jpahmad Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsj7H3d4050&list=UUok6mq_8zvOJDoRLAbU0lww 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fractional slacker Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 The sidewalk seller is not undercutting anyone. He is competing for customers in the market. The sidewalk seller paid a lower extortion fee and is thus able to charge less for the product. He is NOT initiating force and therefore he is not victimizing the store owner. Your claim that the store owner is a victim of the sidewalk seller is specious at best. The market is sending signals to store owner to get out of that business. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchoolofAthens Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 First of all, I applaud you for making a video about this. I love the fact that people put themselves out there at the risk of being criticized, just as Molyneux and Rose do. This topic especially is hot right now so I like to hear other peoples arguments and evaluate them to get myself closer to the truth on this one. I work at Church's Chicken part time, and I'd be mad if someone was selling chicken directly in front of the store. You know, even if what this guy was doing was taxed and regulated, you got to get off that property. Then the problem arises, who's property is the sidewalk? Sure it is public property, and of course it would be private property in a free society, but even under the system that we live under today of public sidewalks, it is very clear that the store owners have the right to the sidewalk in front of their stores. This is why they will put a bench in front of their store, a chess table, some decorations, chalkboards with menus and daily specials, or statues with advertisements, etc. So it isn't just that Garner was making the store owners mad, it was that he was violating their property rights. Garner should have gone to the store next door, stood on the sidewalk infront of a non-convenience store (with the owners permission so that he isn't violating their property) and sold them there. This might make the convenience store owner mad if his neighbor grants Garner permission to do so, but then there would be no issue with the violation of property rights. Just to add to that, his neighbor probably wouldn't let Garner sell cigarettes on his property because he would understand that if things were turned around, he wouldn't want his neighbor at the convenience store to allow Garner to sell furniture if his business has to do with furniture. Neighborhood businesses don't want to piss each other off. As anarchists and libertarians, we know that one isn't committing a crime by making a transaction with another business's potential customer, that isn't stealing or anything of that nature. So really I think it has more so to do with property rights and the fact that Garner was violating property rights, thus the store owners were victims of property violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 It's still the case that the stores are forced to pay the taxes or get business-threatening fines (or worse) and Garner was getting away with not paying those same taxes. Not a libertarian scenario, grant you, but its how they would see it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchoolofAthens Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 It's still the case that the stores are forced to pay the taxes or get business-threatening fines (or worse) and Garner was getting away with not paying those same taxes. Not a libertarian scenario, grant you, but its how they would see it. I don't think that would make the store owners victims of Garner, though. Both the store owners and Garner took risks to operate as they did. The store owners took risks with starting a business with heavy regulations, taxes, and government interference. Garner took risks with doing business outside of the regulations, and taxes. They make their choices and face the consequences of their choices - consequences of obeying and disobeying the government for example. I don't think they are victims of each other's business though. Again the only way I can see the store owners being victims is if they asked Garner to leave their front property and if he wouldn't leave. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertus Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Nicholas: The argument was not about trespassing but about competing in the cigarette business. Garner was not detained for trespassing. And even if trespassing played a role, Garner could have just moved a few metres so he would be on neutral ground and would have sold just as many cigarettes. I feel like people who bring the trespassing argument are grasping at straws. In any case, even if Garner was trespassing (which he wasn't) and even if Garner had been arrested for trespassing (which he wasn't), that wouldn't in any way impact the argument on whether selling cigarettes was a crime to begin with or whether "harm" by competition counts as a rights violation. Shirgall: your argument is that it's "not fair" that one business pays taxes while the other one doesn't, is that correct? That may very well be the case, but how does that relate to the question whether selling loosies is a crime against the competition? I think it doesn't have an bearing. Life is not fair. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Eric Garner created no victim. A person can only be responsible for not initiating force against other people, not managing the results of force being applied to other people. Instead of talking about abstract "victims" lets cut to chase and ask the precise question: Did Eric Garner violate the NAP by selling loose cigarettes in front of another store? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 The market is sending signals to store owner to get out of that business. No, there is no free market fractional slacker. In a free market, the store owner would just sell "loosie" cigarettes as well. Unfortunately, it is not legal. In a free market, Garner would not be able to compete with the store owner who would also sell single cigarettes (because obviously there is a market for it) and he would just go away. This is not a free market. I don't know why you keep using that term. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Shirgall: your argument is that it's "not fair" that one business pays taxes while the other one doesn't, is that correct? That may very well be the case, but how does that relate to the question whether selling loosies is a crime against the competition? I think it doesn't have an bearing. Life is not fair. Not a crime, but certainly unfair, and certainly an incentive for them to report the infraction. There's plenty of other reasons, like an overdose of statist Kool-aid, but I think it is the central one to considering them victims of Garner. I don't entirely agree with it beyond the fairness aspect, but I understand why they would feel the need to go a step further. A lot of people grow up learning that if they complain about something being unfair and seeing other people get away with the deal with the devil that starts with "there oughta be a law". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchoolofAthens Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Eric Garner created no victim. A person can only be responsible for not initiating force against other people, not managing the results of force being applied to other people. Instead of talking about abstract "victims" lets cut to chase and ask the precise question: Did Eric Garner violate the NAP by selling loose cigarettes in front of another store? That is what I'm saying! If I am operating a furniture business in the black market, I am not victimizing those with furniture businesses who follow regulations and pay taxes. We are taking different risks, not victimizing each other. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I don't know why this has become such a difficult scenario for people to understand. It's neither a property rights or moral issue. The NAP has little or nothing to do with this issue. This is about the circumstances store owners face today. Not in some magical libertarian future. JP very eloquently made the case as to why the store owners may have experienced a violation. This also isn't about free market principles, either for the store owners or for Garner. Since the free market has been usurped by the state already. There is no market that exists between the white and black markets, unless the actors participating are willing to take significant risks with their liberty and livelihood. In this case Garner can turn up outside their store where he is more likely to find willing customers who might otherwise have used the store so he can sell them his own cheap cigarettes. He never paid anything for that store to attract customers. He just took advantage of it. You can disagree if you like with the store owners calling the police. But it's hardly their fault when A: they have to pay taxes on their cigarettes and B: the only action they can take to stop him, is to call the police. That is what I'm saying! If I am operating a furniture business in the black market, I am not victimizing those with furniture businesses who follow regulations and pay taxes. We are taking different risks, not victimizing each other. As Stefan explained in that video. Store owners can't do anything about people selling loosies anywhere other than outside their store, because they simply aren't aware of them. They can do something when they are outside their store and the police are obliged to assist them in that. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 That is what I'm saying! If I am operating a furniture business in the black market, I am not victimizing those with furniture businesses who follow regulations and pay taxes. We are taking different risks, not victimizing each other. You are victimizing them if you set up shop right outside their front door and "syphon" business off their client stream or potential client stream. That is aggressive to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchoolofAthens Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 You are victimizing them if you set up shop right outside their front door and "syphon" business off their client stream or potential client stream. That is aggressive to me. That is why, above, I said it is a property rights issue. I am not victimizing anyone if I sell weed in the black market in Colorado while other people are selling regulated and taxed weed in dispensaries in Colorado. They aren't my victims of me anymore then they are victims of another competing dispensary. We are competing, taking different risks, but it is nothing more than competition. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 That is why, above, I said it is a property rights issue. I am not victimizing anyone if I sell weed in the black market in Colorado while other people are selling regulated and taxed weed in dispensaries in Colorado. They aren't my victims of me anymore then they are victims of another competing dispensary. We are competing, taking different risks, but it is nothing more than competition. Yes, but you're also not right outside the front door of my "legit" operation. Again though Nicholas, this is not a free market we are talking about. When there is the threat of force against competing, then it is not a free market. Black market entrepreneurs are using the force of the government to maintain an advantage. Look at it this way. Without government force, those on the black market would be disenfranchised. Their whole operation is predicated on the fact that their competitors are coerced into not competing with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Great video, jpahmad. Were you responding to a specific video that Larken posted? There is a direct relationship between risk and reward. There is room for both street peddlers and store owners without the need for it to be a zero sum game. The fact that the store owner can't legally sell loose cigarettes is largely irrelevant when discussing the philosophy of capitalism. The store owner has the advantage of better security (cameras, gun under the counter, bars on the windows, safes in the back) and the space for a larger inventory whereas a guy wandering the street can be mugged. attacked, arrested, or killed much more easily. Some people sell products on eBay, some people sell trinkets off a blanket or table set up by the side of the road, some people pay for storefronts. Every one of these business plans are valid. It is the responsibility of the business owner to make their profits in the best way they see fit. They do not have the right to invoke the violence of the state to have another business shut down. Isn't this the definition of crony capitalism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchoolofAthens Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Yes, but you're also not right outside the front door of my "legit" operation. Again though Nicholas, this is not a free market we are talking about. When there is the threat of force against competing, then it is not a free market. Black market entrepreneurs are using the force of the government to maintain an advantage. Look at it this way. Without government force, those on the black market would be disenfranchised. Their whole operation is predicated on the fact that their competitors are coerced into not competing with them. But Garner was not using the force of the government anymore than I'd be using the force of the government to sell homemade lemonade at my lemonade stand. I'm not forcing things upon anyone, I'm not initiating the use of force, I'm not even advocating for the use of force. If I sell light bulbs that have been banned by the EPA, I am not making the other light bulb businesses my victims. I am choosing to take risks in the black market while others are choosing to take risks in the white market. No one is being victimized save for the businesses and consumers, and who are they being victimized by? The state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 But Garner was not using the force of the government.... Everyone uses the force of the government. It's not as simple as, "If I don't call the police, I don't use the force of the government." It's as simple as, "If what you're doing exists because government makes it so, the you're using the force of the government." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchoolofAthens Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Everyone uses the force of the government. It's not as simple as, "If I don't call the police, I don't use the force of the government." It's as simple as, "If what you're doing exists because government makes it so, the you're using the force of the government." Then the business owners were using the force of the government because the licensing, inspections, regulations, etc. that are barriers of entry to poorer competitors is using the force of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 But Garner was not using the force of the government anymore than I'd be using the force of the government to sell homemade lemonade at my lemonade stand. I'm not forcing things upon anyone, I'm not initiating the use of force, I'm not even advocating for the use of force. If I sell light bulbs that have been banned by the EPA, I am not making the other light bulb businesses my victims. I am choosing to take risks in the black market while others are choosing to take risks in the white market. No one is being victimized save for the businesses and consumers, and who are they being victimized by? The state. Black markets and the state are in cooperation. Just look at the "war on drugs." Did you guys forget abut that? I bet the argument could be made that the black market is the state. They are two sides of the same coin. Like I said above, without force, the "panhandlers" of the world would be out of business. Without force, the convenience store owner would not only still be in business, but thrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 But Garner was not using the force of the government... Garner probably would not have had much of a market without the force of government. He probably didn't do nearly as much "compliance" work as the store did. When was his last OSHA inspection? Where's his business license? Construction permit? Sidewalk obstruction easement? Accounting audit? Public statements on business financials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Then the business owners were using the force of the government because the licensing, inspections, regulations, etc. that are barriers of entry to poorer competitors is using the force of government. Yes, this is true. But the thing you're avoiding is that it's partially your fault. You're not getting out of this situation blameless and innocent. Neither am I, but I'm willing to accept my own portion of the blame. Are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchoolofAthens Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Garner probably would not have had much of a market without the force of government. He probably didn't do nearly as much "compliance" work as the store did. When was his last OSHA inspection? Where's his business license? Construction permit? Sidewalk obstruction easement? Accounting audit? Public statements on business financials? I don't get why anarchists are calling a man who gets around government interference - inspections, licensing, permits, auditing, taxes, etc. - a victimizer. By following that logic, little girls and boys who sell lemonade at a lemonade stand are victimizers of Walmart and the lemonade businesses. When was the last time the children got a government inspection? Do they even have licenses to sell lemonade? Did they get a government permit to build their lemoande stant? Are they being audited and taxed? Imaginge saying "Theses children selling lemonade are making victims out of these businesses!" Yes, this is true. But the thing you're avoiding is that it's partially your fault. You're not getting out of this situation blameless and innocent. Neither am I, but I'm willing to accept my own portion of the blame. Are you? I'm not sure how anything related to this case is my fault or your fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 You are victimizing them if you set up shop right outside their front door and "syphon" business off their client stream or potential client stream. That is aggressive to me.I disagree. If the sidewalk is owned by the store, then fair enough, get him for trespassing. Granted, setting up shop directly in front of a competing business is a dick of a thing to do, but it does not violate NAP unless he is trespassing. The storeowner was violating NAP by arranging a kidnapping (again, assuming the sidewalk is not his property). I think NAP is very clear to on this matter. Of course the cops were making gross violations of NAP and should be (self) censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 I disagree. If the sidewalk is owned by the store, then fair enough, get him for trespassing. Granted, setting up shop directly in front of a competing business is a dick of a thing to do, but it does not violate NAP unless he is trespassing. The storeowner was violating NAP by arranging a kidnapping (again, assuming the sidewalk is not his property). I think NAP is very clear to on this matter. Of course the cops were making gross violations of NAP and should be (self) censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored! I'm quite sure he was violating some sort of zoning/loitering restriction. In the current world we live in, the state is the entity that grants property to an individual. This includes defining boundaries between commercial business and between store fronts and sidewalks. It's the framework that everyone who does business in this world has to deal with. Is it a good reality? No obviously. Is it the current reality? Yes. The store owner sets up shop on the premiss that no one is going to hang around outside his front door and sell competing merchandise on the black market. This is because loitering is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 ....and B: the only action they can take to stop him, is to call the police. They could have told him to 'get the hell off 'my' property'. Whether or not they did this, I don't know. They have the right to defend 'their' property according to NAP. There is some grey area here (about what degree of force may be used to defend private property), but (IMO) a decent person would provide a sufficient quantity of verbal warnings before having the trespasser forcible removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I disagree. If the sidewalk is owned by the store, then fair enough, get him for trespassing. Granted, setting up shop directly in front of a competing business is a dick of a thing to do, but it does not violate NAP unless he is trespassing. The storeowner was violating NAP by arranging a kidnapping (again, assuming the sidewalk is not his property). I think NAP is very clear to on this matter. Of course the cops were making gross violations of NAP and should be (self) censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored! I think you, Nicholas Evans, and especially Chris Cantwell are misinterpreting the NAP. The Non-Aggression Principle does not mean that you're not supposed to be aggressive towards anyone, ever. It means that you're not supposed to Initiate aggression against anyone else. ------------------------- Also crucial, Chris Cantwell declares (and I both you and Nicholas Evans believe) that Eric Garner was arrested for selling loose cigarettes. But this isn't accurate. Eric Garner was arrested because we-the-people declared that selling loose cigarettes is illegal, but he decided to sell loose cigarettes anyway. Since you, and me, and Nicholas Evans, and Chris Cantwell are part of "we the people", then "we the people" initiated force against Eric Garner. The main problem with your (implied) defense of Eric Garner is that he didn't try to get his money back from "we-the-people". Instead, he tried to get it back from very specific store-owners. Basically, everyone who wants government to do anything is guilty. But punishing the less-than-five store owners who happened to be around Eric Garner for the sins of 300 million people is unjust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jer Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Everyone uses the force of the government. It's not as simple as, "If I don't call the police, I don't use the force of the government." It's as simple as, "If what you're doing exists because government makes it so, the you're using the force of the government." Were the Jews in concentration camps using the force of naziism if they ate the food given to them? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Were the Jews in concentration camps using the force of naziism if they ate the food given to them? Downvoted because you referenced the Nazis, and because I'm not sure whether you watched Stefan's video on the Eric Garner case. By the way, Chris Cantwell's video is really annoying because he's pretending that the Eric Garner incident occurred in a free market. But the Eric Garner incident occurred in a police state, and the favorable price of Eric Garner's cigarettes was created by government laws. So Garner didn't "produce a better product", nor did he "provide a better product at a cheaper price". He simply broke the law. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 The most important part of that video comes at about 15:30. Off-screen guy says, "To make a statement like, 'Evil is a matriarchal thing.' is ridiculous." On-screen guy corrects him, "The title of the video is called 'The Matriarchal Lineage Of Evil'." And he further explains, "Our mothers abuse us as children, and we grow up to think that violence is okay." Off-screen guy interrupts and asks, "Well, what about that fathers?" On-screen guy says, "Believe me. Do you think that fathers abusing their children doesn't get enough attention? In my book it does." Off-screen guy says, "Yeah, but to make a claim that evil comes from the.....that evil comes from women is pretty ridiculous." (They go on for about two minutes.) Off-screen guy concludes, "Honestly, I didn't hear very much of it (meaning the videos from which On-Screen Guy is making his arguments) , but I did hear him say make that statement, and it was an unprovoked kind of thing. It was in a larger conversation, but it wasn't like he qualified it and said, 'Some women are violent.' He didn't qualify any of it. He just said that 'Evil is of the matriarchy.'" --------------------------------- Now which of these two people do you believe spent the most time listening to Stefan's arguments, so that he could fully understand it before he commented on it? And which do you think became so overly emotional in response to small sentences within the conversation that he could no longer accurately process what Stefan was saying? Granted, that's not a difficult question to answer. But realize that this entire video takes one-or-two-sentences-at-a-time, pauses, and allows the commentators to criticize. Their defense is that none of the soundbytes they're playing are edited - meaning, (I think), that no one chopped them into pieces and then re-assembled them to quote Stefan out-of-context. Unfortunately, it never dawns on them that clipping one-or-two-sentences from a 90 minute long conversation isn't a reliable means of understanding the point of that conversation. Nor do they consider that they're unwittingly revealing some very unflattering data about their ability to think deeply, withhold judgment before all of the requisite information is presented, and not let one's emotional reactions to small words and small sentences cloud their processing ability. As such, I don't recommend that you watch the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 The most important part of that video comes at about 15:30. I thought it was more telling when the off-screen guy said that Stef's strategy for liberty was for liberty minded people to out breed the state. That is such an obvious strawman of Stef's actual point that we need to spread peaceful parenting in order to spread liberty, that he obviously knows Stef's real position and is therefore intentionally spinning it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I thought it was more telling when the off-screen guy said that Stef's strategy for liberty was for liberty minded people to out breed the state. That is such an obvious strawman of Stef's actual point that we need to spread peaceful parenting in order to spread liberty, that he obviously knows Stef's real position and is therefore intentionally spinning it. I don't think he does. I've been devouring a lot of posts from The Last Psychiatrist, and his/her most interesting ones concern advertising. Before you read the blog, you strongly think you make your decisions independently of commercials. Afterwards, you cry and get mad. But you mostly wonder what your life would've been like if you really hadn't been so influenced by commercials. ------------------------------- Advertising creates consumerism just as parenting creates government. Advertising also creates the false sense that "Everyone else is affected by these commercials; not me!" Hell, the false sense that you're beyond influence by advertising is necessary for you to further engage in consumerism. And in seemingly unrelated news, Chris Cantwell is strongly implying that Eric Garner's actions were heroic because they challenged the state and its tax laws. And he's implying that Stefan wants us to use peaceful parenting to outbreed statists. But he doesn't realize that cheering on Eric Garner for defying the system, (while Cantwell himself does nothing similarly heroic or daring), is allowing Garner to represent Cantwell's best interest and values. Nor does Cantwell realize that he took Stefan's jokes about breeding, (which were only said to individual callers to encourage them to have families), as if they were clarion demands that all listeners create a voting-bloc. So I don't think Cantwell realizes that he sees Garner as a quasi-heroic representation of himself, (the same way we're all supposed to see the police and legislators as non-heroic representatives of ourselves). Nor does he see that his own desire to fill the government with "people like him" is the only reason that he interpreted Stefan's joke that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Eric Garner was arrested because we-the-people declared that selling loose cigarettes is illegal, but he decided to sell loose cigarettes anyway. Since you, and me, and Nicholas Evans, and Chris Cantwell are part of "we the people", then "we the people" initiated force against Eric Garner. Is it your assertion that since I am person, and 'we the people' have initiated force, that I have initiated force? Note that I specifically do not endorse, consent to, or acknowlege the legitimacy of 'we the people' having the power to enforce their will on anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 . Downvoted because you referenced the Nazis, and because I'm not sure whether you watched Stefan's video on the Eric Garner case. Is referencing the National Socialists (as I prefer to call them) really worthy of a downvote? I think his point was valid in the context of what he was replying to. Should we not push absolute assertions to their extremes to see if they still hold true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 They could have told him to 'get the hell off 'my' property'. Whether or not they did this, I don't know. They have the right to defend 'their' property according to NAP. There is some grey area here (about what degree of force may be used to defend private property), but (IMO) a decent person would provide a sufficient quantity of verbal warnings before having the trespasser forcible removed. Who knows, perhaps they had tried and done that. But it still doesn't change the option. Why are people expecting the store owners, Garner the police or anyone for that matter, to be abiding by the NAP? The NAP like the free market has been usurped already, by all the threats from the state. So unless you want a bunch of black market guys swarming around your store, taking advantage of all the custom your created and the high prices your enforced to pay. The police these days are sadly the only option to remove this unreasonable advantage. Unreasonable because the store cannot compete with them because of the high risks attached to this advantage. Cantwell suggests it was a dick move to have reported him. Maybe it was, but you can't ignore how dickish it was of Garner to take advantage of the store owners predicament, right under their nose. Of course no one is suggesting that Garner deserved to die in the whole incident. But he understood the risk he was taking, given his history with the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Is it your assertion that since I am person, and 'we the people' have initiated force, that I have initiated force? Note that I specifically do not endorse, consent to, or acknowlege the legitimacy of 'we the people' having the power to enforce their will on anyone. Kind of. You are arguing that your verbal disagreement with the creation of the law that killed Eric Garner makes you "less guilty" that those who supported the creation of that law. I'm asserting that arguing you are "less guilty" means that you've admitted that you're "guilty", and that Eric Garner's ghost, (which doesn't exist, but makes a useful prop), doesn't distinguish between the Less Guilty and the More Guilty. It just hates everyone who is Guilty, to the exact same degree. I raucously make fun of Video Guy for trying to turn Eric Garner into a heroic symbol of State-Smashing Courage, especially because: (1) He does have the courage to smash the state, and (2) He doesn't realize that trying to turn other people's actions into the ultimate symbols of Who You Are, What You Want, and What You Value is the devil's bargain that creates government in the first place. It is hilarious that Video Guy's first action was to advertise that he has no balls, and that his second action was to imply that Eric Garner's "balls" - as incorrectly implied by Video Guy - are really Video Guy's balls! (It's not, in Video Guy's opinion, that he has no balls; it's that Eric Garner's balls were a perfect symbol of his own balls. So the tragedy is not even that the State cut of Video Guy's balls when they murdered Eric Garner; it's that Stefan doesn't get that Eric Garner's balls are his balls, and so Stefan's arguments prevent Video Guy from basking in Eric Garner's courage.) Discerning listeners realize that the very act of saying, "That guy's balls are my balls!", is advertising that you don't have any balls. ------------------------------ In your case, the argument seems to be, "Well, at least I don't support the existence of the laws that killed Eric Garner!" But if your position doesn't force you into any form of meaningful action, then you're implying that your views don't make you belong to a specific category of people. This, however, turns yours (and everyone else's) political position into advertising brands - the same way that telling everyone whether you prefer Coke or Pepsi turns your soda-purchasing habits into advertising brands. And if you don't realize that pretty much everyone is doing the same thing, (speaking about their views as if they were advertising brands, rather than using those views to Do Something Concrete And Meaningful), then you don't realize that the Government sees you in essentially the same way that it sees your political opponents: Non-Threatening. Please note that I, too, haven't turned my political views into anything Concrete And Meaningful. But I'm saying that I know that I haven't and I don't wish to wrongly assert that I'm better than anyone else who also hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts