gun law reform... please!

[Dr Kynes]

I grew up in a swamp surrounded by protected land that no one lived on. I can live without the world. Also, people don't usually refer to the family unit as a 'government'. There is also a difference between society and government. If the Government collapsed and I went with my wife and family to live in the mountains, forests, or swamps. I might be in charge of the group, but that wouldn't make it a government.

If you believe order exists only with Government, then you are completely wrong. Order exists in every level of life and even without life. Given that the very foundation of existence is in complete and perfect order from the quarks on up, this completely proves you wrong and there need not be life or even society for order to exist. Government does not create order, it simply is a set of rules that causes the people who are within its power to set order up in a certain way. I suppose you could go out on a limb if you are religious and say that God is the president of reality and set up order and is therefor the Ultimate Dictator of Reality. I don't buy into that. What causes birds to migrate, salmon to swim home, and other things of that nature without government? Government has its uses, and I am not an anarchist. There is a difference between a government that you willingly are a part of and a government that holds you forcibly. Government is simply a manifestation of order, and not the other way around. To believe otherwise shows only a love for government control. There would be order in my life if I lived alone on a secluded island. Maybe you have a different definition of order than the dictionary does.

Definition of 'order' that fits our conversation: The arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.

Funny how it doesn't say government in there.

You could change your argument to 'Government provides a unnatural order that weak people are happier with.", but I doubt you like that argument more.

Government goes AGAINST the natural order of things. It doesn't create order from nothing, it replaces natural order with something else.

all hierarchical social orders have a leader to provide direction for the society or in the parlance of this discussion, Governance. even in small family units the governance comes from parents, sometimes mommy, and sometimes daddy, when mommy wants him to think he is in charge. this direction of purpose, and control of resources by the more qualified members is why families succeed of fail. when children run the household its obvious to all, and the family dissolves into brangling individual factions with no society, thus anarchy.

a leaf has order, and is clearly natural in origin and design, yet that order is imposed by it's genetic structure. when the genetic structure is violated, the leaf either dies of becomes unrecognizable as a leaf. even as multicellular organisms, one organ must be in control and guide the organism for a common purpose, or we would all be terry schiavo, lounging in a craftmatic adjustable bed drooling and shitting on ourselves till some kind soul pulls the plug and ends our torment.

 

[Carthoris]

all hierarchical social orders have a leader to provide direction for the society or in the parlance of this discussion, Governance. even in small family units the governance comes from parents, sometimes mommy, and sometimes daddy, when mommy wants him to think he is in charge. this direction of purpose, and control of resources by the more qualified members is why families succeed of fail. when children run the household its obvious to all, and the family dissolves into brangling individual factions with no society, thus anarchy.

a leaf has order, and is clearly natural in origin and design, yet that order is imposed by it's genetic structure. when the genetic structure is violated, the leaf either dies of becomes unrecognizable as a leaf. even as multicellular organisms, one organ must be in control and guide the organism for a common purpose, or we would all be terry schiavo, lounging in a craftmatic adjustable bed drooling and shitting on ourselves till some kind soul pulls the plug and ends our torment.

This has nothing to do with the government creating order. You are simply reinforcing my argument that order exists long before government exists. If you are suggesting that nature is the government, then I can accept that in some ways, but you and I both know we were talking about the government of men and not nature. Nature simply exists as it is, and there isn't a vote or a ruling council that can decide the structure of cells or evolution as far as we know unless you prescribe to the all knowing grasshopper in the sky being divine dictator over us who live on the ball of vomit he upchucked many eons ago.

 

[boedhaspeaks]

@Dr Kynes

That a good piece of information we dont know in Europe. Or lets say, i didnt know.

First i need to say, Amsterdam is overrated, the city counsel is busy to make Amsterdam as unattractive as a pile of elephantshit. They closed more than half the red light district, lots of coffeeshops on the brink of closing because they have to obey ridiculous laws. And if the Christian parties get what they wanted we can forget weed at all. No more coffeeshops. It s a shame, i live 18 km away from Amsterdam and i liked to be there a lot.

