|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 13, 2011 13:07:33 GMT -5
.....I guess I'll just mention a few of the topics that I have heard mentioned in years past as important to US citizens/voters: the economy, gay marriage, unemployment, poverty, overpopulation, pollution, medical costs, religious differences, race relations, education, crime, vice, inflation, privacy, war, custody, alimony, free speech, gun rights, drug regulation, hunger, women's rights, immigration, foreign trade, taxes, organ donation, justice, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, secession, .......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2011 16:20:16 GMT -5
here is one then.
police road side checks. any kind of check. dui, tags. looking for escaped crook. they can make up anything they want to. total f'ing bull shit. when i was 23 in my loud camaro i got pulled. i asked why. the cop said because i wanted to check you out. ill never forget that.
oand.. NO.. i have not been pulled or busted in 6 years. im squeaky clean.
|
|
|
Post by sonofabelch on Oct 13, 2011 17:36:43 GMT -5
here is one then. police road side checks. any kind of check. dui, tags. looking for escaped crook. they can make up anything they want to. total f'ing bull shit. when i was 23 in my loud camaro i got pulled. i asked why. the cop said because i wanted to check you out. ill never forget that. oand.. NO.. i have not been pulled or busted in 6 years. im squeaky clean. Werd. I used to have a '72 Nova when I was in high school and the local shit-bird cops used to pull me for any reason they wanted to. One time a cop was going in the opposite direction, pulled a u-turn and then pulled me when he got up to me. He got out, checked my tag and then told me he just stopped me because snow was covering my plate and he couldn't read it. I said bullshit because he had his lights on and was pulling a u turn way before he could have seen my tag lol. He just said that I could go now. But yeah, I'm not a fan of roadside blockades. I know the SCOTUS has ruled that they are legal as long as they are random and that all drivers are subject to them, though. That's so they can say they aren't singling certain people out, basically. I think it's a complete sham and hits hard against the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches. They get by all the legal crap by using the "implied consent" rules. To them, driving is not a right, but a privilege. You get your little license and virtually agree to all kinds of shit without even knowing it simply by driving down the road. It's implied that you consented to many of these kinds of things by virtue of you driving in public. It's implied that they can suck my nuts, too. But unless I feel like pulling laps around my yard for entertainment, I guess there's not much I can do about these kinds of laws unless we vote in people who are willing to attack these kinds of things. Where things get confusing is knowing the difference between unreasonable stops without consent and "legal" stops. If you are walking down the street, cops need some sort of reasonable suspicion that you have either committed a crime or are about to before they can detain you for any reason. If they don't have that, you can walk away at any time. Driving on public roads makes things different though. That's where they got us by the nads.
|
|
|
Post by sonofabelch on Oct 13, 2011 17:58:08 GMT -5
.....I guess I'll just mention a few of the topics that I have heard mentioned in years past as important to US citizens/voters: the economy, gay marriage, unemployment, poverty, overpopulation, pollution, medical costs, religious differences, race relations, education, crime, vice, inflation, privacy, war, custody, alimony, free speech, gun rights, drug regulation, hunger, women's rights, immigration, foreign trade, taxes, organ donation, justice, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, secession, ....... In a hurry tonight but I'll just tackle the easy ones... Gay marriage (or any marriage for that matter), race relations, drug regulation, hunger, abortion, woman's rights, organ donation, religion, and others are all social issues which the Federal Government has absolutely no business involving itself with. If states want to regulate them then they can have at it and people can decide if they want to live their lives under their state's rules or not. If not they can vote to change them or simply move.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2011 20:50:57 GMT -5
SOB the police should not even exist. but i think im 120 years late with that idea
|
|
|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 14, 2011 14:31:45 GMT -5
.....Driving on public roads makes things different though...... Finally (see thread title)! "Public". If the roads were private, the owner(s) could make the rules and insist that voluntary user/customers abide by them. Yes, it is hard to imagine private roads, but a road is really not that high-tech; it is a stretch of pavement...like a long driveway. Muc could make a road. There are probably too many roads and no way to decide which are needed. If the residents of an area decided they need a road and built one, they would be free of coercion concerning arbitrary rules. No one arrests you in your driveway, right? Gated communities already do this, too. Now, would the owners want them to be safe? Sure, but they probably wouldn't care if you had various contraband in the car; only that you didn't injure anyone. One only has a "right" to be loud, smelly and reckless on one's own property. If there was a free market in private roads, they would compete for convenience, smoothness, location, toll and safety. Unneeded roads wouldn't be built.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 14, 2011 14:41:29 GMT -5
.....I guess I'll just mention a few of the topics that I have heard mentioned in years past as important to US citizens/voters: the economy, gay marriage, unemployment, poverty, overpopulation, pollution, medical costs, religious differences, race relations, education, crime, vice, inflation, privacy, war, custody, alimony, free speech, gun rights, drug regulation, hunger, women's rights, immigration, foreign trade, taxes, organ donation, justice, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, secession, ....... In a hurry tonight but I'll just tackle the easy ones... Gay marriage (or any marriage for that matter), race relations, drug regulation, hunger, abortion, woman's rights, organ donation, religion, and others are all social issues which the Federal Government has absolutely no business involving itself with. If states want to regulate them then they can have at it and people can decide if they want to live their lives under their state's rules or not. If not they can vote to change them or simply move. .....Well, O.K., but my hope was to discuss each problem in the light of private property and a free market. Why should a state decide any of these things? Are you happy with them deciding? I'm not. For instance, if people own themselves, don't they own their organs? Does Muc own his kidney? If they own them, shouldn't they be allowed to dispose of (sell) them? And, in a free market, the price would be set between the buyer and seller. Others would have no say in the matter. "Problem", if any, solved - busybodies notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 14, 2011 14:51:44 GMT -5
SOB the police should not even exist. .....I agree, and there are many types of private police already. The more areas taken private, the more private protection agencies can be used instead of "public servant" police, whose main job is protecting the rulers. They claim to be our "servants" but none have ever offered to let me boss them. It's always the other way 'round. In a free market, the best protectors would flourish and the thugs would go out of business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2011 16:55:10 GMT -5
eventually ... 100 years ? 200 years ? 50 years ?
