Facialized: US to Force Mugshots From All Citizen Travelers

[Punk-Stasi 2.0]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:01:53 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:


> 
> "Murder" is a form of "killing which the government deems to be against the law". 

	No. Murder is killing against NATURAL LAW. Do not confuse liberal law, natural law, personal rights, common sense morality, or whatever name you want to use, with arbitrary  government dictates. 


>  So you have inadvertently stepped into the same cow-pie that you seem to be claiming I did, too.  It presumes the existence of a government, and of laws, etc.  

	Not at all. You seem to be oblivious to the concept of natural rights, personal rights and natural law. 


> You seem to be suggesting that 'self-defense' is inherently illegitimate, 

	I didn't do that, either. I stated the fact that if self-defense violates personal rights then it's not self-defense anymore. It is agression. 


> or at least is artificially limited to some amount.    

	Not artificially at all. It is naturally limited by natural rights. 

	Look, if Mr. Smith owes you $10, then he OWES YOU TEN DOLLARS. You can't go burn down his house and kill him if he doesn't pay. Is that too hard for you to understand? 


 
> I contend that even if the concept of "proportionality" is assumed to be valid,  if a person discovers somebody else trying to take his property, he is entitled to use whatever amount of force is necessary to stop that theft/burglary/robbery.  Up to an including lethal force, if that's what it takes.


	yes, you've made that baseless claim many times. So what. It remains a baseless claim that is clearly advocating the violation of personal rights. 


>   Even for 'mere property'.  You, apparently, are trying to claim that there can be, and is, some sort of artificial barrier to use of this self-defense concept.  That at some point, a person must allow his property to be taken.   Who invented that silly rule?


	liberals. A category to which you do not belong. And by liberal I of course mean to use  the original sense of the word. People who base their legal theory on natural/personal rights and so reject ANY form of statism. Example : 

	"NO TREASON. No. VI. The Constitution of No Authority. BY LYSANDER SPOONER. BOSTON: 1870."
	
	https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/spooner/NoTreason/


 
> I pointed out, which you have not admitted, that "intellectual property" can exist absent a government.  In fact, you erased my point, which is intellectually dishonest.


	No. I ignored your sophistry. I've no incentive to refute it because in turn you simply ignore arguments that you can't counter. 

	But I'll mention that it's not the first time you try to play the trick of pretending that crass forms of statism can be 'voluntary'. I remember well all the garbage you spewed defending the anti-open-borders 'policy' of the orange monkey aka trump,  claiming that in your 'private' tyranny there would be 'private' borders so the borders of the current americunt 'nation'  were valid. Hilarious.


	And you're trying to pull the same bullshit here. Making up a 'libertarian' patent system which doesn't exist and can't work, and then pretending that such imaginary system makes the patents granted to you by the american nazis, legitimate.  Please.


> 
> >    you live in a 'nation STATE' - one of the most toxic creations of statism. But hey, political philosophy isn't your strong suit is it.
> 
> Well, that is REALITY, at least for now.  Unlike you, I have proposed an idea to fix it.


	And here's another feature of reality :  you're using the statist patent system of that nation state. 



>                     Jim Bell
> 
>