

I don't think every person who murders somebody else should be put to death. :shrug:

Some people, IMO, are not worthy of being given a "second chance". :nonono:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
wonder how expensive that second part would be, since you express worry of cost? So if they're convicted, and they have to be, according to you, what do you do with them then?

Only people whose case seems worthy of being given a second chance shall have one.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
How about instead of accusing me of 'projecting' you actually address some of my questions or at least clear up some of the inconsistencies I've pointed out?

Alright, then how about you stop projecting? :strokebeard2:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

What kind of fucking question is this?
Whether the beings involved in said death penalty are mortal or "omnipotent" has nothing no bearing on my opinion.

Well, error is a current feature of the death penalty, and from #4 above, you seem to admit that. So you're okay with innocent people possibly being put to death as a side effect of the death penalty which you agree with?
Quote:

Nope, I've already stated that I don't completely agree with every way the death penalty is administered; I am not OK with having an innocent person be killed by the government.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Please, instead of just accusing me of 'projecting', just answer the question. Unless an 'omnipotent' being is involved in deciding who gets the death penalty and who doesn't, there is always the chance that an innocent person will be accused.

Source?

There's always a chance that anything can happen anywhere; I would appreciate an efficient death penalty system.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Not every US state enforces the death penalty; I am aware of many of the flaws that exist throughout the prison system, not just the those that exist within the death penalty. I don't completely agree with every state's administration of the death penalty, nor do I know every single little tid-bit of information for every state regarding the death penalty.

All I know is that if there's a dangerous criminal out there that is going to kill people no matter what, I want him dead.

So basically, you're saying you agree there are problems with the death penalty, but you still agree with it, overall (or at least your version of it, which I have many questions about).

I agree that some people need to be put down, and I don't agree with every single way that this is being done.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
As for your last statement, how does the death penalty stop a person from killing? It's detterent effect? You even admitted that doesn't always work.

What is your point here?

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Just look at how many people still steal, still sell drugs, still murder, despite the fact that the chances of them going to prison are good.

People who do these things on a regular basis have found ways to do it without getting caught, so for them, in their mind (and probably in reality, too), their chances of getting caught are at least somewhat slim.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
People don't give a shit. They're going to do what they want to do. I think the detterent effects are bullshit, but again, please, feel free to prove otherwise.

You don't think that the death penalty deters anybody from committing murder?

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
If the person is locked up forever and can never hurt another person, that's not good enough for you?

It largely depends on the case.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Gabbro
Stranger

Registered: 08/16/08
Posts: 34
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11401888 - 11/06/09 11:09 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

This somewhat reminds me of the "social contract theory' where we as citizens of a nation state 'give up' some of our basic rights to the so called government in order that more important rights are upheld and that social order is attained.

So is the government there to ensure smooth movement? Ideally, and theoretically, yes. However, I doubt this is really the case of any nation-state. I think the theoretical ideas about government, as US citizens know it anyway, merely are symptomatic features of a political theory lacking a historical or philosophical perspective.

Defining the government's primary responsibility in terms of social contract assumes that humans have rights to begin with! I have rarely met a person yet that can tell me why, by definition of being human, we deserve any rights at all...philosophers have been pondering this for years, however this is a digression from your main point...

The theoretical framework that is 'government' is really an ongoing metamorphic evolution of the 'ruling class'. (No I am not about to start spouting Marxism at you, ha!). The point isn't really to establish social order, rather the formation of 'government', I think anyway, is really a response to the changes that have been going since this thing started (who knows really when that occurred). It's evolution...and unless a new landmass (ie a new continent) is found, I highly doubt a massive restructuring, at least on that you suggest in your poll, can occur.

We had monarchies and kingdoms before, were they there to establish social order then? My guess is no. We had power hungry Kings, Queens, Emperors and the like well before humans even had an inkling about 'rights'...were they really there to protect ourselves from ourselves...I would say no...but hey I might be wrong! Rather I think that this democracy is an ongoing change of how the ruling class changes it's ways to stay in power.

Social contract runs into a chicken and egg problem simply because we had government and rule of law before rights existed. Likewise, a government is not there for us, but for them.

It's funny that many of us want it (revolution or restructuring), but I find it equally funny that we all know what the real consequences would be if this change occurred.

So in short...no and yes haha, but I think you already knew this answer to begin with :wink:

Post Extras:

RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis

Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 1,991
Loc: Texas

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11402068 - 11/06/09 11:54 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I'm in doubt about the morality of the death penalty issue for one reason. I question the utilitarian notion that one unjust death caused by the penalty is worth the benefits derived from it. Morally speaking, it is a monstrous act to kill an innocent individual and that one act would poison the whole idea behind the penalty.

If we could ensure somehow that ONLY those who were given the penalty were convicted with 100% certainty would I be for it.

Essentially I think the death penalty may not be justified in an ideal society, let alone in this corrupt culture and political system.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: RationalEgo]
#11404140 - 11/07/09 10:32 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Gabbro said:
This somewhat reminds me of the "social contract theory' where we as citizens of a nation state 'give up' some of our basic rights to the so called government in order that more important rights are upheld and that social order is attained.

Either the "social contract theory", or "anarchy", which would you prefer?

Have you even seen what prisoner-type people look/behave like? :strokebeard:

Quote:

Gabbro said:
So is the government there to ensure smooth movement? Ideally, and theoretically, yes. However, I doubt this is really the case of any nation-state. I think the theoretical ideas about government, as US citizens know it anyway, merely are symptomatic features of a political theory lacking a historical or philosophical perspective.

How so?

Quote:

Gabbro said:
Defining the government's primary responsibility in terms of social contract assumes that humans have rights to begin with! I have rarely met a person yet that can tell me why, by definition of being human, we deserve any rights at all...philosophers have been pondering this for years, however this is a digression from your main point...

What are you even saying here? Do you want the population, including some of your family and friends, to be liquidized? :what:

Quote:

Gabbro said:
The theoretical framework that is 'government' is really an ongoing metamorphic evolution of the 'ruling class'. (No I am not about to start spouting Marxism at you, ha!). The point isn't really to establish social order, rather the formation of 'government', I think anyway, is really a response to the changes that have been going since this thing started (who knows really when that occurred). It's evolution...and unless a new landmass (ie a new continent) is found, I highly doubt a massive restructuring, at least on that you suggest in your poll, can occur.

Do you have any sources for your initial claim here?

It really doesn't matter how doubtful my vision of what I believe the government "should" be like is. Really, it doesn't. :shrug:

Quote:

Gabbro said:
We had monarchies and kingdoms before, were they there to establish social order then? My guess is no. We had power hungry Kings, Queens, Emperors and the like well before humans even had an inkling about 'rights'...were they really there to protect ourselves from ourselves...I would say no...but hey I might be wrong! Rather I think that this democracy is an ongoing change of how the ruling class changes it's ways to stay in power.

This is a democratic republic.

Quote:

Gabbro said:
...a government is not there for us, but for them.

Not in my vision of how I want the government to operate. :shake:

Quote:

Gabbro said:
It's funny that many of us want it (revolution or restructuring), but I find it equally funny that we all know what the real consequences would be if this change occurred.

Nobody knows shit. :glittershitz:

Quote:

Gabbro said:
So in short...no and yes haha, but I think you already knew this answer to begin with

Since I'm alive, I want to be able to live a long life without worrying about being killed by some random thug.

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
I'm in doubt about the morality of the death penalty issue for one reason. I question the utilitarian notion that one unjust death caused by the penalty is worth the benefits derived from it. Morally speaking, it is a monstrous act to kill an innocent individual and that one act would poison the whole idea behind the penalty.

How is someone who murders others an "innocent individual"? :confused:

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
If we could ensure somehow that ONLY those who were given the penalty were convicted with 100% certainty would I be for it.

That's the way I look at it. :thumbup:

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
Essentially I think the death penalty may not be justified in an ideal society, let alone in this corrupt culture and political system.

Some people are just nothing but mange. :nonono:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11409942 - 11/08/09 07:21 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

The problem that I am seeing with your view is that you suppose that government will, for some reason, behave benevolently....

History has shown government to be a mass murderer. Capital punishment is merely a government monopoly on murder.

I do not see how that is moral.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Gabbro]
#11417402 - 11/09/09 07:56 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Obviously, you've made a somewhat comprehensive list of my stated beliefs thus far regarding the death penalty; have I been unclear as of yet?

And I pointed out inconsistencies in your statements and came up with many questions for you, so yeah, you haven't been very clear until this post.

Basically, what I gather from all of your posts, is that you support the death penalty in an 'ideal world'. Is this correct?

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11417497 - 11/09/09 08:27 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
The problem that I am seeing with your view is that you suppose that government will, for some reason, behave benevolently....

I believe that it "should"; I never made such a supposition...

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
History has shown government to be a mass murderer. Capital punishment is merely a government monopoly on murder.

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Obviously, you've made a somewhat comprehensive list of my stated beliefs thus far regarding the death penalty; have I been unclear as of yet?

And I pointed out inconsistencies in your statements and came up with many questions for you, so yeah, you haven't been very clear until this post.

Basically, what I gather from all of your posts, is that you support the death penalty in an 'ideal world'. Is this correct?

It's pretty damn close, I suppose... :strokebeard:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11417551 - 11/09/09 08:41 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

And since we live in anything but an ideal world, it would be inaccurate to say that you support the death penalty then, right?

Quote:

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

Depends on what state you live in.

Edited by pothead_bob (11/09/09 08:42 AM)

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11417567 - 11/09/09 08:44 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
And since we live in anything but an ideal world, it would be inaccurate to say that you support the death penalty then, right?

Quote:

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

Depends on what state you live in.

What do you mean "inaccurate"? I am presenting my political beliefs here in this political debate forum; are you saying that my said beliefs will necessarily not manifest into reality because this is not an ideal world? :strokebeard2:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11417571 - 11/09/09 08:45 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

Depends on what state you live in.

It probably does, and I don't agree with any law that prohibits a person to murder in the name of self-defense.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11417611 - 11/09/09 08:53 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

What do you mean "inaccurate"? I am presenting my political beliefs here in this political debate forum; are you saying that my said beliefs will necessarily not manifest into reality because this is not an ideal world?

