Re: California Penal Code 12355
Boobytraps made with deadly weapons or explosives, or for that matter 'infernal devices'
Thanks for outing yourself as a cop, scumbag.
I'm just saying I'm only in favor of a reverse Waco. Unlikely to ever happen. Who would be stupid enough to be incapable of identifying a dangerous situation?
On 12/2/19 8:49 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
Boobytraps made with deadly weapons or explosives, or for that matter 'infernal devices'
Thanks for outing yourself as a cop, scumbag.
I'm just saying I'm only in favor of a reverse Waco. Unlikely to ever happen. Who would be stupid enough to be incapable of identifying a dangerous situation?
I'm going to say this once in VERY simple English. Anyone who values property more than life (assuming their life isn't threatened by the theft) is my enemy, and has no business on an ANARCHIST list. Got that, schmuck? Rr
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, 07:30:13 PM PST, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: On 12/2/19 8:49 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
Boobytraps made with deadly weapons or explosives, or for that matter 'infernal devices'
Thanks for outing yourself as a cop, scumbag.
I'm just saying I'm only in favor of a reverse Waco. Unlikely to ever happen. Who would be stupid enough to be incapable of identifying a dangerous situation?
I'm going to say this once in VERY simple English. Anyone who values property more than life (assuming their life isn't threatened by the theft) is my enemy, and has no business on an ANARCHIST list.
That's a silly, meaningless truism. First, how do you quantify both "values property" and "values life" in sufficient detail to be able to compare the two "values"? Remember, you said " property more than life...". Secondly, I don't value someone's life AT ALL if he's trying to kill, rob, or otherwise harm me or anybody I care about. Robbery can turn into murder without warning,. Since I believe in the right to self-defense and to the defense of others, merely calling for "values life" clearly obfuscates the issues. Jim Bell
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 05:39:39 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Secondly, I don't value someone's life AT ALL if he's trying to kill, rob, or otherwise harm me or anybody I care about.
more clear proof of your lack of basic knowledge of 'libertarian', or liberal principles. It should be self-evident that self-defense must be proportional. then again, you think that executing car thieves is OK...
Robbery can turn into murder without warning,. Since I believe in the right to self-defense and to the defense of others, merely calling for "values life" clearly obfuscates the issues.
btw, one of the key foundations of liberalism is rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and property. Property comes in the third place.
Jim Bell
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, 10:03:34 PM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 05:39:39 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Secondly, I don't value someone's life AT ALL if he's trying to kill, rob, or otherwise harm me or anybody I care about.
> more clear proof of your lack of basic knowledge of 'libertarian', or liberal principles. It should be self-evident that self-defense must be proportional. I'm very suspicious of things that people claim to be "self-evident". How is "proportionality" determined? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle Suppose a person tries to car-jack my car? Carjacking has been known to result in chases, including fatal accidents, in others. Am I obliged to let the carjacker go, to take the car? Wouldn't that make me partly responsible if an 'accident' (or adeliberate use of the car to murder) occurs? Can you find, anywhere on the Internet, well-formed discussions supporting your claim that " It should be self-evident that self-defense must be proportional", INCLUDING formulas which explain what actions are indeed "proportional"? > then again, you think that executing car thieves is OK... Would you let them steal cars and keep them, as an alternative?I suggest that Statists want to prohibit people from using self-defense, in order to make them more dependant on government.
Robbery can turn into murder without warning,. Since I believe in the right to self-defense and to the defense of others, merely calling for "values life" clearly obfuscates the issues.
> btw, one of the key foundations of liberalism is rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and property. Property comes in the third place. You are merely using a list, suggesting that is a relative statement of value. Can you support the idea that this was originally intended? I disagree. In times of scarcity, taking property may involve taking their life, either immediately or eventually. I have the right to my property, and if somebody wishes to deny that, they have quite literally aggressed, within the meaning of the NAP. Support your assertion that people aren't entitled to use whatever level of force is necessary to prevent the violation of property rights. That MIGHT NOT involve death of the robber, but nevertheless it might. You cannot craft a consistent rule which can tell a person what he is allowed to do to protect his property. Jim Bell
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 06:54:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, 10:03:34 PM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 05:39:39 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Secondly, I don't value someone's life AT ALL if he's trying to kill, rob, or otherwise harm me or anybody I care about.
> more clear proof of your lack of basic knowledge of 'libertarian', or liberal principles. It should be self-evident that self-defense must be proportional.
I'm very suspicious of things that people claim to be "self-evident".
I was mocking you. Because proportionality should be self-evident for people who think are 'masters of libertarianism' who 'fixed' anarchy...
How is "proportionality" determined?
using basic rationality. Again, under basic libertarian rules, in case of theft, justice demands restitution. So if, say, somebody steals $10, he has to return $10 and eventually damages. On the other hand, murdering a thief who stole $10 is insane.
it seems to me that a 'master of libertarianism' like you who links wikimierda is self-parodying himself. If you don't know any serious liberal literature, I suggest you go to a library...or something.
Can you find, anywhere on the Internet, well-formed discussions supporting your claim that " It should be self-evident that self-defense must be proportional
do a search for "punishmente must fit the crime".
> then again, you think that executing car thieves is OK...
Would you let them steal cars and keep them, as an alternative?I suggest that Statists want to prohibit people from using self-defense, in order to make them more dependant on government.
.... now you're changing the subject? The subject is your criminal and unhinged views on 'legal' theory.
> btw, one of the key foundations of liberalism is rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and property. Property comes in the third place.
Support your assertion that people aren't entitled to use whatever level of force is necessary to prevent the violation of property rights.
no sonny, you have to 'justify' murder. Which of course you cannot do. you have to prove the insane claim that you are 'entitled' to do whatever you want to defend 'property'.
That MIGHT NOT involve death of the robber, but nevertheless it might. You cannot craft a consistent rule which can tell a person what he is allowed to do to protect his property.
you cannot justify murder except in the case where killing somebody is the only option to avoid being killed.
Fuck off brain-dead libtard scumbag. The world would be a better place if you offed yourself and took your "assassination market" with you, scumbag. Archaic pos. On 12/3/19 9:39 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, 07:30:13 PM PST, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/2/19 8:49 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
Boobytraps made with deadly weapons or explosives, or for that matter 'infernal devices'
Thanks for outing yourself as a cop, scumbag.
I'm just saying I'm only in favor of a reverse Waco. Unlikely to ever happen. Who would be stupid enough to be incapable of identifying a dangerous situation?
I'm going to say this once in VERY simple English. Anyone who values property more than life (assuming their life isn't threatened by the theft) is my enemy, and has no business on an ANARCHIST list.
That's a silly, meaningless truism. First, how do you quantify both "values property" and "values life" in sufficient detail to be able to compare the two "values"? Remember, you said " property more than life...".
Secondly, I don't value someone's life AT ALL if he's trying to kill, rob, or otherwise harm me or anybody I care about. Robbery can turn into murder without warning,. Since I believe in the right to self-defense and to the defense of others, merely calling for "values life" clearly obfuscates the issues.
Jim Bell
participants (4)
-
jim bell -
Punk-Stasi 2.0 -
Razer -
Ryan Carboni