Author Topic: Murder Rates: Why Comparing The United States Only To Other Developed Countries  (Read 76646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
I agree, Q.

Offline m.marino

  • Posts: 113
  • First Name (Displayed): Michael
Q thank you for putting it rather well. Thank you very much.

Michael
Tuebor Libertatus

Offline TucTom

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 565
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
How true Q

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
I'd be willing to bet an extremely high majority of hard core drug abusers started with MJ.

however, almost every single one started on milk... so now what, ban milk?

personally, IDK what drug someone uses, end the war on drugs.

Offline linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
Why would you suggest drugs be treated any differently?

This is something I've struggled with in regards to a myriad of issues.  Why is 16 the legal driving age?  Why is 18 the age of consent? Why is 21 the drinking age?  Why is incest illegal?  Why should domestic violence laws be allowed to infringe on someone's freedom of religion?  Whose morality decides what laws should be?

Why criminalize an 8 year old driving?  Criminalize the accident they cause. 
Why have MIP laws? Enforce drunk and disorderly and impaired driving laws we already have.


I tend to have Libertarian philosophies, but struggle when providing liberty yields no possible positive outcomes.  But then again, who am I to declare what a positive outcome is?

Liberty, pushed to the limits, can become a society without rule of law.  Who decides the balance?
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. Luke 11:21

Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."  Luke 22:36

Offline darrenlobo

  • Posts: 17
Liberty, pushed to the limits, can become a society without rule of law.  Who decides the balance?

The reason you struggle is that you misinterpret the issue. It's not a matter of liberty vs law but how do you provide law. The answer is to let the market do so. Institutions voluntarily hired & voluntarily financed can do it better than the corrupt monopoly the govt forces on us. I would point to history as proof that we don't need the govt to provide law & security:

Quote
Responsive Law Enforcement: Community policing is seen as responsive to local needs because it is relatively decentralized. Law enforcement in Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries was even more decentralized and responsive because the private sector provided for public safety and the enforcement of contracts. When Britain’s Bobbies (public police) later came on to the scene, they were jeered not praised.

Fairer Laws: The Law Merchant was a non-governmental system of commercial-dispute resolution that arose in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Merchants viewed it as fair and abided by its decisions because it was created and administered by and for merchants. The Law Merchant was highly successful until governments began to subvert it and expand their own power. But because government-run legal systems have become increasingly slow and arbitrary, the Law Merchant is returning in the form of private arbitration and mediation services, which now help resolve criminal as well as commercial disputes.

                                                                       **********

Law and Social Services

Is law possible without the state? Surprisingly, the answer appears to be yes. Bruce Benson (chapter 6) investigates the Law Merchant: the voluntarily evolved and enforced legal system that governed trade among international merchants. The Law Merchant filled the vacuum left by the fall of the Roman Empire, when merchants themselves created a dispute-resolution system that all parties regarded as fair. Today, arbitration and conflict-resolution businesses, like the Law Merchant of yore, offer many advantages over state systems, and have even spread to environmental mediation and community disputes. Stephen Davies (chapter 7) shows how, in the 19th century, local communities and private prosecution associations provided criminal justice.
http://www.independent.org/publications/books/summary.asp?id=17

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Yes, civil disputes can be handled among businesses who agree to a non-governmental legal framework.

But how do you handle criminal law in a similar fashion?
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline Hammurabi

  • Posts: 91
Yes, civil disputes can be handled among businesses who agree to a non-governmental legal framework.

But how do you handle criminal law in a similar fashion?
Essentially: How do you force your system on non-consenting individuals?

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Essentially: How do you force your system on non-consenting individuals?

I got it! I got it!
You hire a company like Pinkerton's is depicted in wild west movies and they kill the non-consenting bad guy for you.
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline darrenlobo

  • Posts: 17
Yes, civil disputes can be handled among businesses who agree to a non-governmental legal framework.

But how do you handle criminal law in a similar fashion?

One problem with today's system is the criminalization of just about everything. Many things that are crimes today would better be treated as torts. A system of restitution makes more sense than our out of control system of control & punishment.

Offline darrenlobo

  • Posts: 17
Essentially: How do you force your system on non-consenting individuals?

The only force would be against those who commit crimes & refuse to come to terms with their victims. Remember my point "Institutions voluntarily hired & voluntarily financed can do it better than the corrupt monopoly the govt forces on us." This doesn't require that criminals agree with their restitution/punishment.

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Good explanation why only fools say "gun violence":

http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2015/08/28/thinking-seriously-about-the-virginia-murders-n2044980/page/full

First, the notion that this double murder was “caused” by “gun violence” is patently offensive. It’s offensive to the victims, certainly, and even to the victimizer.

Alison Parker, Adam Ward, and Vicki Gardner were shot with a gun. They were shot by Vester Flanagan, a man who could’ve killed them in any number of other ways, or chosen not to kill them at all. We divest individuals of their humanity, their uniquely human, indeed, divine-like moral agency, when we ignore the reasons for their actions while instead attributing the latter to such impersonal “causes” as “gun violence” or “mental health.”

Second, allusions to “gun violence” and “mental health” are especially pernicious inasmuch as they obscure the evil nature of the deed being explained. To see just how egregious an offense this is, consider some analogies.

Imagine if, while discussing the Holocaust, we spoke about “gas chamber violence,” or while discussing Islamic State mass beheadings, we talked instead of “machete violence.” Or suppose that discussions of the lynching of blacks were peppered with references to “rope violence.” None of this would sit well with decent human beings, for it is clear, or at least it is thought that it should be clear, that such descriptions miss entirely that which is fundamental to the phenomena being described—the perpetrators responsible for these wicked deeds.

The perpetrators deserve to be recognized for the moral agents that they are, and their victims deserve an honest account of their fates.
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
I like the bolded part.