I mean, before when you said 'you mean you don't support the death penalty???? :eek:

', I assumed that you do support the death penalty. And I assumed that you supported the death penalty that is enforced currently, in this non-idealized world. From your posts, after that, I'm gathering that you don't really support the death penalty. However, you would support it in an ideal world.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11417725 - 11/09/09 09:13 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

I don't support it in every instance, but I do believe that it is a benefit to society, if implemented properly. I believe in a death penalty; how about that? :shrug2:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11424561 - 11/10/09 06:38 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
I don't support it in every instance, but I do believe that it is a benefit to society, if implemented properly. I believe in a death penalty; how about that?

Saying that you believe in something is not a rational argument.

"If implemented properly"... When is anything that the government does implemented "prop :crazy2:

erly"?

What the fuck does "implemented properly" even mean anyway?

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11426494 - 11/10/09 12:57 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Saying that you believe in something is not a rational argument.

I believe my rational argument for this belief of mine is all over this thread... :strokebeard:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
"If implemented properly"... When is anything that the government does implemented "properly"?

When I broke my wrist, my Medi-Cal went through without any problems. :shrug:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
What the fuck does "implemented properly" even mean anyway?

It can mean a lot of things; basically, the reason I said that was to show that I do not believe that every single person who is put to death by the government was put to death justifiably, and that I do believe that there are some instances where the death penalty is appropriate.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11426816 - 11/10/09 01:37 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I don't support it in every instance, but I do believe that it is a benefit to society, if implemented properly. I believe in a death penalty; how about that?

I don't see how a system that is overly expensive and prone to errors that can result in state sponsered murdering of innocent people is a benefit to society... Since it isn't implemented properly at this point in time, I'm reading this statement as you don't support it, but that you're open to the idea pending fixing the system.

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11427005 - 11/10/09 02:05 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

It is not "prone" to errors. They are stunningly rare.

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

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11429232 - 11/10/09 08:29 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

I don't support it in every instance, but I do believe that it is a benefit to society, if implemented properly. I believe in a death penalty; how about that?

I don't see how a system that is overly expensive and prone to errors that can result in state sponsered murdering of innocent people is a benefit to society...

The system that I would agree with would be error-free. :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Since it isn't implemented properly at this point in time, I'm reading this statement as you don't support it, but that you're open to the idea pending fixing the system.

You are basically correct; how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Obviously, not every state implements the death penalty, and not every state that does implement the death penalty implements it in exactly the same way; when you ask me "Do you agree with the death penalty?", it is a loaded question because there are many death penalties, and many possible death penalties that don't even exist.

Like I said, I believe that some people who take other peoples' lives should be put to death; it's really not that fucking complicated. :shrug2:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11431068 - 11/11/09 01:56 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
History has shown government to be a mass murderer. Capital punishment is merely a government monopoly on murder.

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

No. No one has the right to kill. But we all have the right to live. Thus, if our lives were to be threatened, we shall act accordingly.

If the government has the right to kill, then why shouldn't we? Somehow, they can play God and pick-and-choose who dies and who doesn't? And based on what context? Their own laws that they created?
The government can't even obey its own civil laws, so what is the point of living by them individually as citizens?

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11432007 - 11/11/09 08:44 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Poid said:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
History has shown government to be a mass murderer. Capital punishment is merely a government monopoly on murder.

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

No. No one has the right to kill. But we all have the right to live. Thus, if our lives were to be threatened, we shall act accordingly.

Do you believe that, if our lives were to be threatened, that we would have the right to kill?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
If the government has the right to kill, then why shouldn't we?

I don't believe in giving the government the right to kill just anyone; obviously, there would have to be a fair trial in order to make such a decision.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Somehow, they can play God and pick-and-choose who dies and who doesn't? And based on what context? Their own laws that they created?

The jury "plays "God"".

Based on the context of the jury's decision, which is itself based on the evidence presented in the courtroom.

The laws that the legislators which the People voted for created.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The government can't even obey its own civil laws, so what is the point of living by them individually as citizens?

So you believe in total anarchy, or what? :what:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11432849 - 11/11/09 11:28 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

It is not "prone" to errors. They are stunningly rare.

Stunningly Rare?

Since 1976, there have been 1,178 Executions in the US (as of Nov 1, 2009).

From 1976 to the present, 133 death row inmates have been exonerated.

Guess that depends on your definition of rare, but considering theses are human lives we're talking about, I feel that 1 is too many. Especially when you consider that the alternative is a more cost effective life conviction without parole which accomplishes the same thing.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11433755 - 11/11/09 01:30 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
...life conviction without parole...accomplishes the same thing.

How does that accomplish the same thing as the death penalty? :confused:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11433794 - 11/11/09 01:37 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

It is not "prone" to errors. They are stunningly rare.

Stunningly Rare?

Since 1976, there have been 1,178 Executions in the US (as of Nov 1, 2009).

From 1976 to the present, 133 death row inmates have been exonerated.

Oh really? Link?

Quote:

Guess that depends on your definition of rare, but considering theses are human lives we're talking about, I feel that 1 is too many. Especially when you consider that the alternative is a more cost effective life conviction without parole which accomplishes the same thing.

I am not unsympathetic to the argument that one mistake is too many. I am utterly opposed to the argument that it is expensive.

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

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11434680 - 11/11/09 03:41 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Oh really? Link?

Yeah, sorry...

for total number of executions (broken down by state)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-united-states-1608-1976-state

for total number of exonerations

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

Quote:

I am not unsympathetic to the argument that one mistake is too many. I am utterly opposed to the argument that it is expensive.

I'm glad we see eye to eye on the first point, but between the amount of time people spend on death row and the appeals process, it is an expensive process.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11434701 - 11/11/09 03:43 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

How does that accomplish the same thing as the death penalty?

Both things (death penalty or life in prison without parole) remove a dangerous person from society and protect the public.

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11435034 - 11/11/09 04:25 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Bob what I would like you to do is find me one example of someone who was wrongfully sentenced to death because they were innocent of the crime. And when you're done with that find me someone actually executed even though they were innocent. Not not guilty by reason of insufficient evidence or illegal search or anything like that. Just didn't do it at all.

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

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11435537 - 11/11/09 05:14 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

How does that accomplish the same thing as the death penalty?

Both things (death penalty or life in prison without parole) remove a dangerous person from society and protect the public.

They both accomplish similar things, but that is not to say that they accomplish the exact same thing/s. :nono:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11437949 - 11/11/09 10:15 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Why would they be sentenced to death because they were innocent? Do you mean 'sentenced to death because they were believed to be guilty despite actually being innocent'? When you ask for me to find someone who was executed 'even though they were innocent' are you looking for an example where the legal system went through with the execution knowing the person was innocent? Or do you mean an example of a person who was executed and later proven innocent?

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11440852 - 11/12/09 12:33 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
When you ask for me to find someone who was executed 'even though they were innocent' are you looking for an example where the legal system went through with the execution knowing the person was innocent? Or do you mean an example of a person who was executed and later proven innocent?

Why can't you give us examples for both. :shrug:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11440873 - 11/12/09 12:37 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Apparently you didn't understand my question. I wasn't asking whether I should find one or the other, I was looking for clarification on the original question asked. And when I get that clarification, I will search for the cases requested depending on what was actually being requested.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11440913 - 11/12/09 12:42 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
I wasn't asking whether I should find one or the other, I was looking for clarification on the original question asked.

I clearly understood your question, and as this is my thread, I am personally asking you to provide examples for both situations where "someone...was executed 'even though they were innocent'", and situations where "a person...was executed and later proven innocent".

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
And when I get that clarification, I will search for the cases requested depending on what was actually being requested.

Like I said, I am personally requesting this; you don't have to wait for zappaisgod.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11440954 - 11/12/09 12:48 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

your thread? What does that have to do with anything?

So then you're asking for me to find an instance where somebody was executed even though the officials in charge of the execution knew he was innocent, or what? Because, to me, that wouldn't make any sense, which was why I was asking for clarification in the first place.

And how about you tell me what that would prove to you if I fulfilled your requests and found cases?

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11440970 - 11/12/09 12:50 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

You already know what I am requesting, so either you will provide what I asked you to provide, or you will not.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11441433 - 11/12/09 01:49 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

If I knew what was being asked, I wouldn't have asked for clarification in the first place. However, in the case of your request, I'll choose 'not' since you're being rude about it. Of course, if you ask nicely as Zappa did, I'll likely go and search for the requested cases (if you clarify).

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11441441 - 11/12/09 01:50 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Alright then.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11445908 - 11/13/09 01:04 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Poid said:

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

No. No one has the right to kill. But we all have the right to live. Thus, if our lives were to be threatened, we shall act accordingly.

Do you believe that, if our lives were to be threatened, that we would have the right to kill?

Absolutely not. We have the right to live, though. Thus, according to our innate right, we have a right to defend it. That doesn't mean we have the right to kill, per se, but it does mean we can murder 'purposefully', as with self-defense. I never said we couldn't kill, but it's definitely not a 'right' in its general context.

Quote:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
If the government has the right to kill, then why shouldn't we?

I don't believe in giving the government the right to kill just anyone; obviously, there would have to be a fair trial in order to make such a decision.

Murder isn't fair, nor just; ever. 'An eye for an eye' is archaic bullshit that is truly just a feeble, pride-driven attempt at justice. Really, contemporary justice is just a general opinion based on a selective mass of persons, AKA voters. Thus, it is highly opinionated. What one would condone as just might be unjust in the eyes of another. I believe the government should have a stance of 'involvement', rather than impersonal chastisement. In other words, the court should attempt to rehabilitate those whom lack moral judgment, or at least stow them away for eternity, rather than kill them to reciprocate their previous actions. And just because someone lost their family member doesn't mean the killer should lose his life. Once again, that is pride-driven, and prideful bigotry.

Quote:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Somehow, they can play God and pick-and-choose who dies and who doesn't? And based on what context? Their own laws that they created?

The jury "plays "God"".

Based on the context of the jury's decision, which is itself based on the evidence presented in the courtroom.

The laws that the legislators which the People voted for created.

I'm glad you can regurgitate bland, irrelevant facts.

The jury plays God's 'storefront'. 'God', aka the federal government, has the last and final say in any legislative decision. They, specifically the judicial branch, decide whether or not the death penalty is just and constitutional. They also decide how this punishment should be implemented. What's funny is that the government hires Citizens to choose who dies and who doesn't within parameters specified by the government. Also, voters never directly vote on federal laws anyways. Federal legislation is solely dependent on the legislative branch of the federal government. Sure, voters vote for who gets elected to represent them federally, but the legislators themselves decide whether or not they want to fully represent their voters. Most voters are oblivious to the political climate anyways, so there really isn't any real oversight that regulates the legislators.