Now they are experimenting with some weed card where you got registered etc and in the parts where they are testing streetdealers are giving more troubles then the last 30 years. Thank god over 4 days voting time and i hope the people use their heads this time. (If not im going to sell also weed to tourists, easy money. )

About Silly billy from Orange, we call him Prince beer, prince pils (pilsner beer). Its a funny guy who has a hot babe and wrecked some cars too. They are not involved any politics so let him be as silly as he wants

Also you are right about the half assed mentality from the Dutch/Europeans, people are starting to get awake here so maybe it isnt to late.

 

[canndo]

It has more to do with the definition of a person. The court agrees that a baby is a baby at the time of viability, otherwise outlawing abortion at that point would be no different than outlawing it at week 2. They did not go as far as to give the time that a person becomes a person, and the legislators are too cowardly to make a law that states when a person is a person, simply due to politics. The definition of murder isn't just a legal one, the law only gives someone the power to struggle against something within the court system, it does not change the fact of what it is or isn't.

If a 20 something week old baby in a woman is her creation to kill if she pleases by whatever means is OK, then murdering it with a hammer when it comes out is too.

As far as paying for premature babies that are evicted by a woman. 1) I am willing to bet the church, and thus the people in it will willingly pay for this if given the chance. 2) I think that many women would carry the baby along longer if they knew they could get rid of it whenever. 3) Remember that premature babies usually have something wrong with them or the mother and that is why they are premature. This would not be the case in eviction. You also include 22% lost labor in the family. That would not be part of this. Education for what? That is for people who are having premature babies and taking care of them. You can knock that off too. That is a quarter of your costs that simply don't exist. Also, the 'medical care' for most of these babies is calculated on 'crack baby' calculations. This would not be for an otherwise healthy baby.

I am not a religious person, and I don't see the world in sin or not sin. I see it as right and wrong, and being libertarian I actually understand what my right and wrong are based off of. Unlike democrats and republicans who base right and wrong off of lollipops and rainbows, I can apply the logic of my position across the entire platform of ideas and problems.

As always, one's being willing to wager is in no way evidence or proof of anything, we agree that premies have something wrong with them - They were born too early and they were born before they could survive outside of the womb. An artificial womb will never be cheap.
but everything will be "wrong" with a child that has never been inside a womb. The cost of such care will never ever go down to an agreeable level.

Now I know what sort of limb I crawl out on when I claim such a thing but I rely on the fact that almost every medical proceedure begins as very expensive and then finally swoops down to only a little expensive. I figure that multiplying this figure by a factor of 5 at the very least leaves us with 80 billion for premie care alone. After that you will have adoption services but adoption takes place for only a very few children presently so the majority will still need to be cared for and reared either in foster care programs or orphanages. There are 1.2 million abortions a year, in your world there would be 1.2 million unwanted children (short of the ones the mother decides ultimately to keep and the ones that are fortunately adopted). This has been discussed before.

Being more than generous, you will have a new dependent class of that would grow at the rate of 600,000 persons a year for 18 years for whom all things will have to be provided from nurture to shelter to food and education. Plus the initial costs of 80 billion Per Year.

 

[ChesusRice]

I agree completely with that statement, but without expanding your true meaning the comment is useless. In the argument for eviction, it freedom to both mother and unborn child. The mother loses nothing in the scenario, but the unborn child is still given the chance to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by not being needlessly murdered. If you cannot grasp this simple point, then I fail to see how you can even call yourself a libertarian. You, like many others, simply call yourself that but refuse to apply the basic principles of it across all decisions.

If a woman wanted the goverment involved in her reproductive organs

she would fuck a congressman

 

[canndo]

This has nothing to do with the government creating order. You are simply reinforcing my argument that order exists long before government exists. If you are suggesting that nature is the government, then I can accept that in some ways, but you and I both know we were talking about the government of men and not nature. Nature simply exists as it is, and there isn't a vote or a ruling council that can decide the structure of cells or evolution as far as we know unless you prescribe to the all knowing grasshopper in the sky being divine dictator over us who live on the ball of vomit he upchucked many eons ago.

