Is indenturing/enslaving people right ?

Hell YEAH
6 (40%)
HELL NO
9 (60%)

Total Members Voted: 14

sams on October 26, 2010, 12:18:37 pm
BTW sams, the fr33agents site isn't dead. I just caught that you said that it was.  ???

The social forum is dead and almost nothing got actualized

The website failed to promote a intellectual debate and degenerated into petty forum discussions

MacFall on October 26, 2010, 12:54:28 pm
So... at this moment in time, it isn't accomplishing what you would like to see accomplished. But it isn't DEAD, as in, it still functions - which means there is plenty of opportunity for those things to be accomplished in the future. By leaving the site now you're not helping that to happen.
Government is not, as is often believed, a "necessary evil". Rather, it is a plain evil of such power that it has been able to convince people of its necessity.

mellyrn on October 26, 2010, 02:58:35 pm
Quote
Keep it short because we don't have time to read a Gazillion words that say nothing

That's not my monkey.  How about instead you (singular or plural) just skip reading them?

wdg3rd on October 27, 2010, 01:28:11 am

Should murderers be put to death?  What does it do to your own soul (however defined) to do the execution?  You'll only be able to do it if you do exactly what the murderer did -- dehumanize your subject.  And whenever we do that, we dehumanize a tiny part of ourselves.  I say, for the sake of whatever humanity you have left in you, that if you can see the human in the murderer and still choose to kill him, then and only then may you.

Keep it short because we don't have time to read a Gazillion words that say nothing

He didn't say nothing.  Unless you have a guilty conscience.  (I have my own guilts, and you aren't part of them).

And yeah, I'll kill a murderer and/or rapist if I'm convinced the crime(s) happened.  No guilt (though mucho regret) on my part even when it's family.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

quadibloc on October 27, 2010, 05:02:45 pm
Should murderers be put to death?  What does it do to your own soul (however defined) to do the execution?
Right now, at least in Canada, we don't think that our legal system is failing in considering extenuating circumstances in crimes. Instead, it seems to fail to deal out sufficient penalties where there are no such circumstances to indicate a real concern with the safety of ordinary people.

Your concerns are valid. Executing all murderers always may lead to injustice. But never executing any murderers ever is not just either.

dough560 on October 30, 2010, 01:35:21 am
The Arbitration is not establishing slavery but a contract for the settlement of an acknowledged debt.  Merry's outburst was a knee-jerk reaction to a settlement framed in a manner she was not familiar with.

The court may recommend or suggest certain items be sold.  The court will not suggest the Perps sell property necessary to their survival. Examples would include personal weapons, space-suits or tools.  What property they sell (if they elect to sell any property), will receive fair value.  It is not in the court's interest to allow the property be sold below market value.

The collars would not curtail freedom of movement.  They would identify the Perps' status to anyone who cared to look and report their departure.  The collar could also act as a tracking device, if they had not settled their debt.  The Perps also have the option of concealing the collars under shirt collars or ascots.

Where they reside and how they provide for themselves while settling the debt, is up to them.  Perps still have the right of self-defense.

quadibloc on October 30, 2010, 09:42:26 am
The court may recommend or suggest certain items be sold.  The court will not suggest the Perps sell property necessary to their survival. Examples would include personal weapons, space-suits or tools.
Now this is strange. A perpetrator, one would think, would be one type of person who would never be allowed to possess a weapon, such as a firearm, even though other citizens were not restricted from having weapons.

Why go around asking for trouble?

wdg3rd on October 30, 2010, 10:02:00 am
The court may recommend or suggest certain items be sold.  The court will not suggest the Perps sell property necessary to their survival. Examples would include personal weapons, space-suits or tools.
Now this is strange. A perpetrator, one would think, would be one type of person who would never be allowed to possess a weapon, such as a firearm, even though other citizens were not restricted from having weapons.

Why go around asking for trouble?

Quad, the right to self-defense is an absolute.  One of my problems with this country today is that when a "felon" (usually a pot smoker) is released from prison, hir First Amendment rights are in full force while hir Second Amendment rights are denied for life.  And while it's theoretically possible to defend one's self from firearms without firearms (generally by being behind a thick shield or being somewhere else, some "martial arts" experts claim to be able to dodge bullets, but I've never seen a demonstration repeated under controlled conditions) guns work.  In a free society, if a guy hopes to get laid, he'll stay honest and peaceful and the only people he'll kill will be those who tried to kill him first.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

dough560 on October 30, 2010, 12:29:45 pm
It could also be argued a criminal associating with criminals is most in need of protection.  Perceived as weaker, the criminal would be a target.  While the criminal would be safe from a citizen he has not attacked or injured in any way.

J Thomas on October 30, 2010, 12:55:08 pm
The court may recommend or suggest certain items be sold.  The court will not suggest the Perps sell property necessary to their survival. Examples would include personal weapons, space-suits or tools.
Now this is strange. A perpetrator, one would think, would be one type of person who would never be allowed to possess a weapon, such as a firearm, even though other citizens were not restricted from having weapons.