Quote:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The government can't even obey its own civil laws, so what is the point of living by them individually as citizens?

So you believe in total anarchy, or what?

No. But I do believe in a government that doesn't lie. So when the American government boasts of its 'equal rights', it better be able to prove that it can exercise what it advertises.

Edited by meatcakeman (11/13/09 01:35 AM)

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11447631 - 11/13/09 11:32 AM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Absolutely not. We have the right to live, though. Thus, according to our innate right, we have a right to defend it. That doesn't mean we have the right to kill, per se, but it does mean we can murder 'purposefully', as with self-defense. I never said we couldn't kill, but it's definitely not a 'right' in its general context.

What general context are you talking about? In a legal context, it is our right to kill in the name of self-defense.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Murder isn't fair, nor just; ever. 'An eye for an eye' is archaic bullshit that is truly just a feeble, pride-driven attempt at justice.

Do you have any evidence to prove that it is "truly (a)...pride-driven attempt at justice", or is this just your personal opinion regarding that philosophy?

It's not even merely about "An eye for an eye.", it's about keeping people safe.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Really, contemporary justice is just a general opinion based on a selective mass of persons, AKA voters. Thus, it is highly opinionated.

Do you not expect people to have opinions? :lol:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
What one would condone as just might be unjust in the eyes of another.

So what is your point? :undecided:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
I believe the government should have a stance of 'involvement', rather than impersonal chastisement. In other words, the court should attempt to rehabilitate those whom lack moral judgment...

What the fuck? :wtf:

What the fuck does the court have to do with peoples' personal moral judgment? :what:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
...or at least stow them away for eternity...

, yeah, and the People will have to waste an infinite amount of money to keep these scumbags stowed away for eternity... :flowstone:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
...rather than kill them to reciprocate their previous actions.

Why in the fuck do you think that that is the only, or even main reason why people agree with the death penalty?

We put them to death because they are dangerous, and a waste of money. :glittershitz:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
I'm glad you can regurgitate bland, irrelevant facts.

What the fuck are you even talking about? :what:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The jury plays God's 'storefront'. 'God', aka the federal government, has the last and final say in any legislative decision. They, specifically the judicial branch, decide whether or not the death penalty is just and constitutional.

And the Supreme Court has decided that it is constitutional.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
They also decide how this punishment should be implemented. What's funny is that the government hires Citizens to choose who dies and who doesn't within parameters specified by the government.

Why is this funny? :strokebeard:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Also, voters never directly vote on federal laws anyways. Federal legislation is solely dependent on the legislative branch of the federal government. Sure, voters vote for who gets elected to represent them federally, but the legislators themselves decide whether or not they want to fully represent their voters. Most voters are oblivious to the political climate anyways, so there really isn't any real oversight that regulates the legislators.

What evidence do you have to support your statement "Most voters are oblivious to the political climate anyways..."???

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
No. But I do believe in a government that doesn't lie. So when the American government boasts of its 'equal rights', it better be able to prove that it can exercise what it advertises.

Then go disobey the government already. :ghandi:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Edited by Poid (11/13/09 02:46 PM)

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11447964 - 11/13/09 12:41 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

It is not "prone" to errors. They are stunningly rare.

Stunningly Rare?

Since 1976, there have been 1,178 Executions in the US (as of Nov 1, 2009).

From 1976 to the present, 133 death row inmates have been exonerated.

Name one proven innocent person who was put to death under the death penalty statute in the US of A. I am not the least bit interested in hearing about improper jury instructions as exoneration. They are not. Nor do retards, insane persons or minors. Those do not constitute exoneration. Since you say the system is prone to error, show me the errors. Show me the innocent person executed in the modern age who was actually innocent of the crime.

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

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11450334 - 11/13/09 07:16 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Absolutely not. We have the right to live, though. Thus, according to our innate right, we have a right to defend it. That doesn't mean we have the right to kill, per se, but it does mean we can murder 'purposefully', as with self-defense. I never said we couldn't kill, but it's definitely not a 'right' in its general context.

What general context are you talking about? In a legal context, it is our right to kill in the name of self-defense.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Murder isn't fair, nor just; ever. 'An eye for an eye' is archaic bullshit that is truly just a feeble, pride-driven attempt at justice.

Do you have any evidence to prove that it is "truly (a)...pride-driven attempt at justice", or is this just your personal opinion regarding that philosophy?

It's not even merely about "An eye for an eye.", it's about keeping people safe.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Really, contemporary justice is just a general opinion based on a selective mass of persons, AKA voters. Thus, it is highly opinionated.

Do you not expect people to have opinions?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
What one would condone as just might be unjust in the eyes of another.

So what is your point?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
I believe the government should have a stance of 'involvement', rather than impersonal chastisement. In other words, the court should attempt to rehabilitate those whom lack moral judgment...

What the fuck?

What the fuck does the court have to do with peoples' personal moral judgment?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
...or at least stow them away for eternity...

, yeah, and the People will have to waste an infinite amount of money to keep these scumbags stowed away for eternity...

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
...rather than kill them to reciprocate their previous actions.

Why in the fuck do you think that that is the only, or even main reason why people agree with the death penalty?

We put them to death because they are dangerous, and a waste of money.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
I'm glad you can regurgitate bland, irrelevant facts.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
The jury plays God's 'storefront'. 'God', aka the federal government, has the last and final say in any legislative decision. They, specifically the judicial branch, decide whether or not the death penalty is just and constitutional.

And the Supreme Court has decided that it is constitutional.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
They also decide how this punishment should be implemented. What's funny is that the government hires Citizens to choose who dies and who doesn't within parameters specified by the government.

Why is this funny?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Also, voters never directly vote on federal laws anyways. Federal legislation is solely dependent on the legislative branch of the federal government. Sure, voters vote for who gets elected to represent them federally, but the legislators themselves decide whether or not they want to fully represent their voters. Most voters are oblivious to the political climate anyways, so there really isn't any real oversight that regulates the legislators.

What evidence do you have to support your statement "Most voters are oblivious to the political climate anyways..."???

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
No. But I do believe in a government that doesn't lie. So when the American government boasts of its 'equal rights', it better be able to prove that it can exercise what it advertises.

Then go disobey the government already.

This is obviously a debate of ethics and morality, not a political discussion. So, there really is no point for me to further our conversation, since no progress is occurring, and no point is being made. Simply put, debating with you about this is just a dead end, not an insightful exchange of intellect.

I don't judge you for your opinions for they are just that; opinions. But I will say one last thing before I personally eradicate myself from this thread:

If the government is established to protect ourselves from each other, then it is easily assumable that Man is naturally violent and predisposed to conflict. If that were the case, then why should Man trust Man to govern Man? Sure, you could say that the government is an institution, thus, it transcends all parameters of naturalistic Man. But, all creations of Man are subject to Man, and facilitate Man's natural fallacies innately.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11450549 - 11/13/09 07:49 PM (2 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
This is obviously a debate of ethics and morality, not a political discussion. So, there really is no point for me to further our conversation, since no progress is occurring, and no point is being made. Simply put, debating with you about this is just a dead end, not an insightful exchange of intellect.

Cop-out.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
I don't judge you for your opinions

But you do judge me, right? :lol:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
If the government is established to protect ourselves from each other, then it is easily assumable that Man is naturally violent and predisposed to conflict.

Many things are easily assumable, so what is your point here?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
If that were the case, then why should Man trust Man to govern Man?

Because not all men kill each other; obviously, every man is different. :arabs:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Sure, you could say that the government is an institution, thus, it transcends all parameters of naturalistic Man. But, all creations of Man are subject to Man, and facilitate Man's natural fallacies innately.

Sure, but so what? :justdontknow:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11452774 - 11/14/09 08:29 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

So...

Fundamentally, your position is that you trust government but not your fellow man.

If government is strong enough to protect you, is it not also strong enough to oppress you?!?

Who would you trust more:

Someone who tells you to get strong enough to protect yourself and others.

Or someone who tells you that you don't have the right to protect yourself or others?

Get strong and stop looking to government like it is your savior.

Growing up is about accepting personal responsibility (response ability)!

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (11/14/09 08:44 AM)

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11453607 - 11/14/09 11:42 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
So...

Fundamentally, your position is that you trust government but not your fellow man.

What is the fucking difference? :lol:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
If government is strong enough to protect you, is it not also strong enough to oppress you?!?

This is what checks and balances are for; what on Earth do you believe the government is for?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Who would you trust more:

Someone who tells you to get strong enough to protect yourself and others.

Or someone who tells you that you don't have the right to protect yourself or others?

That's obviously not enough information about the person who is telling me those things for me to know if they are trustworthy or not! :wink:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Get strong and stop looking to government like it is your savior.

So what is the government's fundamental role in your eyes? Do you believe that there "should" not even be any government? :strokebeard2:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Growing up is about accepting personal responsibility (response ability)!

I know this. :stonedjerk:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11458659 - 11/15/09 07:19 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

There is a big difference between trusting government or your fellow man.

I would trust the neighbor across the street with lethal weapons. I know him personally. He would probably risk his life to defend the people he lives near. He has a conscience and is responsible.

Government has historically been responsible for the massacre of countless people. It exhibits paranoid behavior and stockpiles a nasty variety of W.M.D.s

I recall Dick Cheney waxing poetic about race specific bio-weapons. Cheney is the psychopath you typically find at high levels in government.

I gave you some links for the most effective system (Russian Systema) for protecting your loved ones.

Government tells you to call the police... :lol:

The police might wait 15 minutes and then show up to document shit and call someone else to clean up the bloody mess.

The jerk off smiley doesn't say much bud. Can you effectively use firearms? Do you think you could defend your loved ones without any weapons at a moment's notice?

Do you do serious physical training so you would at least be somewhat prepared?

There is a difference between "knowing" what responsibility is and being a man who prepares.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11459195 - 11/15/09 09:44 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
There is a big difference between trusting government or your fellow man.

I would trust the neighbor across the street with lethal weapons. I know him personally. He would probably risk his life to defend the people he lives near. He has a conscience and is responsible.

What if I move in next door and decide I like your type for a slave?

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

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11459263 - 11/15/09 10:00 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

At least you would now where to find gold. Or funny money.

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Redstorm]
#11459649 - 11/15/09 11:19 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

And a window washer and lawn mower.

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

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11460674 - 11/15/09 02:12 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
There is a big difference between trusting government or your fellow man.

