Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

U.S. Largest Monopoly On Slavery InThe World

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 3:34:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I thought the U.S. was the land of the free, but apparently we are the land of the largest amount of enslavement facilities (prisons) in the world!

How come our country that is championed for it's groundbreaking freedom has the biggest prison population?

The Constitution guarantees us civil liberties, yet the government enslaves us for using our civil liberties it guarantees us. It's like handing you a cookie and then killing you for eating it. Of course freedoms aren't granted, they are inherent, however it is still something allowed and encouraged yet at the same time you can be punished and coerced for it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 3:41:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 3:34:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I thought the U.S. was the land of the free, but apparently we are the land of the largest amount of enslavement facilities (prisons) in the world!

How come our country that is championed for it's groundbreaking freedom has the biggest prison population?

Maybe it's because of that. Freedom is generally meant to be an absence of oppression. A land where "law" breakers roam free would not qualify to be a land of the free would it?

The Constitution guarantees us civil liberties, yet the government enslaves us for using our civil liberties it guarantees us. It's like handing you a cookie and then killing you for eating it. Of course freedoms aren't granted, they are inherent, however it is still something allowed and encouraged yet at the same time you can be punished and coerced for it.

This does not make any sense to me. A prison is generally meant for law breakers, not for using our civil liberties. Could you rephrase this?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 3:53:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 3:41:45 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/25/2011 3:34:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I thought the U.S. was the land of the free, but apparently we are the land of the largest amount of enslavement facilities (prisons) in the world!

How come our country that is championed for it's groundbreaking freedom has the biggest prison population?

Maybe it's because of that. Freedom is generally meant to be an absence of oppression. A land where "law" breakers roam free would not qualify to be a land of the free would it?

The Constitution guarantees us civil liberties, yet the government enslaves us for using our civil liberties it guarantees us. It's like handing you a cookie and then killing you for eating it. Of course freedoms aren't granted, they are inherent, however it is still something allowed and encouraged yet at the same time you can be punished and coerced for it.

This does not make any sense to me. A prison is generally meant for law breakers, not for using our civil liberties. Could you rephrase this?

Yes, prison is for law breakers but the law is unjust! Expressing civil liberties is against the law!

There should be only two laws which uphold freedom (and not supress it): 1. do not initiate force on others. 2. do not steal other peoples property and any variation or form of this.

And yet there's hundreds of laws telling us what we can't do! And they lock us in a cage with chains if we disobey them!

In fact, the concept of "disobedience" shouldn't even exist!!!
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 3:57:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Police knocked down the door and raided this poor mans house, shot and killed his dog, arrested the man, and locked him in a cage for years, all because he was growing a lot of plants known as marijuana in his house.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 4:03:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 3:57:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Police knocked down the door and raided this poor mans house, shot and killed his dog, arrested the man, and locked him in a cage for years, all because he was growing a lot of plants known as marijuana in his house.

His dog probably attacked the police and he was doing something known to be illegal.

You can't say "I'm choosing to break the law" and then cry when put in jail. If you are going to choose to fight against the system in that way, then you choose the consequences of those actions.

If you choose to fight the system in another way (like getting people together to change laws), then you accept the consequences of those actions (which don't involve getting thrown in jail).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 4:15:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 4:03:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/25/2011 3:57:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Police knocked down the door and raided this poor mans house, shot and killed his dog, arrested the man, and locked him in a cage for years, all because he was growing a lot of plants known as marijuana in his house.

His dog probably attacked the police and he was doing something known to be illegal.

The dog had every right to attack the masked invaders! However, the dog didn't do anything, it was just barking, there's footage of the whole scene on Youtube!

You can't say "I'm choosing to break the law" and then cry when put in jail.

The Constitition is the law and the Constitution says smoking marijuana is ok.

All the drug laws that PROHIBIT the civil liberty of drug use is directly illegal and in conflict with the Constitution!

If you are going to choose to fight against the system in that way, then you choose the consequences of those actions.

That's not freedom. Freedom is being able to smoke marijuana without having to ask the slavemaster for permission or trying to change the slave masters mind.

