Another Family ruined over a lil bud and "citizen forfeiture

Should citizen forfeiture be allowed

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
State sanctioned theft of your assets, completely contravening your constitutional right to protection from search and seizure without due process.

Pot is victimless. Therefore we must take away all of your rights. o_O
Click to expand...

You are dangerously close to coming around. You feeling okay?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
The relevant issue is a property rights issue
Click to expand...
no it isn't. people already have full control of their property and how it will be used.

the relevant issue is you think it's OK to deny service to people based on their skin color because you are a racial segregationist.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
no it isn't. people already have full control of their property and how it will be used.

the relevant issue is you think it's OK to deny service to people based on their skin color because you are a racial segregationist.
Click to expand...

If people have full control of their property what happens if they don't declare their property anything and don't seek any kind of permission, yet they open a business there ?

Will nothing happen?

I don't think its okay for people to make another serve them on an involuntary basis, or take away their property right.

I think people who segregate themselves from other people on the basis of race are exercising their property right different than I would, but for it to BE a property right, the choices must remain with the owner.

If somebody else is making those choices for the owner, they are flirting with a kind of theft. For instance, your property is yours, not mine, for me to use your property, shouldn't I have your consent prior to using it ? Or should I just take liberty with your property ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
they already do.

you are horrible at this.
Click to expand...
Your ability to edit reality to conform to your sense of normalcy is legend (stock) holmie.

The reality is private property is a mirage if it is externally managed by a nonowner. That's irrefutable, by the way.

Your whining reply did not address the questions I asked, why not?

You're not satisfied in your own nanny blanket though, you want to wrap everybody in your vision and completely ignore that offensive force is your principle means to achieve it.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
by denying service to someone based on their skin color that they are offering to everyone else with a different skin color. that is the definition of aggressive and offensive force in the name of racism.



nah, you're just a racial segregationist.
Click to expand...

I hear you repeating yourself, but you have yet to say how a person who wishes NOT TO ENGAGE, is an aggressor.



Let's try your "logic" out in an example.

"I'm going to sit right here on my property and not let Uncle Buck on it." - a private property owner

"Rape" - screams Uncle Buck as he breaks down your door with his ax and forcibly enters. "You're raping me by not associating with me" !!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I hear you repeating yourself, but you have yet to say how a person who wishes NOT TO ENGAGE, is an aggressor.
Click to expand...
by denying service to someone based on their skin color that they are offering to everyone else with a different skin color. that is the definition of aggressive and offensive force in the name of racism.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
by denying service to someone based on their skin color that they are offering to everyone else with a different skin color. that is the definition of aggressive and offensive force in the name of racism.
Click to expand...

The REASON a racist person ignores another person or wishes NOT to engage with them, we both agree would not be a reason WE would use, but that is a side issue, since neither of us owns the property in question do we?

You can't "aggress" against a person if you remain on your own property and seek NOT to engage with that person. How could you possibly start a fight, if you are the one seeking not to engage and requesting the other party to please disengage?

You can however aggress against a person, if you forcibly INSIST they interact with you, especially if they are making it clear they prefer not to and they remain on their property.

Your argument fails to refute mine and instead trails off into sniveling about me being a racist, which is pretty lame.

So because you don't like what a person does with their own property, you seek to use offensive force to "correct" their choices, in much the same way a prohibitionist "corrects" a person for using cannabis.

You feel justified in going to someone's property and telling them how they will use it and you have no issues with forcibly making one person serve another.

So, that makes you a pro slavery prohibitionist, who favors rapist tactics, Poopy Pants.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The Green Griffin said:
I get your point, but I don't want to decide between eating and paying for protection. I fear that those most abused by the current policing organizations (Poor, uneducated) would be the ones most unable to afford protection - and they live many times in the highest crime areas. There are some things that the government should provide, just wish there was better oversight or better screening to keep power-hungry thugs from becoming policemen/women. And Civil Forfeiture is a horrible, horrible law that should NEVER have been found constitutional. You get the behavior you incent, and allowing the police to keep the funds from these seizures gives them all the incentive they need to basically steal. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid law.:wall:
Click to expand...

When you say "the government should provide" are you considering the means used to facilitate the "provision of services" or do you think that is unimportant and not part of the whole ?
 
The Green Griffin

The Green Griffin

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
When you say "the government should provide" are you considering the means used to facilitate the "provision of services" or do you think that is unimportant and not part of the whole ?
Click to expand...
Great question, very thought provoking. There will be many philosophical (and opposing) viewpoints on this.

What I believe is that there are a number of activities that require large scale infrastructure like roads, water, mass transit, etc. and especially national defense that would not be profitable for private enterprise in many cases (not all, I grant you). Add to this care for the indigent elderly, education, oversight of businesses to prevent fraud & abuse of workers (I grew up in WVa and the pollution, poisoning of the environment, and especially the abuse of miners was horrible - thank goodness for EPA, the Unions & OSHA!), and yes....police protection that would be difficult to provide by private enterprise. I believe your earlier premise was that policing could be privatized but who would protect us if this private police force decides it owns us? Would they strong-arm those that don't want to pay? At least in today's environment there is the Federal Justice department that forces change upon local jurisdictions when flagrantly needed. Too slow, not as broad as we'd like but it is there. I actually see privatization of local police as even more dangerous than the current situation.