Then let us redefine our terms - government offers order among humans. I realize that your being a libertarian, you need to believe that there is an intrinsic social order in humans. I agree, but that social structure invariably results in government. I do not believe you can point to a single cultural or social human unit from tribesmen in the Amazon basin to the inuit in the north that does not have a governmental structure. As the good and kind doctor, who is willing to take me in during the coming zombie uprising save for that white skinned red haird lovely, put two people together and you have rudimentary government.


HOWEVER! I believe I have just found a flaw in my own argument. Zombies likely do not have any form of government.

 

[Rob Roy]

Then let us redefine our terms - government offers order among humans. I realize that your being a libertarian, you need to believe that there is an intrinsic social order in humans. I agree, but that social structure invariably results in government. I do not believe you can point to a single cultural or social human unit from tribesmen in the Amazon basin to the inuit in the north that does not have a governmental structure. As the good and kind doctor, who is willing to take me in during the coming zombie uprising save for that white skinned red haird lovely, put two people together and you have rudimentary government.






HOWEVER! I believe I have just found a flaw in my own argument. Zombies likely do not have any form of government.

Government doesn't "offer" order. An offer implies an option to accept or not. They impose rules, some of which might be acceptable, some of which might not. ALL of which MUST be obeyed.

 

[Dr Kynes]

@Dr Kynes

That a good piece of information we dont know in Europe. Or lets say, i didnt know.

First i need to say, Amsterdam is overrated, the city counsel is busy to make Amsterdam as unattractive as a pile of elephantshit. They closed more than half the red light district, lots of coffeeshops on the brink of closing because they have to obey ridiculous laws. And if the Christian parties get what they wanted we can forget weed at all. No more coffeeshops. It s a shame, i live 18 km away from Amsterdam and i liked to be there a lot.

Now they are experimenting with some weed card where you got registered etc and in the parts where they are testing streetdealers are giving more troubles then the last 30 years. Thank god over 4 days voting time and i hope the people use their heads this time. (If not im going to sell also weed to tourists, easy money. )

About Silly billy from Orange, we call him Prince beer, prince pils (pilsner beer). Its a funny guy who has a hot babe and wrecked some cars too. They are not involved any politics so let him be as silly as he wants

Also you are right about the half assed mentality from the Dutch/Europeans, people are starting to get awake here so maybe it isnt to late.

? ?? ? ! no no i mean William of Orange, "Silly Billy", the guy who let belgium slip away from the Netherlands in 1830, the one who got shot in the butt by Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo.

also, defame not the sacred City of Weed, Holy Amsterdam. we americans need someplace to look to as our Promised Land of Milky Trichomes and Butane Honey. Next your gonna say Amsterdam Doobies dont burn for the Seven Holy Nights of Marijuanica

 

[canndo]

Government doesn't "offer" order. An offer implies an option to accept or not. They impose rules, some of which might be acceptable, some of which might not. ALL of which MUST be obeyed.

Then "impose" will be used henceforth. But I still like the word "provide"

 

[canndo]

30% of the population owns guns. That is a 100 million people. They might not all have common sense, but the military simply isn't big enough to stop even 1% of that number if it came to it.

.

It is wonderful that you retain that optimism. What you don't seem to take into consideration is that this is not Afghanistan, we are an urban people. you also fail to comprehend that diminishingly few of those 100 million have missiles, artilery or air power let alone coastal gunboats, mines, advanced communications and control and intense training. Reduce our military to ground troops alone and you might have a point.

Consider also the absence of interchangeable ammunition, a command heirarchy and any sort of plan and you see that the concept is silly on its face.

It is very romantic though.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Government doesn't "offer" order. An offer implies an option to accept or not. They impose rules, some of which might be acceptable, some of which might not. ALL of which MUST be obeyed.

heirarchical social structures OFFER order, to accept this order, mutual support and security, with somebody to watch over you while you sleep, one must abide by the established order of the society. if your personal beliefs clash with that order you may submit, or seek a better fit in another society or, one can always seek out the solitude of My Side Of The Mountain and live in a hollowed out oak tree if one wishes. in america you have that freedom. in europe generally you may not simply vanish into the ever shrinking wilderness and live as a hermit.

there is always the option of taking holy orders and living in a monastery (buddhist or otherwise) but then you would still have to submit to their rules or be ejected. so i guess your libertarianness leaves you only the hollowed out oak tree or a damp dreary cave as your dream society of one. but of course you can jack off in public and strut around nude in your society of one.

fuck maybe you could go all robinson carusoe on san christobal or one of the guano islands and live the high life of a castaway.