If you choose to fight the system in another way (like getting people together to change laws), then you accept the consequences of those actions (which don't involve getting thrown in jail).

False. You should not be punished for performing acts which are 100% within your Constitutional right.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 4:31:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 4:03:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/25/2011 3:57:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Police knocked down the door and raided this poor mans house, shot and killed his dog, arrested the man, and locked him in a cage for years, all because he was growing a lot of plants known as marijuana in his house.

His dog probably attacked the police and he was doing something known to be illegal.

Socrates: "The dog is the true philosopher" -The Republic. The dog only trusts what it knows; therefore a dog cannot trust pigs in uniforms. We trust our fate to pigs in uniforms because we, unlike the dog, are able to trust that which we do not know. Our higher reasoning, thus, can be just as much a tool for ignorance as it can for enlightenment - and the average person is a testament to this, never, ever questioning whether it was a good thing in the first place to trust pigs to shepherd us.

You can't say "I'm choosing to break the law" and then cry when put in jail. If you are going to choose to fight against the system in that way, then you choose the consequences of those actions.

If you choose to fight the system in another way (like getting people together to change laws), then you accept the consequences of those actions (which don't involve getting thrown in jail).

Average citizens bear the burdon of injustice not by failing to organize politically, but for voluntarily participating in and condoningthe acts of injustice themselves. Who, exactly, would you blame for Nazi Germany's crimes? Hitler alone? Or would you blame the Nazi civilians who failed to organize to fight Hitler? I, personally, would blame all those who participated in the government, particularly the soldiers and police who were behind the triggers of those weapons. Citizens bear the burdon but only as far as they participated in it.
kfc
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 4:39:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property"
-- The Constitution
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 4:44:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thank God who doesn't exist that Ron Paul just wrote a book called "Liberty Defined" because it seems everyone has forgotten what "Liberty" is!
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 4:55:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 4:31:14 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

Socrates: "The dog is the true philosopher" -The Republic. The dog only trusts what it knows; therefore a dog cannot trust pigs in uniforms. We trust our fate to pigs in uniforms because we, unlike the dog, are able to trust that which we do not know. Our higher reasoning, thus, can be just as much a tool for ignorance as it can for enlightenment - and the average person is a testament to this, never, ever questioning whether it was a good thing in the first place to trust pigs to shepherd us.


What about police dogs Socrates?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 5:44:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 4:03:54 PM, OreEle wrote:

His dog probably attacked the police and he was doing something known to be illegal.

The dog would not have to attack the police, by that time it is too late, anyone who has done any amount of dog training would know how difficult it is to deal with that and anyone who thinks it is over reacting should have a dog clamp on their genitals and then see how you can make rational decisions while its teeth are shredding your testicles.

It is unfortunate that on occasion a dog's life will be lost is situations where it could have been avoided but if this was not taken then the police would suffer a higher rate of injury. While these scenes look brutal, again they have to be consider as what happens in general in such situations, it is not as if the police know the dog would not attack and is only going to bark.

The police are only doing their job, they can not decide what laws to enforce and which ones not to based on how they feel. If it matters that much to you (OP) then lobby to get the laws changed
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 5:46:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 3:43:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Because we are not allowed give cane lashings, and very rarely allowed to execute.

Having spent time in various places where the legal system is different to say the least, anyone who has an issue with jails needs to go to Malaysia and similar places and commit a few crimes and then see if jail suddenly seems so bad, a few lashes are the least of your worries.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 6:05:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 4:39:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..."
-- The Constitution

Fixed. Your evidence is a quote out of very necessary context. "You may not kill a person except in self defense" is quite different from "You may not kill a person."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 7:06:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 6:05:27 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/25/2011 4:39:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..."
-- The Constitution

Fixed. Your evidence is a quote out of very necessary context. "You may not kill a person except in self defense" is quite different from "You may not kill a person."

No, the full context does not change the meaning! The Law IS the Constitution so when the Constitution states that no State shall deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, it just means that the State must appeal to the Constitution before it can take action. So the conditions don't change at all given the full context.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 7:18:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 6:17:45 PM, Grape wrote:
If nonviolence is important to you, why do you even care what the Constitution says?