as SOB said. "the impending meltdown"
|
|
|
Post by sonofabelch on Oct 15, 2011 16:49:56 GMT -5
.....Driving on public roads makes things different though...... Finally (see thread title)! "Public". If the roads were private, the owner(s) could make the rules and insist that voluntary user/customers abide by them. Yes, it is hard to imagine private roads, but a road is really not that high-tech; it is a stretch of pavement...like a long driveway. Muc could make a road. There are probably too many roads and no way to decide which are needed. If the residents of an area decided they need a road and built one, they would be free of coercion concerning arbitrary rules. No one arrests you in your driveway, right? Gated communities already do this, too. Now, would the owners want them to be safe? Sure, but they probably wouldn't care if you had various contraband in the car; only that you didn't injure anyone. One only has a "right" to be loud, smelly and reckless on one's own property. If there was a free market in private roads, they would compete for convenience, smoothness, location, toll and safety. Unneeded roads wouldn't be built. Roads could and would be run down if the owner didn't take care of them. We examples of this literally everywhere we look- such as with run down apartment buildings, etc. We could say that we could simply choose another road to drive on but there's a little matter of space involved. There can only be so many roads built on available land. It's not like you could have 13 different roads side by side and we'd be able to choose which we wanted to drive to work on that day. If there's only road road nearby, we'd be forced to live by that road owner's effort in upkeep, no matter how large or small that effort would be. It would be nice to simply build another road to bypass it, but how long could those kinds of conditions last? People building roads whenever they felt like it. On the opposite side of the spectrum, what of roads no one wants anymore? Say there's a road to some town that has been abandoned...what becomes of leftover roads? Even before a road is built under a free market system, there comes issues of ownership and land leasing agreements. The only reason half the country's highways and roads have been built in the first place is due to the government (whatever level) coming down and literally taking land away from land owners and moving them out. With no force of government, there is no power to purge residents to make way for roads. If you have one, two, ten, of maybe 300 people along a path that someone has been eyeballing for road use that refuse to sell and move, your road project is, for lack of a better word, fucked All of that is on the macro level. It gets even hairier at the micro level. You'd be only free to drive on your own land without the permission of other land owners around you to drive on your land. I'd envision some kind of local co-op situations with right of use agreements, but that's on a positive side. In the negative, yer toast and cannot move from your own property under a completely free-market system. Agreements and right of use "treaties between people would have to be the norm, unless you can think of another way around it that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by sonofabelch on Oct 15, 2011 17:17:10 GMT -5
In a hurry tonight but I'll just tackle the easy ones... Gay marriage (or any marriage for that matter), race relations, drug regulation, hunger, abortion, woman's rights, organ donation, religion, and others are all social issues which the Federal Government has absolutely no business involving itself with. If states want to regulate them then they can have at it and people can decide if they want to live their lives under their state's rules or not. If not they can vote to change them or simply move. .....Well, O.K., but my hope was to discuss each problem in the light of private property and a free market. Why should a state decide any of these things? Are you happy with them deciding? I'm not. For instance, if people own themselves, don't they own their organs? Does Muc own his kidney? If they own them, shouldn't they be allowed to dispose of (sell) them? And, in a free market, the price would be set between the buyer and seller. Others would have no say in the matter. "Problem", if any, solved - busybodies notwithstanding. lol, in my one attempt to make a short post, I knew that would come back. What I was describing was the current system as it would look under a constitutional government that actually followed the constitution, or what it could be under a hybrid state-free market system. No, I don't like the fact that states have the power that they do, either, especially as it applies to strictly social issues. Let's take a couple, though. Organ Donors. I'm in agreement that people should be able to sell whatever parts of theirs they want to. It's their body, they own it. Under a free market system, I'd just like to see a system in place to insure that body parts are healthy with no issues. Maybe some kind of certification from credible doctors would suffice for companies in the donor business? Woman's Rights. At this point, we should all recognize that there is no such thing. Same with Black Rights, Handicapped Rights, or whatever else. These provisions in law were born to correct a perceived notion that the white man was dicking over everyone but the white man. The trouble is- it was true! My apologies to anyone who doesn't like this next part, but who cares. The white man has been fucking over everyone else in this country since it's inception. That's just how it is. It's how