 

[budlover13]

heirarchical social structures OFFER order, to accept this order, mutual support and security, with somebody to watch over you while you sleep, one must abide by the established order of the society. if your personal beliefs clash with that order you may submit, or seek a better fit in another society or, one can always seek out the solitude of My Side Of The Mountain and live in a hollowed out oak tree if one wishes. in america you have that freedom. in europe generally you may not simply vanish into the ever shrinking wilderness and live as a hermit.

there is always the option of taking holy orders and living in a monastery (buddhist or otherwise) but then you would still have to submit to their rules or be ejected. so i guess your libertarianness leaves you only the hollowed out oak tree or a damp dreary cave as your dream society of one. but of course you can jack off in public and strut around nude in your society of one.

fuck maybe you could go all robinson carusoe on san christobal or one of the guano islands and live the high life of a castaway.

Kinda have the option to live as a hermit. Kinda.

http://www.laweekly.com/2011-06-23/news/l-a-county-s-private-property-war/

"In Llano, in the middle of the Southern California high desert, a bewhiskered Jacques Dupuis stands in front of what was once his home. His laid-back second wife, Marcelle, her long, silver hair blowing in the breeze, takes a drag on her Marlboro Red as they walk inside and, in thick French Canadian accents, recount the day in 2007 when the government came calling. "That's the seat I have to offer you," she tells a visitor, motioning to the exposed, dusty wooden floor planks in what was once a cozy cabin where Jacques spent much of his life, raising his daughter with his first wife.
On Oct. 17, 2007, Marcelle opened the door to a loud knock. Her heart jumped when she found a man backed by two armed county agents in bulletproof vests. She was alone in the cabin, a dot in the vast open space of the Antelope Valley, without a neighbor for more than half a mile. She feared that something had happened to her daughter, who was visiting from Montreal.
The men demanded her driver's license, telling her, "This building is not permitted — everything must go." Normally sassy, Marcelle handed over her ID — even her green card, just in case. Stepping out, she realized that her 1,000-square-foot cabin was surrounded by men with drawn guns. "You have no right to be here," one informed her. Baffled and shaking with fear, she called her daughter — please come right away."

 

[Dr Kynes]

It is wonderful that you retain that optimism. What you don't seem to take into consideration is that this is not Afghanistan, we are an urban people. you also fail to comprehend that diminishingly few of those 100 million have missiles, artilery or air power let alone coastal gunboats, mines, advanced communications and control and intense training. Reduce our military to ground troops alone and you might have a point.

Consider also the absence of interchangeable ammunition, a command heirarchy and any sort of plan and you see that the concept is silly on its face.

It is very romantic though.

i disagree. even in afghanistan, a country that nobody would give a fuck about if we were to "Lemay Treatment" the whole fucking shitheap, yet it has not been demolished with devastating air strikes despite an ongoing insurgency.

at no point could the feds even attempt to expliain why they have cause to carpet bomb a neighborhood in america, even if the state were in rebellion. hell if the south had not shelled fort sumter the north would still be talking about the secessionist movement and wondering if they will ever rejoin the union today. if the federal government were to step so far into the breach as to cause open armed rebellion in any significant portion of the country (larger than the Freemen compound or the Independent Republic of Texas) then a military mutiny would be one of the first problems they would encounter. even in the Late Unpleasantness Among The States, some entire units simply packed up and headed south, and most of the southern affiliated military officers were relieved of their command, just to be sure.

 

[NoDrama]

It is wonderful that you retain that optimism. What you don't seem to take into consideration is that this is not Afghanistan, we are an urban people. you also fail to comprehend that diminishingly few of those 100 million have missiles, artilery or air power let alone coastal gunboats, mines, advanced communications and control and intense training. Reduce our military to ground troops alone and you might have a point.

Consider also the absence of interchangeable ammunition, a command heirarchy and any sort of plan and you see that the concept is silly on its face.

It is very romantic though.