I'm not sure that I ever said I cared what it says. I'm just saying that the system is inconsistent with itself. Just like I can point out contradictions in the Bible without actually believing in the Bible.

The current system has laws that are directly contradictory to its own Constitution just like the Bible has laws that contradict the 10 Commandments.

It clearly allows for violence.

No it doesn't. It explicitly prohibits it.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property"
-- The Constitution

Violence = initiatory coercion. Initiatory coercion contradicts liberty. Therefore, the Constitution does not allow for violence.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 7:52:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 7:18:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Violence = initiatory coercion. Initiatory coercion contradicts liberty. Therefore, the Constitution does not allow for violence.

You should either (a) submit that interpretation for legal review in one of the trade magazines or (b) present it at a talk at a suitable academic institution, the response would be interesting.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 10:25:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 5:44:05 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/25/2011 4:03:54 PM, OreEle wrote:

His dog probably attacked the police and he was doing something known to be illegal.

The dog would not have to attack the police, by that time it is too late, anyone who has done any amount of dog training would know how difficult it is to deal with that and anyone who thinks it is over reacting should have a dog clamp on their genitals and then see how you can make rational decisions while its teeth are shredding your testicles.

ooooh I LIKE THIS GUY!!! When you think someone is not fully taking into account the implications of their arguments, make sure they don't miss it ;)

Yes, dogs are very scary. They are fearless and sometimes not too bright (often because they are dominated by a cowardly person who abuses the animal). I'm not going to argue that police should start rethinking how they negotiate threats from pets; I'm arguing why the state would be invading a people's homes in the first place. Dogs are only usually trained to be attack dogs by the police; otherwise, they are just staying home and protecting their territory. This is why I make the political distinction between territory and property; property is complete contrived bullsh*t (of which dogs are not concerned with, being the true philosophers they are) while territory is the area you use to rest in every night.

It is unfortunate that on occasion a dog's life will be lost is situations where it could have been avoided but if this was not taken then the police would suffer a higher rate of injury. While these scenes look brutal, again they have to be consider as what happens in general in such situations, it is not as if the police know the dog would not attack and is only going to bark.

The police are only doing their job, they can not decide what laws to enforce and which ones not to based on how they feel. If it matters that much to you (OP) then lobby to get the laws changed

"Only doing their job."

I'm familiar with this statement. It's the excuse for all the worst historical tragedies.
kfc
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 10:33:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 10:25:41 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

I'm not going to argue that police should start rethinking how they negotiate threats from pets; I'm arguing why the state would be invading a people's homes in the first place.

If the law exists they have to, now as to the law existing it is consistent with the current Legislation on prohibition of various substances which is all done under the mentality of protecting people from themselves - which is obvious a serious point of contention. It has immediate problems such as for example I can not legally buy heroin but I can over eat to such an extent I could kill myself in a year. It is quite obvious that there are laws simply for what people will tolerate and as long as the masses tolerate drug laws they will remain.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 10:38:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 10:25:41 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

Yes, dogs are very scary. They are fearless and sometimes not too bright (often because they are dominated by a cowardly person who abuses the animal).

I have been attacked by dogs several times, in no case was it the dogs fault, in all cases it is the fault of the owner, however in that situation that point is not relevant it is simply one of making a choice to hurt the dog (severely) to prevent harm to yourself. Anyone who thinks you can subdue an angry dog wthout posing severe risk to yourself is living in fantasy land and really needs to attend some seminars and put on a suit and have a few hit you and see what it feels like. Then imagine the same thing without the suit on.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 12:16:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 7:06:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/25/2011 6:05:27 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/25/2011 4:39:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..."
-- The Constitution

Fixed. Your evidence is a quote out of very necessary context. "You may not kill a person except in self defense" is quite different from "You may not kill a person."

No, the full context does not change the meaning! The Law IS the Constitution so when the Constitution states that no State shall deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, it just means that the State must appeal to the Constitution before it can take action. So the conditions don't change at all given the full context.