the system was set up from the beginning. The idea that minorities and women were included in the pretty language of the constitution and the declaration of independence is a complete sham- they were not. Eventually, this country had to actually make laws including them into the system legally. It's high time this country (or within the context of the original post here- the people of the land formerly known as the USA) wakes the fuck up and realizes people are fucking people- not slaves, not to be suppressed, and not to be made lower than anyone else. Aight, enough of the soap box. But, in light of a suddenly governmentless system, old prejudices will return, no doubt about it. Some people will simply not do business with other people simply because they are black...or chinese...or lesbians...whatever. Hopefully, people have learned enough over the past few hundred years to get past that, but I seriously doubt it. I'd really like to see how a free market system would fix that issue. Would it be simply to blacklist companies that practice fucked up racially based business? That sounds nice, but if that company is the only one for miles that sells hamburgers, I'd bet people would stuff themselves anyway. Gay Marriage. Who is anyone to tell two other people they can't get married? Enough on that one. I promise I won't comment on gay people's preferences if they don't comment on mine. It's no one's business, anyway. Drug Regulation. I think I commented on this in another post somewhere, but....do what you want to do and leave me alone to mine. Pick your poison and fry your brain to your heart's content. But, if you hurt me or mine in the process, I'm gonna come after you hard. You're gonna pay, dearly. I'm smart enough to fry my brain at home and I'd hope others would be too. If you take drug regulation out of the game, you also save billions, free up jail space for actual offenders, and wipe out a large chunk of oppressive government agencies in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 17, 2011 8:55:43 GMT -5
[...Some people will simply not do business with other people simply because they are black...or chinese...or lesbians...whatever. ... .....So what? Shouldn't that be up to buyer and seller...not busybodies that aren't part of the transaction? Should granny be forced to hire or accomodate unmarried couples? Should churches be forced to hire atheists or strippers? If there is a right to association isn't there a right to non-association? Can't blacks learn to cook and start their own restaurants?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 17, 2011 10:21:43 GMT -5
Finally (see thread title)! "Public". If the roads were private, the owner(s) could make the rules and insist that voluntary user/customers abide by them. Yes, it is hard to imagine private roads, but a road is really not that high-tech; it is a stretch of pavement...like a long driveway. Muc could make a road. There are probably too many roads and no way to decide which are needed. If the residents of an area decided they need a road and built one, they would be free of coercion concerning arbitrary rules. No one arrests you in your driveway, right? Gated communities already do this, too. Now, would the owners want them to be safe? Sure, but they probably wouldn't care if you had various contraband in the car; only that you didn't injure anyone. One only has a "right" to be loud, smelly and reckless on one's own property. If there was a free market in private roads, they would compete for convenience, smoothness, location, toll and safety. Unneeded roads wouldn't be built. Roads could and would be run down if the owner didn't take care of them. We examples of this literally everywhere we look- such as with run down apartment buildings, etc. Yes, there would be some roads better than others...like people, apartments and music. We only NEED to drive certain places. We would make sure THAT road was passable. Is there a right to a top-notch road to everywhere? "Road freedom"? Horrible! ;D You should see the road near our ranch! Nothing, I guess. Someone could claim it. I presume land ownership in a civilized libertarian society based on claiming un-owned land or real estate sales. I don't want government "purging" land by force. . In a gated community the people seem to be able to cooperate enough to build roads they all use. People either want to be civilized or they don't. Uncivilized people are called "outlaws". Yes, private roads presume that most people want to cooperate to survive. I think they do. Think of an old western town in the movies. Weren't they able to figure out where a street was needed without eminent domain? One would want the grocer to be able to get to work. These exist already. One doesn't have to have a passport/contract to walk into the Shopping Mall. As long as one acts civilized one can shop without a contract. One could maintain one's own stretch of road or hire someone else to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Ill on Oct 17, 2011 10:24:16 GMT -5
.....Don't lose sight of the fact that we were discussing police checks. If one road owner had drug dogs and one didn't, one could choose their route.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2011 10:38:57 GMT -5
road side shakedowns and being stopped searched and robbed would happen every hour. This happened to me in Jamaica. I had to give them money and other items to continue on our journey. Who knows the driver may have even been in on it.
this also happened to my buddy in Africa and he and his then wife were almost shot murdered and dumped in the woods. Only they got shookdown by the army.
|
|