You still attached to this argument? That the US Military is going to spend $200 million dollars for each really hard to find and kill civilian with a gun. It isn't a question of whether or not the military has a $250,000 missile or not, the military is NOT ever going to shoot that missile to kill a single non-compliant person. Just think how fast the military would go broke doing that? It isn't like the military has an unlimited supply of money you know.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Kinda have the option to live as a hermit. Kinda.

http://www.laweekly.com/2011-06-23/news/l-a-county-s-private-property-war/

"In Llano, in the middle of the Southern California high desert, a bewhiskered Jacques Dupuis stands in front of what was once his home. His laid-back second wife, Marcelle, her long, silver hair blowing in the breeze, takes a drag on her Marlboro Red as they walk inside and, in thick French Canadian accents, recount the day in 2007 when the government came calling. "That's the seat I have to offer you," she tells a visitor, motioning to the exposed, dusty wooden floor planks in what was once a cozy cabin where Jacques spent much of his life, raising his daughter with his first wife.
On Oct. 17, 2007, Marcelle opened the door to a loud knock. Her heart jumped when she found a man backed by two armed county agents in bulletproof vests. She was alone in the cabin, a dot in the vast open space of the Antelope Valley, without a neighbor for more than half a mile. She feared that something had happened to her daughter, who was visiting from Montreal.
The men demanded her driver's license, telling her, "This building is not permitted — everything must go." Normally sassy, Marcelle handed over her ID — even her green card, just in case. Stepping out, she realized that her 1,000-square-foot cabin was surrounded by men with drawn guns. "You have no right to be here," one informed her. Baffled and shaking with fear, she called her daughter — please come right away."

the antelope valley is private property, much of it owned by the railroads some of it owned by the state's nature conservancy. they were squatters in a suburban area (antelope valley is well settled, and the parts that arent owned by union pacific, or the state are owned by land developers who have every right to evict squatters (unless they filed an intention to homestead, and squatted for 5 years, which they did not obviously) really in cali, thats all you gotta do, file a homesteading form with the county, and occupy the land continuously for 5 years and it's yours free and clear. only state nature preserves and parks are exempted from the squatters homesteading option.

hell some people have even squatted and now legally own houses and buildings, all they gotta do is file their intent to homestead papers, and not get evicted (eviction resets the 5 year clock) it is impoortant to note that when you file your intent to homestead papers,, the registered land owner is informed, if he can be reached, and if or when the property becomes yours, you are responsible for all back taxes and whatnot that are most likely pretty deep considering the previous owners let you live there for 5 years without paying the $50 to evict you. you must occupy the land/structure without permission and without paying any rent or duty to the owner. your occupation must be "hostile" in the legal sense that you have no right to be there, and nobody has removed you for any reason. this includes cops busting you for vagrancy, loitering, public nuisance, etc.. its not easy to squat unless a property is truly abandoned, taxes are unpaid, the county hasnt seized it, and you live like John Q Straightlaced Upstanding Citizen Esquire for the 5 years needed to gain homestead rights. you gotta live like you own the joint already, mowed lawns, painting the windowes on sunday morning, baking cookies for the local PTA and otherwise being a total square. all without actual ownership till you hit 5 years. you gotta make sure the property taxes dont get in arrears lest the county sieze the joint two days before your 5th anniversary in the joint, and you gotta keep the joint looking like you own it, despite the fact that you dont. and even then, the legal owners can show up (be they private citizens, a corporation or a bank) at any time and tell you to GTFO, and you lose anything you paid for upkeep, repairs, maintenance, property taxes etc...

 

[budlover13]

the antelope valley is private property, much of it owned by the railroads some of it owned by the state's nature conservancy. they were squatters in a suburban area (antelope valley is well settled, and the parts that arent owned by union pacific, or the state are owned by land developers who have every right to evict squatters (unless they filed an intention to homestead, and squatted for 5 years, which they did not obviously) really in cali, thats all you gotta do, file a homesteading form with the county, and occupy the land continuously for 5 years and it's yours free and clear. only state nature preserves and parks are exempted from the squatters homesteading option.