Geo, you're out of tyour mind if you don't think that isn't taking out of context (your original quote), and the partial restoration of that context doesn't change the initial quote you cited. If i were to take just what you extracted from the constitution, i therefore wouldn't have to pay my taxes.

Also, would you prefer Mexico? Less prisons, but i assure you most of the innocents would prefer more prisons. Or would you prefer North Korea, where few prisons are needed, but there are far less freedoms to play with. I would guess that North Korea has a very low crime rate.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 1:21:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 5:44:05 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/25/2011 4:03:54 PM, OreEle wrote:

His dog probably attacked the police and he was doing something known to be illegal.

The dog would not have to attack the police, by that time it is too late, anyone who has done any amount of dog training would know how difficult it is to deal with that and anyone who thinks it is over reacting should have a dog clamp on their genitals and then see how you can make rational decisions while its teeth are shredding your testicles.

It is unfortunate that on occasion a dog's life will be lost is situations where it could have been avoided but if this was not taken then the police would suffer a higher rate of injury. While these scenes look brutal, again they have to be consider as what happens in general in such situations, it is not as if the police know the dog would not attack and is only going to bark.

Yeah well they shouldn't have invaded in the first place. Plus they were armored. Secondly, you don't shoot things unless it poses an actual threat. Is it ok to kill people just because you don't know if they have a gun ready to shoot or not?

The police are only doing their job,

That's what the Nazis said. What if the police were told to jump off a bridge, should they?

they can not decide what laws to enforce and which ones not to based on how they feel. If it matters that much to you (OP) then lobby to get the laws changed

The police know what the existing laws are and choose to take the job.

And I don't have time to lobby against bullsh!t that shouldn't be there in the first place.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 1:26:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 5:46:06 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/25/2011 3:43:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Because we are not allowed give cane lashings, and very rarely allowed to execute.

Having spent time in various places where the legal system is different to say the least, anyone who has an issue with jails needs to go to Malaysia and similar places and commit a few crimes and then see if jail suddenly seems so bad, a few lashes are the least of your worries.

That's a terrible argument if I've ever heard one. The bad conditions of other countries does not justify the atrocities done here on the homeland. In fact, it's just a big RED HERRING and has absolutley nothing to do with this country.

That's like a slave saying "well at least we only get lashed 5 times, the other slaves get lashed 10." Yeah let's all rejoice that we aren't being suppressed even more! How bout no.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 3:26:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 1:26:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

That's a terrible argument if I've ever heard one. The bad conditions of other countries does not justify the atrocities done here on the homeland. In fact, it's just a big RED HERRING and has absolutley nothing to do with this country.

It is not a red herring to consider the alternates, it is called considering the alternates, maybe you should go live with the reptoids in the center of the earth. They don't have jails, when there is a crime they just sprinkle the individual with pixie dust and all conflict is resolved.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 3:32:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 1:21:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Yeah well they shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

That is the law, they don't have a choice.

Plus they were armored. Secondly, you don't shoot things unless it poses an actual threat.

As I said, you are living in a fantasy land with no knowledge or respect for what police officers have to do and the harm and risk they have to endure. If you want to wake up out of your fantasy land then let me know and as I said in the above I will arrange for you to find out what happens if you are attacked by a dog. As an interjection of reality, the armor cops wear is meant to stop bullets and is not fully body, it will not stop a dog attack, and again if you think it does I can demonstrate any time you want how ignorant you are.

That's what the Nazis said. What if the police were told to jump off a bridge, should they?

Yes Geo, that is obviously the same thing as the police being told to arrest a criminal who is breaking a law.


they can not decide what laws to enforce and which ones not to based on how they feel. If it matters that much to you (OP) then lobby to get the laws changed

The police know what the existing laws are and choose to take the job.

And I don't have time to lobby against bullsh!t that shouldn't be there in the first place.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 4:25:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@Cliff.Stamp

I thought police were supposed to be peacekeepers. And even if the dog did pose a threat, they didn't have to kill it. They could have tranquilized it or shot it with a rubber bullet.

Why do they initiate violence against non-violent plant growers? Why are peacekeepers breaking into houses shooting things when no one in the house was violent?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat