shirgall

I don't see casting a vote as legitimizing. Popular support for an argument does not address its validity. As for our efforts in these forums having an effect... I really don't see that either.

Because, empirically, doing both things has absolutely zero effect on the slide towards socialism for me. I'm already under the threat of force, so it's a pragmatic choice, not a moral one. Mail ballot here in Washington. The effort is trivial.

In every transaction each participant comes away with something they wanted more than what they gave up. Those people making the products are getting a better deal than the alternatives they might be considering, including just walking away from the deal. This works locally. This works globally. The distortion is when arbitrary boundaries are created by tariffs and other taxes which skew this fundamental truth. When this happens it is possible for there to be winners and losers in a transaction, and it is governments that choose. An agreement about free trade should never be more than a paragraph.

Voting for Trump is not self-erasure for me. My state is so incredibly left-leaning I only register as a protest vote. Obviously not voting has not deterred anyone in the slightest. The question is which pointless activity provides me the most value, the moral self-licensing of a protest vote or the moral self-licensing of a non-vote.

I agree. I was once membership director for a state party. The problem with the Libertarian Party is that once it gets access to the ballot, and of a size that can start attracting funds, it tends to be an attractive target for being co-opted by LINOs that want to use those powers for their own personal ends. When that happens the organization devolves into internecine warfare in parliamentary procedure, judicial committees, rules committees, and worse. We had to have a set of rules that met the Secretary of State's requirements for certain procedures, had to meet public laws on notification and mail ballots, and yet were too small to get state funding of our elections and conventions (and many of us had enough pride to say we wouldn't accept that money if we had). Where's the leaders, you ask? Well, who wants the thankless task of leading people who don't wish to be lead? Our leaders burned out from being attacked by every side to any dispute. It's a party, so anyone can associate with it. Any barriers placed in the way of association are decried as counter to the spirit of libertarianism. As a result, there's no guarantee that a "big L" Libertarian Party will, in fact, completely espouse and understand "little l" libertarian philosophy. Instead it is a magnet for the disaffected. Years later, I look back on a lot of the people I fought side by side with and am often astounded by their transformations. They are out there supporting Bernie or the Greens just as much as others from that era are supporting Gary Johnson. I'm pretty discouraged by it all. Even so, as colossal wastes of time go, there are worse things. For the record, I'll also take a shot at some questions that were aimed at @dsayers, I do not support a penalty for corporal punishment, but I do support those that received such treatment seeking some sort of reconciliation with their parents, or independence from them if they cannot get it. Frankly, those people were wronged and many can ascribe physical and mental damage to their treatment. I don't support social security, even though I've been paying into it since 1984.

I made a try for it when I ran for office, but I treated the situation as a way to get out the message and teach people more than it was for actually winning. I brought my opponent to tears in her Willamette Week interview, but I don't relish that.

All rights are negatives against government, not anyone else. Just like the positives are called "powers". It is a recent construction to claim that rights extend to negatives for people. Frankly, because corporations are legal fictions of the state, I don't mind rights getting applied to them too. Lay with the pigs and get dirty in the mud.

People respond to incentives, whatever their origin.

They aren't worthless to the people that want them... I'm not saying it's the right way to do things, just pointing out that people do respond to incentives. To my eye, the benefits are far greater for women than they are for men, and that women insist on marriage for cultural *and* economic reasons. Yes, there are those more attracted to welfare benefits and that has diminished the drive of late, but getting married and having kids was a given in my generation.

I've only got a few moments, so I'm going to cut to the chase. In the execution of a detention or arrest or any other legal duty, police use ever-rising levels of force to counteract and overcome resistance until they can continue with their detention or arrest. If you fight them, they escalate. This is the model that has been in police doctrine (and backed up by law) since the 1980s. There is no equivalent for parents and children. Here's an example of the end game from Washington law (where I live): RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding. (1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases: (a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or (b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty. © When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid: (i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony; (ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or (iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or (iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon. (2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)© of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following: (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or (b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given. (3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section. (4) This section shall not be construed as: (a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or (b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section. [ 1986 c 209 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.040.]

Because of the special status of "legally married" in the law.

Indeed, the NAP is a valid principle, but in and of itself is only one of a set of principles necessary for a reasonable existence. Among the other principles are individuals being proprietors of their own existence, private property, voluntary relationships, and informed consent. That is a start towards addressing the "gray areas".

And I wasn't a threat to them because I pulled way over to give them room to approach, turned off my car and radio, rolled down my windows, turned on my interior lights, put my hands on the steering wheel, looked the cop in the face when I talked to him, and was slow and deliberate in my speech, too. If everyone did this things would be a lot smoother for the second most dangerous activity for police (traffic stops). The most dangerous? Responding to a domestic violence call. Being a past parliamentarian for ASLET (American Society for Law Enforcement Trainers) doesn't hurt either.

After all, protections are not needed for inoffensive speech.

Indeed, I'm hoping we'll see some sort of reputation backlash against Twitter for the lopsided banning of Milo versus other people who post on the system...

I don't think Stefan's presentations are one-sided on these topics. Not complying with Police instructions requires the police to escalate. This is risky behavior for a subject. The criminal history aspect is included to speak to the state of mind of the subject, because the subject is no longer available to articulate his state of mind. Stefan is trying to help us understand what might have happened. The criminal history aspect may be tangential to some, but without being there or having perfect recording, we have to recreate the situation in our mind. Castile may have been innocent, but I don't think the police officer is going to get indicted either. When I get pulled over by police (it happened on the rare occasion) and I'm carrying (the last three times I was pulled over) I'm really really clear on what I am doing and why and I give the officer no reason to escalate or rush what is going on. To date, I have never been shot by a police officer, but that's anecdotal.

Evolution downgrades effects that affect the ability to have viable offspring. Gullibility can take a long time, lowering the chances it will kill you before you breed and rear children. It's not perfect, it's "good enough".

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/events/republican-national-convention?intcmp=rnc2016#lf-content=168400292:[email protected]

It does appear to bea Heat Street misinterpretation of http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/rap-enq/r3922-t2.asp that went wild. Translated except, one third of the way down:

A fair answer, I think I felt constrained by the bully interrupting and cutting off the speaker. Thank *you* as well for confronting an abuser.

Yeah, not everyone suffers from "TL;DR". There are mixed results. However, there's a lot more garbage to sift through than there used to be. It's discouraging to start studying something and realize that most of the sources have no support from studies or critique.

Indeed, no one gives money to the Mafia just because they can hurt you, it's also because one believes they can get away with it.

There's so many things to cover. Heck, "I am delivering ice cream" juxtaposed with the body bag with pigtails and a doll infuriates me, and the torture story is getting out there more.

Well, I upgraded the lights to LEDs... Indeed, there's a reason free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment. The loyalists were claiming majority support of the people in the colonies well into the Revolutionary War, even though the real numbers are estimated at 15-20% wishing to remain with England (versus approximately 45% support for the revolutionaries). The great thing about the Internet is that there's a lot more information, but I don't think people are really taught critical analysis very well. If anything, the Internet has done more to support "short attention span syndrome" than any other medium.

Yes, and there are police in prison because of this. Most try to be good in bad situations and sometimes make mistakes but there is no mercy in courts for the deliberately evil. One of the interesting side effects of the "reasonable and prudent person standard" is that it is judged by 12 random people deemed reasonable and unbiased by voir dire. When anyone makes a claim of self defense, they are saying "yes, I did commit a homicide but I was right to do it." The defendant has made a positive defense and the burden of proof shifts to them. Then that police officer has to articulate everything they have learned about lethal force, the details of the specific situation and how they apply, and provide documentation of that. Someone with a lot of training has to meet a higher standard than someone that does not know all these things. It's the "you, of all people, should have known better" principle.