Archives: August/September 2022

Excerpts from Reason's vaults

26 years ago

December 1996

"You can't understand technology without understanding how people think about technology, and, of course, you need to know the bad ideas as well as the good. That's why I want to insert a recommendation of just one influentially bad book, Thorstein Veblen's The Engineers and the Price System (1921). Veblen ably advocates a leading myth of the machine age: the idea that material technology 'advances' because of people's collective efforts, only to be manipulated and hindered by capitalists for the sake of their private profits. This idea represents a profound misapprehension of the ways in which material technology is affected by investment, market prices, and property rights. Veblen recommended that capitalists be replaced by a 'Soviet of technicians' that could 'take care of the material welfare of the underlying population'—a proposal that is either chilling or comic, depending on the way you want to take it, but that is very much in the 20th-century spirit."
Stephen Cox
"Art and Artifacts"

30 years ago

December 1992

"To put it simply, [in Islands in the Street: Gangs and American Urban Society, author Martin Sanchez] Jankowski finds it much more fruitful to think of gangs in the context of politics than in the context of crime. Gangs carry on a very taut, intense dance with their communities. Sometimes they are resented for the drugs and violence they bring. But just as often, they are looked upon as neighborhood heroes, particularly when they drive out some alien force, which they often do….Once formed, however, gangs are very careful to assess their place in the community. In particular, they are cautious not to commit petty crimes—robbery, burglary, auto theft—among the people they know. Instead, they judiciously export their crimes. Within their own neighborhoods, they specialize in services of a strong-arm variety. Gangs will torch buildings for landlords, carry out contracts against undesirables, offer 'protection' to storeowners, and run small gambling rackets (when not yet into dope dealing)."
William Tucker
"Hangin' With the Homeboys"

46 years ago

November 1976

"After a decade during which liberals and the news media closed their eyes to soaring crime rates, crime finally surfaced in the seventies as a live issue. Unfortunately, the response, both in rhetoric and in government programs, generally bore little relation to the actual problem. The virtue of [James Q.] Wilson's book [Thinking About Crime], by contrast, is its thorough grounding in reality [which] forces us to face up to some rather unpleasant truths about what is really going on.

Such as? The fact that there is really very little the police can do about the level of crime; in fact, experiments in which the amount of patrol was markedly altered showed either no change in crime rates or only short-lived changes. The fact that only a few percent of all crimes ever result in an arrest, and only a few percent of those arrested ever serve time in jail or prison. The fact that the court system serves principally to determine what should be done with the criminal in its custody—not to determine guilt or innocence. The fact that most crime is committed by many-time repeaters who are wise to the way the system works and are quite unlikely to be rehabilitatable. The fact that few if any rehabilitation programs work (and some are actually counterproductive)."
Robert Poole
"Thinking About Crime"

48 years ago

November 1974

"If you've never been audited, you obviously aren't making any political waves!

This proposition is illustrated by Hank Hohenstein in the best book to date on the subject of taxes, The IRS Conspiracy. This new book shows how the political 'bully-boys,' with the aid of IRS Special Agents and Auditors, have fine-tuned the machinery of coercion to produce fear and quiet the wave-makers. And if you say 'it can't happen here', you've been asleep too long, because it is happening here."
Karl Bray
"A Conspiracy of Ideas"

Comments

[Don't look at me!]

Old news.

[Barbara G. Marcus]

Start now incomes each week extra than $7,000 to 8,000 through doing quite simple and smooth domestic primarily based totally task on-line. Last month I've made $32,735 through doing this on-line task simply in my component time for handiest 2 hrs. an afternoon the usage of my laptop. This task is simply wonderful and smooth to do in component time. Start incomes extra greenbacks on-line simply through follow:-
.
Commands here:☛☛☛ https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The fact that most crime is committed by many-time repeaters who are wise to the way the system works and are quite unlikely to be rehabilitatable. The fact that few if any rehabilitation programs work (and some are actually counterproductive)."

