Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

[williatw]

Home invasion suspect arrested after woman opens fire

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Home- ... index.html

[Teahive]

(This is one of the big failures of the Libertarians argument; the notion that someone should escape the consequences of having irresponsible sex in which an unwanted child is created.)

How many Libertarians you know argue that?

It would seem to be all of them.

It would seem that you are clearly misunderstanding the libertarian argument. Intentionally, I suspect. Thus not worth arguing.

[Diogenes]

How many Libertarians you know argue that?

It would seem to be all of them.

It would seem that you are clearly misunderstanding the libertarian argument. Intentionally, I suspect. Thus not worth arguing.

Pray enlighten me. How are Libertarians against people creating unwanted children?

In what manner does a Libertarian propose to deal with this problem?

[hanelyp]

Let each man do as he will, as it does no harm.

That's one statement of the Libertarian position, one I agree with. Also part of the philosophy is that if a man messes up (such as by having children he can't afford), his neighbour isn't on the hook. The argument that the man should not be held responsible is more libertine than libertarian.

Many positions advocated by the "libertarian" party in fact are blind to harm, thus more libertine, when viewed from a more conservative position. It is on this point of whether an activity is really harmless to society that I often differ from MSimon and the libertarian party.

[williatw]

Let each man do as he will, as it does no harm.

That's one statement of the Libertarian position, one I agree with. Also part of the philosophy is that if a man messes up (such as by having children he can't afford), his neighbour isn't on the hook. The argument that the man should not be held responsible is more libertine than libertarian.

Many positions advocated by the "libertarian" party in fact are blind to harm, thus more libertine, when viewed from a more conservative position. It is on this point of whether an activity is really harmless to society that I often differ from MSimon and the libertarian party.

Here are the political positions of Gary Johnson who I voted for in the last election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... ry_Johnson

Which are the ones which are libertine positions? Cutting spending across the board by 43% to head off our financial Armageddon? Support for the 2nd Amendment? Probably in your eyes ending the ruinous war on drugs?
Because of course he thinks drug use is harmless: http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/drugs

We advocate a “Don’t do Drugs” policy. Drugs can be harmful, addictive and destructive to our lives and society. The current war on drugs, however, has not been successful. ...Our America Initiative believes that one of the best solutions to help with the many problems caused by drugs is to legalize marijuana. We do not advocate the legalization of any other drugs and believe that harm reduction measures should be implemented.

[Diogenes]

Let each man do as he will, as it does no harm.

That's one statement of the Libertarian position, one I agree with. Also part of the philosophy is that if a man messes up (such as by having children he can't afford), his neighbour isn't on the hook. The argument that the man should not be held responsible is more libertine than libertarian.

The Notion that someone should tolerate the starvation of one's neighbor's children is contrary to human nature. It is a non-starter for most people. As the only tolerable solution is for the neighbors to feed the starving children, the defacto result is that the neighbors have to pay for another man's irresponsible behavior.

Many positions advocated by the "libertarian" party in fact are blind to harm, thus more libertine, when viewed from a more conservative position. It is on this point of whether an activity is really harmless to society that I often differ from MSimon and the libertarian party.

The Libertarian philosophy is simplistic and short sighted. It is as you say "blind" to the consequences of the principles it advocates. Even so, I can't wait to hear how Teahive will explain a Libertarian solution to the problem of fatherless children.


I cannot fathom such a thing, so it will be an enlightening experience for me should he successfully propose a "Libertarian" solution. (with a caveat that it does not violate Libertarian principles.)

[williatw]

"Who Are The Police At War With?"

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/20 ... -with.html


...Why do the Police need them? Who are the Police at war with?

[Stubby]

Drug cartels.
Neat all in one package. Take way your guns so they can oppr I mean protect you better.

[Stubby]

Bill Stevens on gun control

[williatw]

Bill Stevens on gun control

Thanks for the link....that was a bi&%h slappin' if I ever heard one.

[MSimon]

Drug cartels.
Neat all in one package. Take way your guns so they can oppr I mean protect you better.

Especially when you consider that the criminal cartels are a creation of government.

We had no drug cartels when drugs were legal. We had no alcohol gangs when alcohol was legal.

The first Federal gun control legislation was passed in response to Federal Alcohol Prohibition.

Clever these Federales and those who support them (directly or objectively). And if you support Prohibition you support the Leviathan.

Who opposes prohibition? Who opposes the Federal militarization of police? You would be surprised.

http://www.leap.cc/

[MSimon]

Police ignore violent crime to go after druggies. Why?

There is a Federal Bounty on drug arrests. The police also profit by asset seizure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VsseaDzNf8

Not to mention the contracts that require private prisons be filled.

Sounds suspiciously like a police state to me.

The racist origins of the Drug War:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/2 ... 70878.html

[MSimon]

And the Democrats are getting prepared for the end of drug prohibition by calling Republicans racist. Which on its face is laughable. For now.

But when you look at the racist origins of the drug war - and it will be looked at intensely as the war winds down - who will people today most connect with the Drug War? Republicans.

Voila - the Republicans are racist - with proof.

If I was a Republican and wanted to scotch this I would call for more arrests of white people - to even up the stats. Especially given that whites use drugs at slightly higher rates than blacks.

And there is proof from the mouth of a Federal Marshall that the prohibition regime does not go after whites very aggressively. Going to be fun watching that on the TV.

I look forward to the next Republican campaign slogan "We need to arrest more white people for drugs" because you know given the way the Party is constituted now they could never call for an end to Prohibition.

Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. Excellent!!!

A paper on the subject:

2. How the Drug War Targeted Black Communities

By almost any measure, the drug war's impact on African American communities has been devastating. Millions of African Americans have been imprisoned, many have been unfairly treated by the criminal justice system, the rights of both legitimate suspects and average citizens have been violated and the quality of life of many millions more has been adversely affected. These effects are the consequences of deliberate decisions; first, to fight a 'war' on drugs, and second, to fight that war against low-level street dealers in communities populated by people of color. In this section, I consider the impact of the War on Drugs specifically on the African American community.

a. Mass Incarceration and Disproportionate Arrests

As a result of the War on Drugs, African American communities suffer from a phenomenon I call 'mass incarceration.' Not only are large numbers of African Americans incarcerated, African Americans are incarcerated at percentages that exceed any legitimate law enforcement interest and which negatively impact the African American community. While African Americans only comprise twelve percent of the U.S. population, they are forty-six percent of those incarcerated in state and federal prisons. At the end of 1999, over half a million African American men and women were held in state and federal prisons. A disparity this great appears inexcusable on its face. However, the inequity is even worse when one considers the rate of incarceration and the proportion of the African American population that is incarcerated.

The rate of incarceration measures the likelihood that any African American male will be sentenced to prison. In 2000, the rate of incarceration for African American males nationwide was 3457 per 100,000. In comparison, the rate of incarceration for white males was 449 per 100,000. This means, on average, African American males were 7.7 times more likely to be incarcerated than white males. For some age groups, the racial disparities are even worse. For young men between the ages of 25 and 29, African Americans are 8.7 times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. For 18 and 19 year olds, African American men are 8.8 times more likely to be incarcerated than whites.

Another way to measure the extent of mass incarceration is to examine the proportion of the African American population that is serving time in prison. In some jurisdictions, as many as one third of the adult African American male population may be incarcerated at any given time. Nationwide, 1.6 % of the African American population is in prison. However, nearly 10% of African American males ages 25-29 are in prison. Nearly 8% of African American males between the ages of 18 and 39 are in prison.

The mass incarceration of African Americans is a direct consequence of the War on Drugs.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/crime09.htm

I look forward to the Republicans calling for jailing more whites for drugs. To prove they are not racist.

[MSimon]

Now if you study sociology you would learn that there is a break down of morality when the male to female ratio differs even a little from 1 to 1. That breakdown shows up with ratios as small as 1.05 to 1. Especially so when the 1.05 is the female component.

So we have the "morality party" causing a moral breakdown in the black community with its prohibition policies similar to what you see after a war where large numbers of males are killed or away from home.

We saw that in the 1920s (post WW1) and in the 1960s during the Vietnam War. Women will "give it away" to snag a mate in such conditions. And if they can't snag a mate at least they can snag a baby. Anecdote: the 60s were a very "good time" for me.

This will all come out in time and further discredit the "moralists". I have done a fair number of posts on it myself. Preparing the ground.

You can't do just one thing. And you can't fool mother nature.

[MSimon]

Now what has this breakdown of morality caused politically?

If there are no males available for economic sustenance the women will turn to government. And the socialists have been happy to oblige. So now you have a politically important segment of society dependent on government. The very thing Republicans decry. But which they are causing with their prohibition policies.

This too will come out. And Republicans will be the worse for it. Yes!!!!!

So for all that and a number of other reasons (I'm not welcome) I have chosen to no longer support Republicans.