What, do you believe that aliens are running our government? :tinfoil:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
I would trust the neighbor across the street with lethal weapons. I know him personally. He would probably risk his life to defend the people he lives near. He has a conscience and is responsible.

How do you know that many politicians are not this same way? :strokebeard:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government has historically been responsible for the massacre of countless people.

Which government, ours? :confused:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
It exhibits paranoid behavior and stockpiles a nasty variety of W.M.D.s

Can you give examples of this "paranoid behavior"?

So what if we have a "nasty variety" of weapons of mass destruction?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Cheney is the psychopath you typically find at high levels in government.

Do you have any evidence to prove this statement? :strokebeard2:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
I gave you some links for the most effective system (Russian Systema) for protecting your loved ones.

Obviously, if that was literally the most effective system for every single country, then don't you think that every single country would have employed that system by now? :strokebeard:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government tells you to call the police... The police might wait 15 minutes and then show up to document shit and call someone else to clean up the bloody mess.

I have been helped by the police, and they aren't always as half-assed in their efforts like you are making them out to be here.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
The jerk off smiley doesn't say much bud. Can you effectively use firearms? Do you think you could defend your loved ones without any weapons at a moment's notice?

I know how to use a gun, and if I had one, then I could protect myself against someone else who has a gun as well.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Do you do serious physical training so you would at least be somewhat prepared?

I do exercise, and am at least somewhat fit.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
There is a difference between "knowing" what responsibility is and being a man who prepares.

Prepares for what? :paranoid:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11464986 - 11/16/09 01:17 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Government wants to take your money and your freedom. Friendly neighbors usually aren't like that.

Examine history and look at how many people government has killed. They don't have a good track record for being nice.

Many politicians want to take away your right to bear arms. They certainly don't want you to be safe.
Adolf Hitler disarmed the German population. Dictatorial psychopaths feel more comfortable with a disarmed population.

How much training with firearms do you really have? Years?

Go take a real look at Systema. I think it might be the only thing that could make you effective. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Being physically fit and capable of protecting women, children, and elderly is part of being a man.

"Prepared for what" is a stupid question.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11464988 - 11/16/09 01:18 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Mr.Al said:
There is a big difference between trusting government or your fellow man.

I would trust the neighbor across the street with lethal weapons. I know him personally. He would probably risk his life to defend the people he lives near. He has a conscience and is responsible.

What if I move in next door and decide I like your type for a slave?

You wouldn't live very long old man.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11464999 - 11/16/09 01:23 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

I lied. I came back for seconds, bitch.

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government has historically been responsible for the massacre of countless people.

Which government, ours?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
It exhibits paranoid behavior and stockpiles a nasty variety of W.M.D.s

Can you give examples of this "paranoid behavior"?

So what if we have a "nasty variety" of weapons of mass destruction?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
I gave you some links for the most effective system (Russian Systema) for protecting your loved ones.

Obviously, if that was literally the most effective system for every single country, then don't you think that every single country would have employed that system by now?

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government tells you to call the police... The police might wait 15 minutes and then show up to document shit and call someone else to clean up the bloody mess.

I have been helped by the police, and they aren't always as half-assed in their efforts like you are making them out to be here.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
There is a difference between "knowing" what responsibility is and being a man who prepares.

Prepares for what?

The statements you posted that I omitted are redundant and somewhat one-sided rhetorical questions so I won't respond to them.

Firstly, our government has killed thousands. Within 3 days, the U.S. government somehow accomplished the feat of killing roughly 230,000 Japanese civilians; either within that span of 3 days or by radiation in the long run.

Secondly, stockpiling WMD's isn't necessarily a bad thing. But the message behind it and ethics behind it are somewhat questionable. It's like this. "Hey, I see you as a threat, so I'm prepared to kill you and all of your family. So, don't fuck with me!" It's as if we are constantly on the lookout for trouble. It's as if we are beckoning for nations to even try and fuck with us, even though we know they probably won't. This sends a bad message out to the world. It doesn't send the message that most Americans think. It's not "Hey, Earth. Let's lend a helping hand! We are America!" Rather, it's: "You fuckers listen to me asshole. Fuck with me? You die. So you listen good."

Thirdly, the best, most effective way to do things are not always practiced in America. You are extremely ignorant for believing so. America likes to do things the most profitable way, not the best way. Think of vertical integration and Carnegie. He shaped the steel industry! He was a economical genius! But were his methods ergonomically sound? No. He bought out his opponents because of greed, not for the common good of his fellow man. Thus, his opponents died out, went bankrupt, or changed industries. If you ask me to prove this, which you seem to do a lot, go look for yourself. :shrug:

He was already filthy rich anyways. Did he need to vertically integrate? No. He could have left things the same so everyone could have got a cut of the cheese. But he was hungry. Real hungry.

And as for your police statement, you and I are very aware of police brutality. Need I say more? When do you read about heroic police? Instead of asking others to provide proof, why don't you do some digging yourself?

Preparing for what? You are a walking paradox. Your views often find themselves in conflict.

Poid: "Can you prove such a statement?"

Oh, why of course!

Quote:

So what if we have a "nasty variety" of weapons of mass destruction?

You advocate for the government when they prepare themselves even though you have no idea what they are preparing for. Yet, you'd rather question your fellow man? You, my friend, are an official bigot.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 3 months, 1 day

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11465494 - 11/16/09 05:57 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I came back for seconds, bitch.

Don't be a child.

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11465744 - 11/16/09 07:41 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Name one proven innocent person who was put to death under the death penalty statute in the US of A. I am not the least bit interested in hearing about improper jury instructions as exoneration. They are not. Nor do retards, insane persons or minors. Those do not constitute exoneration. Since you say the system is prone to error, show me the errors. Show me the innocent person executed in the modern age who was actually innocent of the crime.

Well, I have to ask, what exactly will you accept as proof of innocence? Because I have already shown you the errors. 131 people released from prison should be proof enough that errors have been made. The state would not release a prisoner if they weren't admitting to making an error. Considering that 131 people have been released (not a trivial number), it's only logical that it is very possible that innocent people have been murdered.

But here's the thing, when a person is already dead, lawyers have more important things to do than clear their name. Like, for instance, preventing another person from being murdered by mistake. So, what I'm trying to say is, that while it may be likely that innocent people have been put to death, I'm willing to bet that you'll have a problem with the 'proof'. I'm not sure what you want as evidence of innocence. If a person was given the death penalty based on testimony, and that testimony was later determined to be flawed (nothing to do with retarded jurors), would that not be considered making a mistake?

Post Extras:

lmfsmoke
Stranger

Registered: 09/18/07
Posts: 765
Loc: SoCal, LA
Last seen: 3 months, 6 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11465776 - 11/16/09 07:50 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

$$$$$$$

--------------------
Genesis 1:29 - Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you"

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11465948 - 11/16/09 08:46 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
Firstly, our government has killed thousands. Within 3 days, the U.S. government somehow accomplished the feat of killing roughly 230,000 Japanese civilians; either within that span of 3 days or by radiation in the long run.

Well duh, that was during wartime! :flowstone:

You re making it seem like the government is some sort of irresponsible blood-thirsty killing machine. :strokebeard:

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
Secondly, stockpiling WMD's isn't necessarily a bad thing. But the message behind it and ethics behind it are somewhat questionable. It's like this. "Hey, I see you as a threat, so I'm prepared to kill you and all of your family. So, don't fuck with me!" It's as if we are constantly on the lookout for trouble. It's as if we are beckoning for nations to even try and fuck with us, even though we know they probably won't. This sends a bad message out to the world.

Most of the world that gets this "bad message" has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction of their own.

Seriously, you think that having a 'Plan B' sends a bad message to the world? :what:

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
It doesn't send the message that most Americans think. It's not "Hey, Earth. Let's lend a helping hand! We are America!" Rather, it's: "You fuckers listen to me asshole. Fuck with me? You die. So you listen good."

We help out the world plenty, and it's not like the only reason we have weapons of mass destruction is so we can taunt the rest of the world, that's just fucking silly! :nut:

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
Thirdly, the best, most effective way to do things are not always practiced in America. You are extremely ignorant for believing so.

Well, then I guess that I am not extremely ignorant, because I don't believe that at all. :shrug:

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
America likes to do things the most profitable way, not the best way. Think of vertical integration and Carnegie. He shaped the steel industry! He was a economical genius! But were his methods ergonomically sound? No. He bought out his opponents because of greed, not for the common good of his fellow man.

Is Carnegie America? :strokebeard:

Can you provide more examples to support your claim that "America likes to do things the most profitable way, not the best way."?

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
And as for your police statement, you and I are very aware of police brutality. Need I say more? When do you read about heroic police? Instead of asking others to provide proof, why don't you do some digging yourself?

Since when is the media inclined to broadcast good news? :strokebeard:

Obviously, you need to provide sources for your claims; ' nuff said. :shrug2:

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
Preparing for what? You are a walking paradox. Your views often find themselves in conflict.

Poid: "Can you prove such a statement?"

Oh, why of course!

WTF?

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
You advocate for the government when they prepare themselves even though you have no idea what they are preparing for.

What I have no idea is about what you mean by "being prepared"; you just mentioned those words, yet you were extremely vague about what the fuck you were even talking about. :facepalm:

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
Yet, you'd rather question your fellow man? You, my friend, are an official bigot.

I'll question anybody, it's not like I'm extremely biased or anything! :wink:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11466994 - 11/16/09 12:08 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
If a person was given the death penalty based on testimony...

Based on whose testimony?

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
...and that testimony was later determined to be flawed (nothing to do with retarded jurors), would that not be considered making a mistake?

It would, but can you give any examples where mistakes like this were made? :strokebeard:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11467173 - 11/16/09 12:43 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Based on whose testimony?

Why does it matter?

Quote:

It would, but can you give any examples where mistakes like this were made?

Quote:

Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin (brothers), were prominent black farmers who lived in Chester County, South Carolina. They were executed via the electric chair in 1915 for 1913-murder of 75 year old John Q. Lewis, a Confederate veteran in Blackstock.

The Griffin brothers were convicted based on the accusations of another black man, John "Monk" Stevenson, who was known to be a small-time thief. Stevenson who was found in possession of the victim's pistol, was sentenced to life prison sentence in exchange for testifying against the brothers.

Two other blacks, Bart Davis and his wife Anna Davis were executed with the brothers. Dave Davis regularly stood guard outside Lewis' home while his wife was inside with Lewis. Those who have been researching the case think Anna Davis and Lewis had a sexual relationship.

The Griffin brothers, who were believed to be wealthiest blacks in the area, sold their 138-acre farms to pay for their defense against the accusations.

Over 100 people petitioned Gov. Richard Manning to commute the brother's sentence. The signatories included prominent people including Blackstock's mayor, a sheriff, two trial jurors and the grand jury foreman. Nevertheless, they were sent to the electric chair.[1]

Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin were pardoned in October 2009 after Tom Joyner sought the pardons of his great-uncles from state appeals court in Columbia, South Carolina. [2]

Joyner learned about his relatinoship to the Griffins through a research conducted for the PBS documentary, African American Lives 2, by Havard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., which also traced 11 other relatives.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Griffin_%28black_farmer%29

Monk Stevenson had later admitted to a fellow inmate that his testimony was false. He pointed the finger at the brothers because he thought they could afford good legal counsel. He pointed the finger at them because he was offered a life sentence in return. This is an older example, but it's interesting because the two men were actually exonerated (after being murdered by the state).

A more recent example is of Cameron Willingham, executed in 2003 for arson (and the subsequent murder of his three children).

Quote:

Cameron Todd Willingham (January 9, 1968, Carter County, Oklahoma – February 17, 2004, Huntsville Unit, Huntsville, Texas) was convicted of murder and executed for the deaths of his three young children via arson at the family home in Corsicana, Texas.

Willingham's case gained renewed attention in 2009 when an investigative report in The New Yorker,[1] drawing upon arson investigation experts and advances in fire science, purported to demonstrate that, contrary to the claims of the prosecution, there was no evidence that the house fire was intentionally set, and that the State of Texas may have executed an innocent man. According to an August 2009 investigative report by an expert hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, the original claims of arson were not sustainable; the Corsicana Fire Department disputes the findings, stating that the expert's report overlooked several key points in the record. The case has been further complicated by allegations that Governor of Texas Rick Perry has impeded the investigation by replacing four of the nine Commission members in an attempt to change the Commission's findings; Perry denies the charges stating that no fewer than nine appellate courts ruled against Willingham in his efforts to have his conviction overturned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Willingham

Willingham was sentenced based on testimony of 'witnesses', 'psychologists', and the state fire marhsal. The testimonies were contradictory, misleading, false, and downright ridiculous at times.

Quote:

Gerald Hurst, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry, examined the arson evidence compiled by Manuel Vasquez, the state deputy fire marshal. Hurst said that Vasquez was incorrect when he said that the extreme heat of the fire (as evidenced by a melted aluminum threshold) indicated that an accelerant was used, and said that experiments prove that wood and liquid accelerant fires can burn with equal heat. Hurst's own experiments showed that burning with an accelerant does not leave the kind of brown stains that Vasquez claimed were created that way. Hurst also said that the crazed glass that Vasquez said was caused by a liquid accelerant had been created by brush fires elsewhere. Experiments showed that crazed glass was caused not by rapid heating but by cooling, and that glass cooled by water from a fire hose was more likely to have a crazed or cracked pattern.

Quote:

During the penalty phase of the trial a prosecutor said that Willingham's tattoo of a skull and serpent fit the profile of a sociopath. Two medical experts confirmed the theory. A psychologist was asked to interpret Willingham's Iron Maiden poster, and said that a picture of a fist punching through a skull signified violence and death. He added that Willingham's Led Zeppelin poster of a fallen angel indicated "cultive-type" activities. Psychiatrist James Grigson said that Willingham was an "extremely severe sociopath" and was incurable. The same psychiatrist helped put another prisoner on death row who was later acquitted.[1]

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11467211 - 11/16/09 12:51 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Based on whose testimony?

Why does it matter?

I don't fucking know, why would it matter whether or not you are presenting unclear points into a political debate? :strokebeard:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

It would, but can you give any examples where mistakes like this were made?

Quote:

Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin (brothers), were prominent black farmers who lived in Chester County, South Carolina. They were executed via the electric chair in 1915 for 1913-murder of 75 year old John Q. Lewis, a Confederate veteran in Blackstock.

The Griffin brothers were convicted based on the accusations of another black man, John "Monk" Stevenson, who was known to be a small-time thief. Stevenson who was found in possession of the victim's pistol, was sentenced to life prison sentence in exchange for testifying against the brothers.

Two other blacks, Bart Davis and his wife Anna Davis were executed with the brothers. Dave Davis regularly stood guard outside Lewis' home while his wife was inside with Lewis. Those who have been researching the case think Anna Davis and Lewis had a sexual relationship.

The Griffin brothers, who were believed to be wealthiest blacks in the area, sold their 138-acre farms to pay for their defense against the accusations.

Over 100 people petitioned Gov. Richard Manning to commute the brother's sentence. The signatories included prominent people including Blackstock's mayor, a sheriff, two trial jurors and the grand jury foreman. Nevertheless, they were sent to the electric chair.[1]

Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin were pardoned in October 2009 after Tom Joyner sought the pardons of his great-uncles from state appeals court in Columbia, South Carolina. [2]

Joyner learned about his relatinoship to the Griffins through a research conducted for the PBS documentary, African American Lives 2, by Havard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., which also traced 11 other relatives.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Griffin_%28black_farmer%29

Quote:

Cameron Todd Willingham (January 9, 1968, Carter County, Oklahoma ? February 17, 2004, Huntsville Unit, Huntsville, Texas) was convicted of murder and executed for the deaths of his three young children via arson at the family home in Corsicana, Texas.

Willingham's case gained renewed attention in 2009 when an investigative report in The New Yorker,[1] drawing upon arson investigation experts and advances in fire science, purported to demonstrate that, contrary to the claims of the prosecution, there was no evidence that the house fire was intentionally set, and that the State of Texas may have executed an innocent man. According to an August 2009 investigative report by an expert hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, the original claims of arson were not sustainable; the Corsicana Fire Department disputes the findings, stating that the expert's report overlooked several key points in the record. The case has been further complicated by allegations that Governor of Texas Rick Perry has impeded the investigation by replacing four of the nine Commission members in an attempt to change the Commission's findings; Perry denies the charges stating that no fewer than nine appellate courts ruled against Willingham in his efforts to have his conviction overturned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Willingham

Quote:

Gerald Hurst, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry, examined the arson evidence compiled by Manuel Vasquez, the state deputy fire marshal. Hurst said that Vasquez was incorrect when he said that the extreme heat of the fire (as evidenced by a melted aluminum threshold) indicated that an accelerant was used, and said that experiments prove that wood and liquid accelerant fires can burn with equal heat. Hurst's own experiments showed that burning with an accelerant does not leave the kind of brown stains that Vasquez claimed were created that way. Hurst also said that the crazed glass that Vasquez said was caused by a liquid accelerant had been created by brush fires elsewhere. Experiments showed that crazed glass was caused not by rapid heating but by cooling, and that glass cooled by water from a fire hose was more likely to have a crazed or cracked pattern.

Quote:

During the penalty phase of the trial a prosecutor said that Willingham's tattoo of a skull and serpent fit the profile of a sociopath. Two medical experts confirmed the theory. A psychologist was asked to interpret Willingham's Iron Maiden poster, and said that a picture of a fist punching through a skull signified violence and death. He added that Willingham's Led Zeppelin poster of a fallen angel indicated "cultive-type" activities. Psychiatrist James Grigson said that Willingham was an "extremely severe sociopath" and was incurable. The same psychiatrist helped put another prisoner on death row who was later acquitted.[1]

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Monk Stevenson had later admitted to a fellow inmate that his testimony was false. He pointed the finger at the brothers because he thought they could afford good legal counsel. He pointed the finger at them because he was offered a life sentence in return. This is an older example, but it's interesting because the two men were actually exonerated (after being murdered by the state).

Yeah, this is a much older example. :lol:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
A more recent example is of Cameron Willingham, executed in 2003 for arson (and the subsequent murder of his three children).

Willingham was sentenced based on testimony of 'witnesses', 'psychologists', and the state fire marhsal. The testimonies were contradictory, misleading, false, and downright ridiculous at times.

And whose fault was it that this apparently innocent man was executed? Was it the system's fault, or was it the fault of the particular individuals involved? So much for "trust your fellow man"! :lol:

You are making the case that the death penalty system is prone to errors, and it would help your case here more if you could prove that most or even many cases are prone to errors like the ones shown in this case. :smirk:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11467412 - 11/16/09 01:20 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I don't fucking know,

I figured you didn't know... and yet... you still asked, 'based on whose testimony?' as if for some reason it mattered. Now, why would you ask this if you don't 'fucking' know why it would matter? Do you care about the debate at all? If yes, then why are you asking pointless questions? If no, why are you wasting all of our time? Why would you rather ask meaningless questions instead of addressing the point that is at hand?

Quote:

Yeah, this is a much older example.

And they were just recently exonerated... Do you have any point in making this comment?

Quote:

You are making the case that the death penalty system is prone to errors...

I mentioned that 131 people were exonerated. Do you want me to list every case or what? The system is prone to errors. A person can be sentenced to death based on testimony of so-called 'professionals'. Ever hear of human error? What if they're wrong?

Quote:

it would help your case here more if you could prove that most or even many cases are prone to errors like the ones shown in this case.

And you asked for any examples at all. Now you got, not one, but two. Still not satisfied? Then why weren't you clear from the beginning about what you wanted?

Quote:

And whose fault was it that this apparently innocent man was executed? Was it the system's fault, or was it the fault of the particular individuals involved?

More meaningless bullshit questions that you likely have no point in asking and no basis behind. Please get back to me and let me know what difference there is. In case you didn't know, the system was designed to be run by individuals. And the system allows for testimony of individuals to be used against a defendent who is then judged by other individuals.

A similar mistake could happen to you one day. You're in the wrong place at the wrong time, some asshole thinks he saw something, or some douchebag who squeeked by in med school is brought in to testify against you who, in actuality, doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, and the gullible jurors suck it all up and then get thirsty for blood. The system would allow for this to happen.

So, got any more nonsensical questions for me? Or do you want to have a grown-up conversation about this?

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11468943 - 11/16/09 05:14 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

How do you know Willingham didn't do it?

Look, I'm not trying to be a dick. I am making a serious inquiry. Prosecutorial misconduct or any kind of technical legal insufficiency is NOT exoneration. You said the system was "prone" to errors. I said they were rare. Exceedingly rare. The system grants almost endless appeals and scrutiny. It is most definitely not "prone" to errors.