For me the two main drivers for my libertarian views are a sense of humility, and a commitment to humanism. Humanism to me means regarding every individual human being as having inherent worth and deserving of respect of his/her basic dignity.. Every individual human being has problems, the particulars of that problem are unique to that person, and no coercive top-down government program can really solve that problem for that individual. Only the individual can solve the problem, and the most the government should do is perhaps to offer advice and tools for solving the problem. Neither Team Red nor Team Blue are particularly interested in this approach, each team simply wants to repeat slogans and soundbites about 'freedom' and 'liberty' but in the end they offer the same collectivist garbage.

And humility to me means always respecting the individual to have the final say over what goes on in his/her life. Even if we are absolutely positive that we know what is best for other people, it's ultimately not our call to force them to adopt it. We have to recognize that our way is not always the best way for every person and we ought to restrain ourselves from pretending that it is.

So when it comes to imprisoning criminals, I think we ought to keep these ideas in mind. I would hope that a libertarian system of incarceration would try to respect the dignity and self-worth of every prisoner in the system, regardless of the crime. I would hope that the government would make sincere efforts to try to rehabilitate each one, treating each one as having their own unique problems and challenges that may call for unique strategies and solutions. And while there indeed are criminals who are not rehabilitable, I would hope that in a libertarian system of incarceration, locking someone in a cage and throwing away the key with no hope of rehabilitation or parole or release would be the absolute last resort. We owe it to every person, including criminals, to do our best to treat each one with the dignity and respect to which they entitled.

[A Thinking Mind]

respect the dignity and self-worth of every prisoner in the system, regardless of the crime

See, here's where I find my principles don't give me a consistent answer, because I do recognize crimes that shock the conscience. On principle, we shouldn't dehumanize convicts on the possibility that the government and the jury got it wrong, and put the wrong man in prison, as happens quite often.

But then there are cases like the Parkland shooter. Indisputably guilty. Inexcusable. It's unquestionably someone whose actions have forfeited their right to live within society. Whatever your ills and grievances, nothing excuses indiscriminate murder. Even assuming whatever conditions this person was under were unique and unrepeatable and we can say they will never re-offend, there is harm in letting this person ever breathe free air again, and there is justice in ending his life.

In a world without government, this person is quickly strung up in the town square. This doesn't mean we can't empathize-we can give him a last meal and some last words, maybe a final cigarette, but then his life ends, and everyone is better off. So my principled position to government execution is kind of hollow since the execution is the base, it's what happens with no government. The only thing in the way are the layers of bureaucracy that slow down the execution and require the state to spend a ton of resources getting them dead.

So, principally, I do not agree that all convicted persons have rights and human dignity. There's just the issue of how we determine what the exceptions are, because we can't just decide that every single case is the exception.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland]

Some people, based on their action, loose their ability to qualify as human, for instance if a guy is referred to by his son as pedo Pete, and also sells of US assets to a foreign advisary, say 1 million barrels of oil of the strategic reserve to a genocidal slave camp running ccp, then that person is not human

[julia992]

I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (jrn-02) achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line

visiting this site.

>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk

[chemjeff radical individualist]

On principle, we shouldn't dehumanize convicts on the possibility that the government and the jury got it wrong, and put the wrong man in prison, as happens quite often.

That is just one reason against capital punishment. Another reason, perhaps more fundamental, is that a person's inalienable right to life really is inalienable. Other than suicide, there is nothing that a person may do that would justly result in the surrender of that right.

[A Thinking Mind]

No, that’s bullshit. All natural rights are inalienable. That is to say they are innate, they are possessed by virtue of being human. They are not earned, they cannot be bought or traded.

I have a right to not be imprisoned, as well, no less innate than my right to life, but if violate the rights of others, I forfeit that right. There are lines we recognize at which you forfeit your rights, if there is a due process in place to abridge them. I have a right to be secure in my home, unless I’ve committed a robbery, in which case the government can issue a warrant for searching my home to recover the stolen property. That is to say, my own rights don’t grant me immunity to abridge the rights of others.

I believe punishment and indemnification are appropriate responses to rights violations and within the power of government.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Well, there is a school of libertarian thought that believes that there shouldn't be any imprisonment at all for any crime, it should all be dealt with by torts. Murder would be just a very expensive tort. Not sure I agree with it, but it is at least consistent with the idea that the right to life and the right to freedom of movement are indeed paramount.

I have a right to not be imprisoned, as well, no less innate than my right to life, but if violate the rights of others, I forfeit that right.