hell some people have even squatted and now legally own houses and buildings, all they gotta do is file their intent to homestead papers, and not get evicted (eviction resets the 5 year clock) it is impoortant to note that when you file your intent to homestead papers,, the registered land owner is informed, if he can be reached, and if or when the property becomes yours, you are responsible for all back taxes and whatnot that are most likely pretty deep considering the previous owners let you live there for 5 years without paying the $50 to evict you. you must occupy the land/structure without permission and without paying any rent or duty to the owner. your occupation must be "hostile" in the legal sense that you have no right to be there, and nobody has removed you for any reason. this includes cops busting you for vagrancy, loitering, public nuisance, etc.. its not easy to squat unless a property is truly abandoned, taxes are unpaid, the county hasnt seized it, and you live like John Q Straightlaced Upstanding Citizen Esquire for the 5 years needed to gain homestead rights. you gotta live like you own the joint already, mowed lawns, painting the windowes on sunday morning, baking cookies for the local PTA and otherwise being a total square. all without actual ownership till you hit 5 years. you gotta make sure the property taxes dont get in arrears lest the county sieze the joint two days before your 5th anniversary in the joint, and you gotta keep the joint looking like you own it, despite the fact that you dont. and even then, the legal owners can show up (be they private citizens, a corporation or a bank) at any time and tell you to GTFO, and you lose anything you paid for upkeep, repairs, maintenance, property taxes etc...

There is another case that stands out in my head. i'll try to find it and a few more too. There ARE people being, at very least, not allowed to be hermits as stated.

 

[ChesusRice]

There is another case that stands out in my head. i'll try to find it and a few more too. There ARE people being, at very least, not allowed to be hermits as stated.

I know a guy
not a true hermit as he actually works and gets a pay check
But the check is made out in his fathers name
He lives without electricity in a log cabin on his fathers farm and has been doing so for 40 years
I think he is a vietnam era draft dodger and he is probably a millionaire

 

[Dr Kynes]

There is another case that stands out in my head. i'll try to find it and a few more too. There ARE people being, at very least, not allowed to be hermits as stated.

meh, only if they are squatting on private or public land. they can be evicted like a motherfucker. most of the cases you can bring up are not hermits, they are just squatters, and not in the good sense. in the nasty smelly unpleasant to have nearby sense. a real hermit would never be seen by official eyes. fact is, if somebody wanted to "get weird grow beards and disappear into the mountains" ~(Mathers, Dre, et al. '92) they could easily do so, and in fact many have, in the appalachians, northern california, oregon washington idaho alaska british columbia, etc... hell even the swamps of louisiana and florida have more than a few wierd hermits rattling around deep in the bush. squatters (in the nuisance form) occupy urban and suburban areas where they are a burden on society, and a problem for the squares, a hermit lives way out on the fringes, and the squares will never even know he exists. unless they seek him out for his hermetical wisdom or he really flips out and struts into town nude, and starts going all Francis of Assisi up in this bitch.

 

[NoDrama]

and he is probably a millionaire

I detect a whole lot of jealousy from you guys when you always mention how much money you think someone has.

 

[budlover13]

meh, only if they are squatting on private or public land. they can be evicted like a motherfucker. most of the cases you can bring up are not hermits, they are just squatters, and not in the good sense. in the nasty smelly unpleasant to have nearby sense. a real hermit would never be seen by official eyes. fact is, if somebody wanted to "get weird grow beards and disappear into the mountains" ~(Mathers, Dre, et al. '92) they could easily do so, and in fact many have, in the appalachians, northern california, oregon washington idaho alaska british columbia, etc... hell even the swamps of louisiana and florida have more than a few wierd hermits rattling around deep in the bush. squatters (in the nuisance form) occupy urban and suburban areas where they are a burden on society, and a problem for the squares, a hermit lives way out on the fringes, and the squares will never even know he exists. unless they seek him out for his hermetical wisdom or he really flips out and struts into town nude, and starts going all Francis of Assisi up in this bitch.

The cases i'm referring to are people living in VERY remote places ,like the desert, and being forced to tie into the county's power, sewer, water, etc. Sewer i can understand somewhat (since in that remote a place a septic system would work just fine until the population reaches a certain density) but these were people using solar power and both utilizing well water and collecting rainwater.