If you want to make the argument that any potential error is unacceptable I won't argue against you. If you make the argument that there are a lot of errors I will argue or if you make the argument that it is intrinsically wrong I will argue with you but if you make the argument that even one fuck up in this is too many I can't.

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

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11469116 - 11/16/09 05:40 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
Firstly, our government has killed thousands. Within 3 days, the U.S. government somehow accomplished the feat of killing roughly 230,000 Japanese civilians; either within that span of 3 days or by radiation in the long run.

Well duh, that was during wartime!

You re making it seem like the government is some sort of irresponsible blood-thirsty killing machine.

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
Secondly, stockpiling WMD's isn't necessarily a bad thing. But the message behind it and ethics behind it are somewhat questionable. It's like this. "Hey, I see you as a threat, so I'm prepared to kill you and all of your family. So, don't fuck with me!" It's as if we are constantly on the lookout for trouble. It's as if we are beckoning for nations to even try and fuck with us, even though we know they probably won't. This sends a bad message out to the world.

Most of the world that gets this "bad message" has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction of their own.

Seriously, you think that having a 'Plan B' sends a bad message to the world?

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
It doesn't send the message that most Americans think. It's not "Hey, Earth. Let's lend a helping hand! We are America!" Rather, it's: "You fuckers listen to me asshole. Fuck with me? You die. So you listen good."

We help out the world plenty, and it's not like the only reason we have weapons of mass destruction is so we can taunt the rest of the world, that's just fucking silly!

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
Thirdly, the best, most effective way to do things are not always practiced in America. You are extremely ignorant for believing so.

Well, then I guess that I am not extremely ignorant, because I don't believe that at all.

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
America likes to do things the most profitable way, not the best way. Think of vertical integration and Carnegie. He shaped the steel industry! He was a economical genius! But were his methods ergonomically sound? No. He bought out his opponents because of greed, not for the common good of his fellow man.

Is Carnegie America?

Can you provide more examples to support your claim that "America likes to do things the most profitable way, not the best way."?

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
And as for your police statement, you and I are very aware of police brutality. Need I say more? When do you read about heroic police? Instead of asking others to provide proof, why don't you do some digging yourself?

Since when is the media inclined to broadcast good news?

Obviously, you need to provide sources for your claims; ' nuff said.

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
Preparing for what? You are a walking paradox. Your views often find themselves in conflict.

Poid: "Can you prove such a statement?"

Oh, why of course!

WTF?

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
You advocate for the government when they prepare themselves even though you have no idea what they are preparing for.

What I have no idea is about what you mean by "being prepared"; you just mentioned those words, yet you were extremely vague about what the fuck you were even talking about.

Quote:

meatcakeman l said:
Yet, you'd rather question your fellow man? You, my friend, are an official bigot.

I'll question anybody, it's not like I'm extremely biased or anything!

Wow. Poid. I beg you to please reread your post. That wasn't even close to an asserted response. Your replies are bland, irrelevant, and impersonal. If you want to debate, bring something to the table, not petty refutations that really have no meaning whatsoever.

All you do is ask for claims, sources, proof, etc.

Yet you fail to bring any of those into your arguments. I'm sorry, but you, sir, are a bigot.

Quote:

big⋅ot
/ˈbɪgət/ [big-uht]
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Edited by meatcakeman (11/17/09 02:23 PM)

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11472685 - 11/17/09 08:18 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

I don't fucking know,

I figured you didn't know... and yet... you still asked, 'based on whose testimony?' as if for some reason it mattered. Now, why would you ask this if you don't 'fucking' know why it would matter? Do you care about the debate at all? If yes, then why are you asking pointless questions? If no, why are you wasting all of our time? Why would you rather ask meaningless questions instead of addressing the point that is at hand?

Wow, you completely missed the sarcasm in my post. :facepalm:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

You are making the case that the death penalty system is prone to errors...

I mentioned that 131 people were exonerated. Do you want me to list every case or what? The system is prone to errors. A person can be sentenced to death based on testimony of so-called 'professionals'. Ever hear of human error? What if they're wrong?

Like I've said over and over, I do not agree with the government when it murders innocent people.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

it would help your case here more if you could prove that most or even many cases are prone to errors like the ones shown in this case.

And you asked for any examples at all.

This sentence doesn't make any fucking sense. :haha:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Now you got, not one, but two. Still not satisfied? Then why weren't you clear from the beginning about what you wanted?

I have been extremely clear. :egyptian:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

And whose fault was it that this apparently innocent man was executed? Was it the system's fault, or was it the fault of the particular individuals involved?

More meaningless bullshit questions that you likely have no point in asking and no basis behind. Please get back to me and let me know what difference there is. In case you didn't know, the system was designed to be run by individuals. And the system allows for testimony of individuals to be used against a defendent who is then judged by other individuals.

Those aren't "meaningless bullshit questions", I asked them for a reason.

You are saying that people "should" not trust their government, and instead "should" trust their fellow man, and I am telling you that there's not much difference.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
A similar mistake could happen to you one day. You're in the wrong place at the wrong time, some asshole thinks he saw something, or some douchebag who squeeked by in med school is brought in to testify against you who, in actuality, doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, and the gullible jurors suck it all up and then get thirsty for blood. The system would allow for this to happen.

There are many potential errors in the system, you are correct, but can you provide any evidence that shows that these type of errors are at least somewhat common?

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
So, got any more nonsensical questions for me? Or do you want to have a grown-up conversation about this?

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, but calling my questions nonsensical is pretty childish, IMO. :shrug:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11472716 - 11/17/09 08:25 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

This is exactly where you are wrong:

Quote:

You are saying that people "should" not trust their government, and instead "should" trust their fellow man, and I am telling you that there's not much difference.

Big Brother government is not your friend.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11472733 - 11/17/09 08:30 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Big Brother government is not your friend.

Anyone who supplies me with free Xanax is a friend of mine! :muppet:

But seriously, in what way is "Big Brother" not my friend? How would you even know if he is if you are not here living my life? :strokebeard:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11472756 - 11/17/09 08:37 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

These are things that are just known.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11472761 - 11/17/09 08:38 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

I didn't know that. :justdontknow:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11476973 - 11/18/09 05:57 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

A friend can help you out without having ulterior motives.

When government gives you something, there are always strings attached.

Consider that when government gives welfare to individuals or corporations it does so by taking from the entire nation.

A friend gives you something it only came from you friend.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11477647 - 11/18/09 09:23 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Actually it does not take from the entire nation. It takes from a very small percentage. The ones who pay most of the taxes.

L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron

Stop already.

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

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11477710 - 11/18/09 09:36 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

When the money supply is inflated of course it takes away from the buying power of every citizen.

No such thing as a free lunch zap...

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11478857 - 11/18/09 01:15 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

How does the government giving someone something have anything at all to do with an inflated money supply? Answer, "It doesn't".

L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron L. Ron

Stop already.

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

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11480520 - 11/18/09 05:07 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Mathematically and per capita, it actually does.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11483953 - 11/19/09 06:32 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Mathematically and per capita, it actually does.

Especially when you consider that the mega-corporations and ultra rich end up holding larger pieces of the money supply pie. (They receive the new money first...)

An inflationary monetary policy is a recipe for redistribution of wealth away from most of the populace.

Zap just doesn't look into the monetary policy aspect of economics. If he considered inflation a tax, he might look at it differently...

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Flop Johnson
chillin out maxin', relaxin'

Registered: 09/22/05
Posts: 12,882
Loc: TX

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11483971 - 11/19/09 06:42 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
No Poid, I disagree with you, and I'll tell you why

Which government? If you're speaking generally then I dont think it really has a defined purpose outside of what people give to it - or ask of it. Government adapts out of necessity and that is not always in the best interest of the people and their interpersonal feelings for one another.

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

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11485431 - 11/19/09 12:04 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
A friend can help you out without having ulterior motives.

Key word "can". :haha:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
When government gives you something, there are always strings attached.

This is complete utter bullshit; the government gives me free health care, and there isn't shit for a string attached. :haha:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Consider that when government gives welfare to individuals or corporations it does so by taking from the entire nation.

Not necessarily, there are other sources (e.g.- philanthropists).

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
A friend gives you something it only came from you friend.

Why did you say this? :wtf:

Quote:

MoeRon said:
Quote:

Poid said:
No Poid, I disagree with you, and I'll tell you why

Which government?

If there is even to be any government at all, I believe that it's fundamental role "should" be to ensure that its citizens are safe.

So to answer your question: Any government.

Quote:

MoeRon said:
If you're speaking generally then I dont think it really has a defined purpose outside of what people give to it - or ask of it.

That's true. :thumbup:

Quote:

MoeRon said:
Government adapts out of necessity and that is not always in the best interest of the people and their interpersonal feelings for one another.

Yeah, not always.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11489964 - 11/19/09 10:24 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Government Healthcare is not "free".

The American people foot the bill.

Given that government spending is less efficient than the private sector (no drive for profit = reckless inefficient spending, no threat of bankruptcy = out of control spending. Of course there are strings attached: Who gets to decide how much to spend on your doctor bills and what kind of treatment you can have? Who would end up knowing everything about your personal health history? When would the invasion of privacy stop?

I say that a friend only gives you something from himself.

Government steals from everyone to give to certain groups.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11491357 - 11/20/09 06:28 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

How do you know Willingham didn't do it?

I don't, but apparently, the prosecution didn't either. At least not based on sound reasoning. Like I said, there's reason for serious doubt about his guilt. With such doubts existing, should he have been put to death?

Quote:

Look, I'm not trying to be a dick. I am making a serious inquiry. Prosecutorial misconduct or any kind of technical legal insufficiency is NOT exoneration. You said the system was "prone" to errors. I said they were rare. Exceedingly rare. The system grants almost endless appeals and scrutiny. It is most definitely not "prone" to errors.

But I wasn't talking about technical legal insufficiency here. I gave an example of completely false testimony in the case of the Griffin brothers. The evidence put up against Willingham was improperly grounded. And these are not the only cases where doubts existed. However, I will retract my comment that the system is 'prone' to errors and replace it with, 'errors can happen too easily'. I won't argue how prone it is to errors because, when it really comes down to it, it can't be proven. Neither of us know, truly, how many innocent people are killed by the system. We can really only have doubts. However, I must admit that I'm wondering why you asked me for one case of an innocent person being put to death.

Quote:

if you make the argument that it is intrinsically wrong I will argue with you

If what is intrinsically wrong? The death penalty, in general, or the accidental murdering of innocent individuals?