Or, it may be viewed that you don't forfeit your rights, instead everyone else tolerates the state violating your rights for a limited period of time on a purely utilitarian basis for the purpose of punishing you for your crime. Sort of like how taxation would work in a libertarian society. It would still be theft, but it would be justifiable theft from a utilitarian perspective.

In either case, whether you believe the government is justifiably violating some rights, or that the criminal has forfeited some rights, as libertarians we ought to define the scope of the rights violated/rights forfeited as narrowly as possible. Because after all we are the ones who are the biggest defenders of individual liberty in the first place. It would be a gross violation of our libertarian obligations to try to justify methods of incarceration of a person beyond what is absolutely necessary to do so.

[JesseAz]

Capital punishment like for trespassing?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Nope, not capital punishment for trespassing. That is absurd.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

However, "capital punishment for trespassing" is closer to the Singaporean ideal of criminal justice that you favor.

[JasonAZ]

Lying Jeffy doesn't remember defending the killing of Ashlii Babbitt for trespassing at the Capital Building. I guess when you constantly lie, it's hard to remember. Sad and pathetic Jeff.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The officer who shot Ashli Babbitt did so in the defense of himself, of others and in the defense of property. It was an act of self-defense. That is eminently reasonable. It is also entirely consistent with the concept of the Castle Doctrine. Have you heard of this?

Calling it "capital punishment" is misleading and false.

Had Ashli Babbitt, or anyone, been arrested, convicted of trespassing, and then sentenced to death and executed, THAT would have been capital punishment and it would have been absolutely wrong.

Jesse is being his usual dishonest self by deliberately conflating self-defense with capital punishment.

[Overt]

"For me the two main drivers for my libertarian views are a sense of humility, and a commitment to humanism...I would hope that the government would make sincere efforts to try to rehabilitate each one"

I don't see how it is humble to hope or expect- let alone empower- a government to rehabilitate people. When you get right down to it, "rehabilitation" assumes the government can and should replace a person's thoughts and actions with those "Known to be Correct". To me, that is the height of arrogance when talking about "advising" people. When we talk about doing so to literal captive audiences, it is Deeply Creepy as Fuck (tm).

[chemjeff radical individualist]

When you get right down to it, "rehabilitation" assumes the government can and should replace a person's thoughts and actions with those "Known to be Correct".

To an extent, yes. But even in Libertopia there is the NAP, which is a principle to guide "correct" behavior. Is the NAP an instrument of arrogance?

[Overt]

Of course it isn't. Whether a person chooses to follow the NAP or not is a choice for them to make. The government's job isn't to look at an NAP-breaker and rehabilitate them. If libertopia had a government, it's job would be to defend the NAP.

Your screed was asserting that a primary responsibility of the government is to rehabilitate law-breakers. I am saying that in and of itself is not humble because it assumes that the collective is more effective at telling people how to think than the individuals.

[sarcasmic]

I know a few people who've been incarcerated and through "rehabilitation." Turns out it actually helped. Surprisingly.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

"Humanism to me means regarding every individual human being as having inherent worth and deserving of respect of his/her basic dignity."

At the very least, this reflects a very optimistic bias, and perhaps better fits a liberal and not libertarian label.

I strive for neutrality in judging people and deciding my actions towards them, at least until I have reliable information. At that point I have no problem deciding that some people have little or even negative value for me, and are not worthy of my consideration--or my support.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

At the very least, this reflects a very optimistic bias, and perhaps better fits a liberal and not libertarian label.

It is a type of humanism. There is overlap between humanism and every major philosophy (except perhaps pure nihilism, I suppose). There is nothing per se inconsistent with humanism and libertarian thought. After all, why do we even value individual liberty in the fist place?

[Mother's Lament]

"So when it comes to imprisoning criminals, I think we ought to keep these ideas in mind. I would hope that a libertarian system of incarceration would try to respect the dignity and self-worth of every prisoner in the system, regardless of the crime."

Incarcerated transgender woman impregnates two inmates at NJ prison

How wonderful.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

No, it's not wonderful. And I fail to see how that story is relevant to the current discussion. Unless you are saying that transgender people do not deserve dignity?