Why go around asking for trouble?

Everybody is potentially dangerous, and perhaps in a big variety of ways. If you don't trust somebody with a gun, would you trust him with an automobile? A cropduster? Would you trust him to be a short order cook?

I think if you can't trust him with a gun then you'd better kill him. I can understand if you disagree. Some days I disagree with myself.

quadibloc on October 31, 2010, 05:13:03 pm
I think if you can't trust him with a gun then you'd better kill him. I can understand if you disagree.
I'm not sure that I do disagree with that. It's just that "If I... there wouldn't be many people left.", if I can be forgiven a plug for a competing webcomic.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 05:17:21 pm by quadibloc »

Bob G on October 31, 2010, 07:57:27 pm
(T)he right to self-defense is an absolute.  One of my problems with this country today is that when a "felon" (usually a pot smoker) is released from prison, hir First Amendment rights are in full force while hir Second Amendment rights are denied for life.

And it seems that every time you turn around, more activities have been deemed felonies. This deprives ex-cons of not just the right to keep and bear arms, but their ability to vote (probably not a big issue for any of you agorists out there) and likely to sit on a jury as well, among other things. If I were paranoid, it would seem to be a situation consciously designed to render the populace not only defenseless but completely powerless.

It could also be argued a criminal associating with criminals is most in need of protection.  Perceived as weaker, the criminal would be a target.  While the criminal would be safe from a citizen he has not attacked or injured in any way.

  I've long held this view. Even my hard-core gun nut firearms enthusiast associates look at me as if I were mad when I try to make the case.
  Of course, a real 'thug life' criminal (as opposed to college kids who share their weed with their buddies and get busted for 'distribution') is just going to ignore the prohibition on being armed, anyway.

Everybody is potentially dangerous, and perhaps in a big variety of ways. If you don't trust somebody with a gun, would you trust him with an automobile? A cropduster? Would you trust him to be a short order cook?

I think if you can't trust him with a gun then you'd better kill him. I can understand if you disagree. Some days I disagree with myself.

I don't disagree. That's what probation is supposed to be about: seeing how (if) the ex-con can adjust to living as a free person on the 'outside'.
Whatsoever, for any cause, seeketh to take or give
  Power above or beyond the Laws, suffer it not to live.
Holy State, or Holy King, or Holy People's Will.
  Have no truck with the senseless thing, order the guns and kill.

The penultimate stanza of Rudyard Kipling's MacDonough's Song

jamesd on October 31, 2010, 11:17:22 pm
(T)he right to self-defense is an absolute.  One of my problems with this country today is that when a "felon" (usually a pot smoker) is released from prison, hir First Amendment rights are in full force while hir Second Amendment rights are denied for life.

And it seems that every time you turn around, more activities have been deemed felonies. This deprives ex-cons of not just the right to keep and bear arms, but their ability to vote (probably not a big issue for any of you agorists out there) and likely to sit on a jury as well, among other things. If I were paranoid, it would seem to be a situation consciously designed to render the populace not only defenseless but completely powerless.

It could also be argued a criminal associating with criminals is most in need of protection.  Perceived as weaker, the criminal would be a target.  While the criminal would be safe from a citizen he has not attacked or injured in any way.

That's what probation is supposed to be about: seeing how (if) the ex-con can adjust to living as a free person on the 'outside'.

I rather liked the "three strikes and you are out law" because most of the stupid felonies did not count as a first strike.  You could sell heroin to six year old girls in return for sexual favors, and it is not a first strike.  Only real crimes, like burglary, counted as a strike.  As a result, most of the people who did commit two strikes, were people who really needed killing.

What happens is that the government inflates the category of "crime" beyond reason, so that everyone is a criminal.  So then it creates a new category, "felony" which at first corresponds to actual crimes, which it again inflates beyond all reason.  So then it needs to create a new category "strike", which again refers to actual crimes.

In anarcho capitalism, the cost of criminalizing something has to be carried by those criminalizing it, so presumably only things that needed criminalizing would be criminalized.  It follows that if habitual criminals tended to killed, no big problem.

SandySandfort on November 01, 2010, 06:54:12 am
What happens is that the government inflates the category of "crime" beyond reason, so that everyone is a criminal.  So then it creates a new category, "felony" which at first corresponds to actual crimes, which it again inflates beyond all reason.  So then it needs to create a new category "strike", which again refers to actual crimes.

Bingo.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking the laws."
 - Ayn Rand in "Atlas Shrugged"

macsnafu on November 01, 2010, 08:45:04 am

In anarcho capitalism, the cost of criminalizing something has to be carried by those criminalizing it, so presumably only things that needed criminalizing would be criminalized. 

This is the most impressive thing that I've seen you post.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

 

anything