From your posts I gather that you are in support of the death penalty. Would you be opposed with, instead of a person being administered the death penalty, a guilty person being given a life sentence without parole?

Post Extras:

The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire

Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 4,539
Loc: 'Merica

Last seen: 5 minutes, 35 seconds

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11491390 - 11/20/09 06:38 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Our government gets bigger every day. Everytime I turn on the TV, theres a new task force or czar for some stupid shit. Big government is not our friend, contrary to what Chris Matthews and the rest of the media drones would tell you.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."

- Thomas Jefferson

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

Edited by The Ecstatic (11/20/09 06:38 AM)

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11492081 - 11/20/09 10:10 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government Healthcare is not "free".

I never said it was, I said it is free for me! :evil:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Who gets to decide how much to spend on your doctor bills and what kind of treatment you can have?

My state's government.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Who would end up knowing everything about your personal health history? When would the invasion of privacy stop?

WTF are you talking about? I wouldn't even give a shit if my medical records were published in a magazine, but this is a whole 'nother debate, and I'm not so sure why you're even mentioning it here.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11492513 - 11/20/09 11:40 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

How do you know Willingham didn't do it?

I don't, but apparently, the prosecution didn't either. At least not based on sound reasoning. Like I said, there's reason for serious doubt about his guilt. With such doubts existing, should he have been put to death?

That was not the question I put to you, is it? You said the system was prone to mistakes and I asked for a mistake not based on legal technicalities. I'm still waiting.

Quote:

Quote:

Look, I'm not trying to be a dick. I am making a serious inquiry. Prosecutorial misconduct or any kind of technical legal insufficiency is NOT exoneration. You said the system was "prone" to errors. I said they were rare. Exceedingly rare. The system grants almost endless appeals and scrutiny. It is most definitely not "prone" to errors.

But I wasn't talking about technical legal insufficiency here. I gave an example of completely false testimony in the case of the Griffin brothers. The evidence put up against Willingham was improperly grounded. And these are not the only cases where doubts existed. However, I will retract my comment that the system is 'prone' to errors and replace it with, 'errors can happen too easily'. I won't argue how prone it is to errors because, when it really comes down to it, it can't be proven. Neither of us know, truly, how many innocent people are killed by the system. We can really only have doubts. However, I must admit that I'm wondering why you asked me for one case of an innocent person being put to death.

The Griffin brothers were executed in 1915. You had to go back almost a hundred years to prove your point that the system is prone to errors? I think it proves exactly the opposite.

Quote:

Quote:

if you make the argument that it is intrinsically wrong I will argue with you

If what is intrinsically wrong? The death penalty, in general, or the accidental murdering of innocent individuals?

The death penalty in general. I didn't think I could be any clearer.

Quote:

From your posts I gather that you are in support of the death penalty. Would you be opposed with, instead of a person being administered the death penalty, a guilty person being given a life sentence without parole?

If you actually read my posts you will find this, which you partially quoted but still seemingly could not understand:

Quote:

If you want to make the argument that any potential error is unacceptable I won't argue against you. If you make the argument that there are a lot of errors I will argue or if you make the argument that it is intrinsically wrong I will argue with you but if you make the argument that even one fuck up in this is too many I can't.

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11468943#11468943

Reading comprehension is an important skill. You should learn it.

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

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11492824 - 11/20/09 12:30 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

That was not the question I put to you, is it? You said the system was prone to mistakes and I asked for a mistake not based on legal technicalities. I'm still waiting.

What is the technicality? The grounds for conviction were quite possibly based on bad reasoning. If you were on trial and a 'professional' gets on the stand, gives bad testimony, and you get sentenced based on that bad testimony, how is that a 'legal technicality'?

Quote:

The Griffin brothers were executed in 1915. You had to go back almost a hundred years to prove your point that the system is prone to errors? I think it proves exactly the opposite.

I found that example in minutes of a google search. I didn't go back nearly 100 years in any sense that it took a lot of searching. It's popular because the two men were actually exonerated after they were executed. Besides, you didn't put any stipulations on what time frame the example could be from when you asked for one example. The example is still relevant.

Quote:

The death penalty in general. I didn't think I could be any clearer.

I can think of a really easy way you can be clearer. Directly refer to the subject you're speaking of in one of the sentences instead of referring to the subject as it. You talked about 'potential for error' and 'errors' in those sentences. It's not unreasonable for me to ask for clarification. Besides, that second sentence is a mess.

Quote:

Quote:

From your posts I gather that you are in support of the death penalty. Would you be opposed with, instead of a person being administered the death penalty, a guilty person being given a life sentence without parole?

If you actually read my posts you will find this, which you partially quoted but still seemingly could not understand:

What you quoted does not directly answer whether or not you would be opposed to a person being given a life sentence without parole over a death sentence. All your post says is: 1) you agree any potential error is unacceptable (although, you accept potential for error because you are accepting of the death penalty - contradiction), 2) you believe errors are rare, 3) 'it' is not intrinsically wrong, 4) even one fuck up is too many (although, despite me giving you two examples of a fuck up, you are still accepting of the death penalty)

Your clarification of 'it' in this last post helps, but doesn't directly answer whether or not you would be opposed to a person being given a life sentence over the death penalty. You should take your own advice about reading comprehension.

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11493503 - 11/20/09 01:56 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

That was not the question I put to you, is it? You said the system was prone to mistakes and I asked for a mistake not based on legal technicalities. I'm still waiting.

What is the technicality? The grounds for conviction were quite possibly based on bad reasoning. If you were on trial and a 'professional' gets on the stand, gives bad testimony, and you get sentenced based on that bad testimony, how is that a 'legal technicality'?

Did he do it or not? OJ got off but he did it. He was not exonerated he was found not guilty. Lots of other people get found not guilty because of prosecutorial malfeasance. That does not mean they didn't do it. William Ayers comes to mind.

Quote:

Quote:

The Griffin brothers were executed in 1915. You had to go back almost a hundred years to prove your point that the system is prone to errors? I think it proves exactly the opposite.

I found that example in minutes of a google search. I didn't go back nearly 100 years in any sense that it took a lot of searching. It's popular because the two men were actually exonerated after they were executed. Besides, you didn't put any stipulations on what time frame the example could be from when you asked for one example. The example is still relevant.

They weren't exonerated, they were pardoned. Almost a hundred years later on the basis that a witness against them was a small time thief.

You still are coming nowhere near establishing that the system is "prone" to errors. Not even a little close. Do you know what "prone" means in that form?

Quote:

Quote:

The death penalty in general. I didn't think I could be any clearer.

I can think of a really easy way you can be clearer. Directly refer to the subject you're speaking of in one of the sentences instead of referring to the subject as it. You talked about 'potential for error' and 'errors' in those sentences. It's not unreasonable for me to ask for clarification. Besides, that second sentence is a mess.

Quote:

Quote:

From your posts I gather that you are in support of the death penalty. Would you be opposed with, instead of a person being administered the death penalty, a guilty person being given a life sentence without parole?

If you actually read my posts you will find this, which you partially quoted but still seemingly could not understand:

What you quoted does not directly answer whether or not you would be opposed to a person being given a life sentence without parole over a death sentence. All your post says is: 1) you agree any potential error is unacceptable (although, you accept potential for error because you are accepting of the death penalty - contradiction), 2) you believe errors are rare, 3) 'it' is not intrinsically wrong, 4) even one fuck up is too many (although, despite me giving you two examples of a fuck up, you are still accepting of the death penalty)

Your clarification of 'it' in this last post helps, but doesn't directly answer whether or not you would be opposed to a person being given a life sentence over the death penalty. You should take your own advice about reading comprehension.

You're unbelievable. All I said was that I wouldn't argue with you on those points. Not because I agree with you but because I don't have the fucking answer. I will say unequivocally that if there was an absolute surety of guilt in certain heinous cases I have absolutely no problem with whacking people. I just don't perfectly trust all prosecutors. They are, unlike myself, fallible. Also some of them are scumbags. Like Nifong.

But here we now come back to the question at hand, which is your absurd assertion that the system is prone to errors. It most certainly is not "prone" to errors. They are quite rare and the system actually exceeds toward the lenient end.

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

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,664
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11509271 - 11/23/09 06:32 AM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Did he do it or not? OJ got off but he did it. He was not exonerated he was found not guilty. Lots of other people get found not guilty because of prosecutorial malfeasance. That does not mean they didn't do it. William Ayers comes to mind.

Neither of us know whether he did it or not. What I'm pointing out is that the evidence used against him was not solid. Testimony of the fire chief, later reviewed by other professionals, was found to be incorrect. If he were innocent, then his trial wasn't a technicality. It was a complete failure of the system. You say you have no problem whacking people if there is 'absolute surety of guilt in certain heinous cases'. Do you consider this to be one of those cases? Should Willingham have been put to death?

Quote:

You still are coming nowhere near establishing that the system is "prone" to errors. Not even a little close. Do you know what "prone" means in that form?

I've already retracted my claim that the system is 'prone' to errors in a previous post. You're right - it is not correct to say it is prone to errors. That's not to say I agree with you when you say that errors are 'exceedingly rare'. I think neither statement can be satisfactorily proven. Instead, I'll say that errors can happen too easily. Especially when we're considering that human lives are at stake.

All too often, it comes down to the resources of the defendant. You mention OJ, someone who clearly looked to be guilty. And yet, he got to walk, while Willingham fried. Should we have a death penalty in a system where shit like that happens?

Quote:

You're unbelievable.

That's what she said.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11542818 - 11/28/09 12:03 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

To all dissenters of my opinion regarding this issue: You have spent 9 pages trying to debunk and tear down my beliefs, and I have stood firm on my ground, but you have yet to give your own opinion on the matter. So what do you believe the fundamental role of the government "should" be? Do you believe in anarchy? :strokebeard:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 33,281
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11542849 - 11/28/09 12:11 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Protect nice people from assholes who would do them harm. Provide a stable framework within which to transact commerce. Resolve disputes.

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

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: zappaisgod]
#11542968 - 11/28/09 12:32 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

It amazes me that some people disagree with that. :facepalm:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11545383 - 11/28/09 07:29 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
To all dissenters of my opinion regarding this issue: You have spent 9 pages trying to debunk and tear down my beliefs, and I have stood firm on my ground, but you have yet to give your own opinion on the matter. So what do you believe the fundamental role of the government "should" be? Do you believe in anarchy?