[Mother's Lament]

Mental illness needs to be treated, not indulged, Jeffy. It doesn't help the insane, and often hurts them horribly (useless, dangerous surgery and unhealthy, injurious hormone treatment).

But that guy isn't even crazy. He's just a creep using wokies like you to engage in heterosexual prison rape for a change.

And in both cases psychotics like you are enabling the insanity and abuse with your fake "compassion" rhetoric.

[Fats of Fury]

Trannies in kindergardens and grade schools and not in jail is one of the main drivers for his LIE-bertarian views

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Mental illness needs to be treated, not indulged

Even assuming that they are mentally ill, what if they refuse to get treated? Then what? Force them to receive the treatment that *you* think they "deserve"?

So I'm right, you don't think transgender people deserve dignity. They deserve condescending 'compassion'.

Furthermore, the gender-affirming care that you reject IS a type of treatment for them - but it is one that THEY choose (patient consent is important, no?) . So they are getting treatment, it's just not the treatment that YOU approve of, and you want to force them to get treatment to be 'normal'.

Thank you for illustrating what a bunch of authoritarian shitheads you and Team Red are on this matter. Your respect for the dignity of people only extends to the rigid boundaries of traditional gender roles. People who stray from those roles deserve nothing but a swift authoritarian jackboot from the state to drag them back into line.

[Mother's Lament]

"Then what? Force them to receive the treatment that *you* think they "deserve"?"

You always run to the most fucked-up authoritarian solution you can think of, because that's what you are, Jeff. A fucked-up authoritarian.
It's everything you are so it's all you can conceive.

How about offer them help if they want it, just like we do with Tourette's, Schizophrenia and most other metal illnesses?

You know what we should't do? Indulge the madness and Castrate, maim and drug them. Or ban psychologists and doctors who don't play along with the lunacy from practicing, like your demented lot is doing.

"So I'm right, you don't think transgender people deserve dignity. They deserve condescending 'compassion'."

Here's Jeffy's favorite trick, folks. Redefining, rewording and misrepresenting what someone said, and then arguing against that instead of the actual argument.
It's toddler sophistry but he thinks he's so tricky. We don't call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.

What a psychotic and dishonest piece of shit you are, Jeff.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

How about offer them help if they want it, just like we do with Tourette's, Schizophrenia and most other metal illnesses?

You know what we should't do? Indulge the madness and Castrate, maim and drug them.

Trans woman: I think I am a woman trapped in a man's body. I want to transition to becoming a woman in my bodily appearance.

ML: That is not a good idea. You are mentally ill. You should get professional psychiatric treatment for your illness.

Trans woman: I don't agree, I think I would like to proceed with the surgery instead.

So what is your response now?

The libertarian response is to respect the trans woman's choices even if we don't agree with them, so we leave her alone.

The authoritarian conservative response is to lock them away in a mental institution and force them to receive the "correct" treatment until they are "normal".

Which option do you prefer here?

Or I suppose there is the Internet Warrior response, which is to continually bitch about it but never actually say what you would do about it. Is that where you are at?

[A Thinking Mind]

If someone had body dysmorphia and thought he shouldn’t have a left arm, and refused psychiatric treatment, would be happy with a doctor agreeing to chop off his arm? He doesn’t agree that he’s I’ll, after all.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

It's not about what makes ME happy or what makes YOU happy, it is about what the individual decides. That is respecting the dignity and, frankly, the individual agency of the person.

If someone came to me and said "I'm thinking about having my perfectly healthy arm chopped off, what do you think", I would of course respond that I think it is a bad idea. I would urge him to go see a counselor. But at the end of the day, it's not my decision to make.

If we had legal heroin and someone wanted to start a heroin habit, would you be "happy" with it? I hope the answer is no. Would you want the state to reinstitute drug prohibition and throw this person in jail because of it? I hope the answer is no here as well.

[Mother's Lament]

"ML: That is not a good idea. You are mentally ill. You should get professional psychiatric treatment for your illness.
Trans woman: I don't agree, I think I would like to proceed with the surgery instead.
So what is your response now?"

Easy.

No. We're not going to maim you to feed a delusion that cannot actually be satisfied by dangerous and unnecessary surgery and a lifelong regime of drugs and hormone replacement.

Furthermore anyone who violates their Hippocratic oath and mutilates your body to indulge you will lose their medical license and possibly face jail time.