Police do not have to be the enemy. There was a terrific article on one of the news shows recently about the completely different approach being taken in Watts. It is a return to the Andy Griffith way of policing, and is working wonders on the crime rate and the relationship between police and the community. They befriend, they counsel, and only arrest as a last resort. They don't have quotas, their goal is reduced crime not total arrests or even solve rates. Sorry I don't remember which show, I was medicated, lol! If we could somehow get all the police in this country to follow their lead, it would move us a long way toward what I think you are aiming for.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You can't "aggress" against a person if you remain on your own property and seek NOT to engage with that person.
Click to expand...
yes you can, by denying service to someone based on their skin color that you are offering to everyone else with a different skin color. that is the definition of aggressive and offensive force in the name of racism.

Rob Roy said:
that makes you a pro slavery prohibitionist, who favors rapist tactics, Poopy Pants.
Click to expand...
you don't know what words mean.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
Here is a place with freemarket & without police.....Samalia
How's that working?
View attachment 3703773
Click to expand...

Somalia: How Has Life Changed?

Index 1991 2011 (or latest)
Life expectancy 46 years 50 years
Birth rate 46 44
Death rate 19 16
GDP per capita $210 $600
Infant mortality 116 deaths <1yr, per 1,000 births 109 deaths <1yr, per 1,000 births
Access to safe water 35% 29%
Adult literacy 24% 38%

300% GDP increase in that time. Interesting. Quite a few measures are notable improvements.

Considering it started off ass backwards thanks to constant outside meddling that's better than you would imagine based on conceptions. And it still faces much meddling from outside sources. They've also generally avoided the AIDs epidemic that swept the other nations surrounding them. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.


Rob Roy said:
No offense, but you seem to be engaging in a common misconception.

Why do you think in a free market there couldn't be mechanisms to ensure safety and arbitrate disputes that don't use the present forcibly imposed model ?

I think I know why.... the people who told you THEY must hold a violent monopoly on those kinds of services also told you, that if they weren't in charge, chaos would ensue, which is ironic given their violent means of operation, which is used to extinguish your choices and forcibly consolidate THEIR power.

Isn't that what a warlord would do? Forcible disallow any other competitors in a given consumer service ?
Click to expand...
It's the same argument slavers used. "It's all we know, therefore we must." They actually avoided a golden age during the Roman empire because of this argument, opting to destroy time saving mechanical inventions because slavery was all they knew. Everything will fall apart slave owners argued (happened during the American revolution too, same arguments - or rather, lack thereof - just appeals to emotion). Of course reality is slaves don't work very hard and continuing the practice merely held back humanity.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The Green Griffin said:
Great question, very thought provoking. There will be many philosophical (and opposing) viewpoints on this.

What I believe is that there are a number of activities that require large scale infrastructure like roads, water, mass transit, etc. and especially national defense that would not be profitable for private enterprise in many cases (not all, I grant you). Add to this care for the indigent elderly, education, oversight of businesses to prevent fraud & abuse of workers (I grew up in WVa and the pollution, poisoning of the environment, and especially the abuse of miners was horrible - thank goodness for EPA, the Unions & OSHA!), and yes....police protection that would be difficult to provide by private enterprise. I believe your earlier premise was that policing could be privatized but who would protect us if this private police force decides it owns us? Would they strong-arm those that don't want to pay? At least in today's environment there is the Federal Justice department that forces change upon local jurisdictions when flagrantly needed. Too slow, not as broad as we'd like but it is there. I actually see privatization of local police as even more dangerous than the current situation.

Police do not have to be the enemy. There was a terrific article on one of the news shows recently about the completely different approach being taken in Watts. It is a return to the Andy Griffith way of policing, and is working wonders on the crime rate and the relationship between police and the community. They befriend, they counsel, and only arrest as a last resort. They don't have quotas, their goal is reduced crime not total arrests or even solve rates. Sorry I don't remember which show, I was medicated, lol! If we could somehow get all the police in this country to follow their lead, it would move us a long way toward what I think you are aiming for.
Click to expand...

You said, " I believe your earlier premise was that policing could be privatized but who would protect us if this private police force decides it owns us? Would they strong-arm those that don't want to pay? "




It is essentially a market monopoly held in place by force now. It ALREADY owns you.

They already DO strong arm you if don't pay them.

In a free market, a customer could use a different service provider if their present one fails to provide the kind of service they like. The element of market competition among police is lacking in the present, therefore there is no incentive to listen to customer feedback, because the customer has no choice to go elsewhere to a different service provider.

The term "service" is really only applicable when the relationship is on a mutual basis. It is a misnomer to call what happens today a "service", since the customer is in reality a captive without any other real options, as any real competition in providing policing or security services is forcibly disallowed.

Thanks for your polite reply too, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss things with a focus on the topic.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
by denying service to someone based on their skin color that they are offering to everyone else with a different skin color. that is the definition of aggressive and offensive force in the name of racism.
Click to expand...

Excluding a person from associating with you isn't an act of initiating aggression. You've claimed it is, but failed to show how it is.


Here let's try another example, since the last one didn't seem to penetrate your thick skull.


Uncle Buck (approaching a dark skinned woman of ill repute) - "Hey sexy, I heard you blew nearly everyone in town last week, so how about slurping down my throbbing eraser nub ? I got an 1/8 th of god bud here I'll trade for a quick session.

woman of ill repute- "No thank you, I don't slurp on little pink eraser nubs and I'd prefer you put it away, besides I don't eat white meat..."

In the hypothetical example, Uncle Buck made an offer to associate which was refused. In Uncle Buck's world it would now be appropriate for him to force the association to happen. I think it would be inappropriate to continue to attempt a forcible interaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top