You haven't really stood your ground. You kind of just brushed things off with expressions of your own beliefs, rather than debating about, and with the use of, empirical facts about society, which is more egocentric than truly impartial. But, that isn't necessarily a bad thing since what you hold to be true in your view of reality might not hold true with others' views of reality. Thus, one could not say that your ideals or opinions are wrong while theirs are right. :shrug:

But, anyways, my opinion on the matter is a bit broad. I believe the government is only necessary when the governed needs itself to be governed. Think of humanity like a growing child. Right now, it's at its 'teenage' stage where it hasn't fully understood itself, yet it shows signs of what is subconsciously innate within itself. It shows signs of humanistic ideals, such as brotherhood and humanitarian ethics, but also shows signs of humanistic, "primal" ideals, such as greed, violence, and ethnocentrism. So, I think the government's role should really just be about nurturing societal ideals that benefit society; because amending social beliefs leads to an amendment of society. Thus, it does umbrella the "fundamental role" of protecting ourselves from each other. But, I think the purpose of the government is much larger.
Also, the government mustn't stand in the way of human progression or evolution. By desensitizing humans to greed and selfishness, the government taints our beliefs and halts any progression in our evolution. But, by promoting good behavior, selflessness, and fellowship, the government enriches our belief system and entails progressive human involvement within our society.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11545426 - 11/28/09 07:38 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Poid said:
To all dissenters of my opinion regarding this issue: You have spent 9 pages trying to debunk and tear down my beliefs, and I have stood firm on my ground, but you have yet to give your own opinion on the matter. So what do you believe the fundamental role of the government "should" be? Do you believe in anarchy?

You haven't really stood your ground. You kind of just brushed things off with expressions of your own beliefs, rather than debating about, and with the use of, empirical facts about society, which is more egocentric than truly impartial.

This discussion isn't about any society in particular, and I am just expressing my beliefs about what the government "should" be like; it's not like I haven't defended my positions with logic. :shrug:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
But, that isn't necessarily a bad thing since what you hold to be true in your view of reality might not hold true with others' views of reality.

...and vice-versa. :smirk:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Thus, one could not say that your ideals or opinions are wrong while theirs are right.

Um, there are no "right" or "wrong" opinions. :shrug:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
But, anyways, my opinion on the matter is a bit broad. I believe the government is only necessary when the governed needs itself to be governed.

That means that the government needs to exist, right? :lol:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Think of humanity like a growing child.

, why?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Right now, it's at its 'teenage' stage where it hasn't fully understood itself, yet it shows signs of what is subconsciously innate within itself.

Evidence?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
It shows signs of humanistic ideals, such as brotherhood and humanitarian ethics, but also shows signs of humanistic, "primal" ideals, such as greed, violence, and ethnocentrism.

Yeah, these traits are quite new for the human race, aren't they? :rolleyes:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
So, I think the government's role should really just be about nurturing societal ideals that benefit society; because amending social beliefs leads to an amendment of society.

So you just want peoples' morals to be legislated? :what:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Thus, it does umbrella the "fundamental role" of protecting ourselves from each other.

Then why in the fuck are you disagreeing with me? :lol:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
But, I think the purpose of the government is much larger.

Cool. I never said it wasn't. :shrug:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Also, the government mustn't stand in the way of human progression or evolution.

I can agree with that, and I don't really see what the fuck government has to do with any of that in the first place.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
By desensitizing humans to greed and selfishness, the government taints our beliefs and halts any progression in our evolution.

Um, do you have any evidence that our current government is intentionally doing this for those reasons? :tinfoil:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
But, by promoting good behavior, selflessness, and fellowship...

It's not the role of the government to be promoting any agenda, IMO. :japsmile:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
...the government enriches our belief system and entails progressive human involvement within our society.

That is so not the government's role... :facepalm:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Edited by Poid (11/28/09 09:30 PM)

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11545558 - 11/28/09 08:06 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
It shows signs of humanistic ideals, such as brotherhood and humanitarian ethics, but also shows signs of humanistic, "primal" ideals, such as greed, violence, and ethnocentrism.

Yeah, these traits are quite new for the human race, aren't they?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
So, I think the government's role should really just be about nurturing societal ideals that benefit society; because amending social beliefs leads to an amendment of society.

So you just want peoples' morals to be legislated?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Thus, it does umbrella the "fundamental role" of protecting ourselves from each other.

Then why in the fuck are you disagreeing with me?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
But, I think the purpose of the government is much larger.

Cool. I never said it wasn't.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Also, the government mustn't stand in the way of human progression or evolution.

I can agree with that, and I don't really see what the fuck government has to do with any of that in the first place.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
By desensitizing humans to greed and selfishness, the government taints our beliefs and halts any progression in our evolution.

Um, do you have any evidence that our current government is intentionally doing this for those reasons?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
But, by promoting good behavior, selflessness, and fellowship...

It's not the role of the government to be promoting any agenda, IMO.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
...the government enriches our belief system and entails progressive human involvement within our society.

That is so not the government's role...

You get an A+ for misconstruing everything I said.
:facepalm:

Are you in college, Poid? Like a legitimate university and not a community college?

Ask any cultural anthropologist professor whether or not he believes that humanity belongs to an ongoing progression; an evolution of ideals, morals, beliefs, etc.

Quote:

Yeah, these traits are quite new for the human race, aren't they?

Actually, yes and no. Humans are capable of a vast range of emotions and morals. But the collective stance on morality is the direction of mankind's morality. Example: Slavery was once justified. Women once didn't have the same rights as men. Alcohol was once prohibited. Cold-blooded murder was once justifiable; think about the Crusades.

So, even though individual humans are capable of both brotherhood and violence, humanity as a whole moves in the direction of what is more prevalently believed. Thus, governments should nurture beliefs that are more beneficial to humanity, rather than promote violence, i.e. Iraq War, N. Korea's nuclear testing, etc.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11545576 - 11/28/09 08:09 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Edited by Prisoner#1 (11/28/09 08:20 PM)

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11545581 - 11/28/09 08:11 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
By desensitizing humans to greed and selfishness, the government taints our beliefs and halts any progression in our evolution.

Um, do you have any evidence that our current government is intentionally doing this for those reasons?

Did I ever say they were?

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,251
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11545598 - 11/28/09 08:14 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Thus, it does umbrella the "fundamental role" of protecting ourselves from each other.

Then why in the fuck are you disagreeing with me?

Because you think it's the FUNDAMENTAL role, which it isn't. And you haven't really proven it to be either.

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: meatcakeman]
#11545687 - 11/28/09 08:26 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
You get an A+ for misconstruing everything I said.

I like how you always say that, and always fail to point out where I misconstrued what you said! :rofl2:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Are you in college, Poid? Like a legitimate university and not a community college?

I'm from the SF Bay Area, which is in California; do you even know anything about the schools in this area? :strokebeard:

To answer your question, though: No, I am not currently in college, but why would that matter? What in the fuck does that have to do with the ideas that we are discussing here?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Ask any cultural anthropologist professor whether or not he believes that humanity belongs to an ongoing progression; an evolution of ideals, morals, beliefs, etc.

I never said that there is no such thing as cultural progression, I'm just asking you to provide evidence which proves that we are in the, and I quote, "teenage stage".

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Yeah, these traits are quite new for the human race, aren't they?

Actually, yes and no.

Actually, no.

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Humans are capable of a vast range of emotions and morals.

You don't have to tell me that twice! :lol:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
But the collective stance on morality is the direction of mankind's morality.

Who gives a shit? What does that have to do with government? :what:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Example: Slavery was once justified. Women once didn't have the same rights as men. Alcohol was once prohibited. Cold-blooded murder was once justifiable; think about the Crusades.

Think about Guantanamo Bay! :hehehe:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
So, even though individual humans are capable of both brotherhood and violence, humanity as a whole moves in the direction of what is more prevalently believed.

Your point being?

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Thus, governments should nurture beliefs that are more beneficial to humanity, rather than promote violence, i.e. Iraq War, N. Korea's nuclear testing, etc.

You obviously don't believe in the phrase "To each their own"; there is no one set of beliefs that will benefit every single human equally.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Edited by Poid (11/28/09 08:42 PM)

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,297
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11545771 - 11/28/09 08:40 PM (2 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Because humanity is constantly evolving, tard.

Unless you think humanity doesn't evolve.

I can think of humanity in whichever way I choose to think of it; of course I know that humanity evolves, but you're saying here that humanity is in its "teenage stage"; how in the fuck could you possibly even know this if you don't know what is in store for humanity in the future? :strokebeard2:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Poid said:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
By desensitizing humans to greed and selfishness, the government taints our beliefs and halts any progression in our evolution.

Um, do you have any evidence that our current government is intentionally doing this for those reasons?

Did I ever say they were?

Why would you even mention such random things unless that is what you were implying? :undecided:

Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

meatcakeman said:
Thus, it does umbrella the "fundamental role" of protecting ourselves from each other.

Then why in the fuck are you disagreeing with me?

Because you think it's the FUNDAMENTAL role, which it isn't. And you haven't really proven it to be either.

You apparently believe in some sort of socialist government, where there is a certain agenda that is en/forced by the government onto the people; I believe in as little government as possible, and this is partly why I believe that protecting ourselves from each other is its fundamental role.

What do you believe its fundamental role is?

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Edited by Poid (11/28/09 09:41 PM)

Post Extras:

Jump to top.

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 [ show all ]

Shop for:

pH Test Strips

Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar Threads	Poster	Views	Replies	Last post
New Orleans - small government and less tax....	Alex213	428	14	09/18/05 08:26 AM by luvdemshrooms
Top 10 misconceptions about government	silversoul7	467	13	07/17/07 05:46 PM by Phred
Government Gets OK To Distribute Propaganda	Ravus	594	12	02/07/05 03:10 AM by Seuss
Why Do We Need Government? ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )	Skeptikos	1,867	103	05/20/06 10:46 AM by beatnicknick
The Government	DailyPot	403	9	05/13/03 06:39 PM by barfightlard
Palin: Government wants to 'control the people' ( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )	Dudeyourgone	2,165	237	06/17/09 07:31 AM by lonestar2004
Slavery and Government Intervention versus Voters and the People	Ravus	425	7	01/26/05 05:55 PM by Phred
can the government make you wear a helmet? ( 1 2 all )	chodamunky	968	36	05/22/11 05:19 AM by communeart

Extra information

You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1
2,747 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]

del.icio.us digg Furl MyWeb reddit StumbleUpon