Only an evil sociopath would misrepresent such butchery as compassion and help for you.

"Which option do you prefer here?"

There's more than just two options, you dishonest, psychotic fuck. You constantly pretend the choices you present are the only choices, when they're not.

It's not libertarian to kill a depressed man, rape a sex addict or castrate a delusional.
The other half of the libertarian harm principle is to prevent people like you and the sex change butchers from causing harm to others. Because that's exactly what you're doing. You're gaslighting these poor poor people into harming themselves.

Your desire to mutilate the crazies is utterly abhorent.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I see. So only those medical procedures deemed acceptable by the state shall be permitted. Is that your position?

And in your version of the story, what would happen to the poor benighted trans woman who refuses your treatment?

It's not libertarian to kill a depressed man

In a libertarian world, should suicide be legal?

If suicide is legal, should a person be able to freely enter into a contract with another person for assistance with that suicide, just like any other contractual arrangement?

You're gaslighting these poor poor people into harming themselves.

First, gender reassignment surgery, when done right, is not overall harmful. It has to be coupled with therapy and very careful consideration of all the risks involved. Of course it's possible to do it wrong. But it is not per se harmful.

But even still. Let's just pretend that your supposition is correct, that gender reassignment surgery is harmful. In your world, should alcohol be legal? What is the moral difference between legally being able to harm one's self via an alcohol addiction, vs. being able to harm one's self via gender reassignment surgery?

I thought it was progressives that wanted to use the state to save people from themselves.

[Mother's Lament]

"I see. So only those medical procedures deemed acceptable by the state shall be permitted. Is that your position?"

You just can't help yourself can you? You're so utterly fucking dishonest you have to twist everything I say and then argue against that. You can't, or won't, argue against what I actually said.

"poor benighted trans woman who refuses your treatment?"

What fucking treatment, Jeff? I said we wouldn't gaslight and maim them like you want to.
Again, you're arguing against what I never said. And yet again you're pretending that the choice is binary, your way or else force.
These stupid little tricks aren't actually working, Jeffy.

"In a libertarian world, should suicide be legal?

And yet again, you're twisting shit because you're trying to evade. I very clearly said "kill" a depressed person. I didn't mention anything about suicide.
The libertarian harm principle is very clear that you're allowed to hurt yourself but not others. You know this, don't pretend that you fucking don't.

First, gender reassignment surgery, when done right, is not overall harmful.

A pair of silicon implants, no. Everything else sure as hell is. There's no situation where unnecessary castration and gouging out a vaginia isn't harmful, you malevolent fuck.

"In your world, should alcohol be legal?"

Dishonest analogy (of course), but If you want to drink yourself into a coma, it's a far different scenario than a psychopath telling you that drinking yourself into a coma is the only way to feel whole and you should let him pump pure ethanol directly into your bloodstream.

I feel like I'm debating Jeffrey Dhamer right now.

[Aaron5]

It's hilarious how you're completely kicking his butt ML.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

What's dishonest about it? Did you or did you not say that you would want the state to throw a doctor in jail for performing gender reassignment surgery? That is giving the state the power to decide which medical procedures are acceptable or not.

You are using this avalanche of sanctimony to conceal this basic fact, that your position here is rooted in authoritarian paternalism.

What fucking treatment, Jeff?

Whatever treatment that you, and the state, thinks is best for the trans woman. You won't consider gender reassignment surgery, but surely there is some other treatment that you would recommend to her. What is it, and what happens if she refuses it?

unnecessary castration

Sure, if it's unnecessary, I don't see much if any medical value in it. But what if it is necessary? Can you really be so arrogant to claim that it is never ever ever ever ever ever necessary for anyone ever even under the strictest medical standards?

but If you want to drink yourself into a coma,

In your libertarian world, should "drink[ing] yourself into a coma" be legal?

[JesseAz]

Because, your types of views 3specially for repeat offenders result in chaos. This also applies to people like the Christmas parade red suv.

Your thoughts are theoretical and not applicable to actual societies. It comes from the soros branch of criminal justice reform where even repeat violent offenders are given excess leeway despite them already violating the NAP (which you pretend to espouse) over and over. They violate the rights of others openly and continue to do so despite your "everyone deserves a cookie" outlook on society.

In reality it just leads to more violations of the NAP.

Now first time offenders should absolutely be given lenient sentencing. Everyone can make mistakes, especially with the current laws on the books. But often it isnt first time offenders being given leniency.

On top of that you have ridiculed first time offenders for over a year on the narrative they were overturning democracy. This includes a 67 year old cancer patient. So nobody actually believes in leniency or respect being your true intentions.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Treating people with dignity is not equivalent to treating people leniently. That is a myth.

Unless, of course, you think dignity is a privilege that must be earned, rather than an entitlement of every human being. Is that what you think, Jesse?

[JesseAz]

Has anyone noticed the least libertarian people here have to always throw in phrases like "in my libertarian views" the most? Jeff, Mike, etc.

If they actually had libertarian views they wouldn't have to rely on a crutch like that.

[Mother's Lament]

I don't know how they can possibly imagine that they're fooling anyone.

[Overt]

"The fact that only a few percent of all crimes ever result in an arrest, and only a few percent of those arrested ever serve time in jail or prison. The fact that the court system serves principally to determine what should be done with the criminal in its custody—not to determine guilt or innocence. The fact that most crime is committed by many-time repeaters who are wise to the way the system works and are quite unlikely to be rehabilitatable. The fact that few if any rehabilitation programs work (and some are actually counterproductive)."

I think this is a pretty key graph. I am always deeply skeptical that more police will do more work. Because they are never around when you need them- because criminals, stupid as they may or may not be, don't tend to commit crimes when a police cruiser is in site.

If you want to answer questions about the rise in crime over the last few years, you cannot ignore the shift in government's perspective on law breaking. A government that enforces its laws swiftly and perhaps harshly is probably better than a government that treats lawbreakers in capricious and arbitrary ways, even out of some sense of compassion.

Markets need rules. And while, as a libertarian, I would prefer there to be vanishingly few rules, I would take heavier regulation applied consistently over the paternalistic, corrupt and elitist system we have today.

[Overt]

" A government that enforces its laws swiftly and perhaps harshly is probably better than a government that treats lawbreakers in capricious and arbitrary ways, even out of some sense of compassion."

For example, Singapore is well known for its rather draconian laws. But for all these faults, the country is clear on its expectations, quick to impose punishment, and its penalties are relatively quick to serve. They fine or cane you for petty fines such as littering or carrying a durian on mass transit. They swiftly and strongly punish corruption. And they hang you for dealing large amounts of drugs. Hang you.

For all these strict punishments, Singapore is frequently listed in the top ten lists of least corrupt countries, and has a very low overall crime rate. The US penal system is far slower and more arbitrary. While we don't severely punish graffiti, we will lock you up for minor drug crimes. Our per capita prison population is far higher than Singapore.

It is noteworthy that as an island, security from drugs and weapons is more or less easier to accomplish and they have a lower area and population to deal with. Though they also have a diverse and multi-ethnic population.

I would argue that while I don't like how harsh the country is, its real success comes from swiftly and consistently delivering justice at all ends of the spectrum, from petty lawbreakers to corrupt elites. This sense that no one is above the law, and that the justice is blind, creates a stronger set of rules that are predictable and enforceable, leading to a more orderly society.

We can't know if a less harsh society would be equally stable if it was more predictable, but I do have the sense that it will ultimately be the case.

[JesseAz]

Most importantly Singapore is consistent and follows a true belief in blind justice than America does. They pursue all punishments and not try to make excuses for certain sectors of their criminals. They have seemingly been more free to go after criminals politically connected as well. There isn't the apparent favoritism America now shows in crimes.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

I wonder if more legal and societal freedom leads to more arrests and imprisonment--and more fuzziness in the process. In the US we are (still) biased towards letting people do as they please as much as possible, and commonly do not intervene until people commit significant violations. My impression of Singapore is much tighter legal and social constraint. Perhaps people there get conditioned to behave, in a rather strict sense.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Quelle surprise: if the government scares the shit out of people with draconian laws and severe punishment, the people are more likely to live in fear of punishment from the state. Not a model I want to adopt.

[Overt]

What a shock. Chemjeff didn't read what I wrote.

My entire thesis is that in fact Singapore's secret sauce is its CONSISTENCY, not the severity of its punishments. That may or may not be correct, but at least try to address that argument.

Specifically, if you look at per capita imprisonment rates, the United States seems far more harsh than Singapore. We throw people in jail for minor drug dealing. As recently as 2017, more people were being arrested (though not necessarily incarcerated upon conviction) for marijuana than for murder.

Again, my argument isn't that severity brings order, because the US reaction to drugs is quite severe. Instead it is the arbitrariness- the feeling that some people receive harsher punishments than others based on status, race, and other problems.

[Adans smith]

I hate reruns.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland]

I agree but the last 2 articles are literally happening today, again. The only difference is reason is now focused on how teaching kids to give bjs in kindergarten is totally libritarian

[DesigNate]

Wait what? I didn’t see that article

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Do you subscribe to Woke Reason?

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

Good morning Peanuts! Remember how terrible everything was a year and a half into Trump's term? Low Presidential approval ratings, economy in the toilet, Putin doing whatever he wanted. Be thankful we have President Joe Biden now. It's been a night and day difference!

#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

OMG this Biden economy is amazing!!!!!!! Liberal capitalist Jeff Bezos made almost $3 billion on the most recent business day. I'm a liberal capitalist too and I support the political party his newspaper tells me to so it's only fair for me to brag about his wealth like it's my own.

#MoreButtplugInsights

[Mother's Lament]

The hallmarks of a healthy corporatist society. The billionaires succeed when the plebs fail thanks to government and corporations walking hand in hand.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

That sounds gay! (oops)

[The Encogitationer]

Only if you assume the genders of Government and Corporations are the same. 🙂

[Mother's Lament]

The writing standards have very obviously... fallen.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

But on the bright side, the wokeness abounds

[Mother's Lament]

"Once formed, however, gangs are very careful to assess their place in the community. In particular, they are cautious not to commit petty crimes—robbery, burglary, auto theft—among the people they know. Instead, they judiciously export their crimes."'

The pre-proto-Indo-Europeans, probably the bronze age Yamnaya, ritualized this by empowering gangs of adolescent men called "Kóryos" to go out stealing, raiding and raping as long as the malevolent acts were not directed at their home society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B3ryos

It's at the very roots of western Eurasian culture.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1495784033850175490?t=OXpUqV_l42zuyzQvplqE-Q&s=19

I'm reading The Fourth Industrial Revolution, by World Economic Forum Chairman, Klaus Schwab, and it starts off really encouragingly. He and his want to shepherd us through "nothing less than a transformation of humankind," in the first sentence of the book.

For those aching for the punchline of The Fourth Industrial Revolution, it lies here: a technological fusion of the "physical, digital, and biological worlds," which is creepy transhumanism under their direction. Schwab repeats this theme over and over in his two subsequent books

[Thread, links]

[JesseAz]

Man, I need to start donating to Lindsay for reating all this leftist rhetoric. His podcast New Discourses shows he has read all the source materials for the new post modernism and cultural marxist dogma.

[Fats of Fury]

The Fourth Industrial Revolution Reich, by World Economic Forum Chairman, Klaus Schwab,

I wonder if Schwab fights to control his Nazi salute when the gather in the war room in Davos.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

But what if I don't want to be transformed?

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1548694130863267840?t=5A8oPxKo4-HDxZsbC4bVLA&s=19

A Minneapolis man fired bullets into the apartment of a single mother with two kids under 5yrs old and was killed after a 6 hr stand off with police.

Activists proceeded to raise $15K for him and hold protests outside the woman’s apartment.

The most BLM thing to ever BLM.

[Video, links]

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Did the police act properly in shooting the man? How do you know?

[Nardz]

Collectivistjeff supports its marxist comrades in harassing single mothers whose children were assaulted.
It has at least consistently taken this position.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/DrewHLive/status/1548723955833323521?t=x-CvryXxzHE0gIoODV5-OQ&s=19

A black man attempted to shoot this single mother in her home with her kids in the apartment

She called the police and the shooter got shot and killed by police

BLM then shows up to support the shooter and call the victim a liar and a b*tch

[Video, link]

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

I am sure the media will tell us how the white patriarchy institutional racism made the poor oppressed black victim get a gun and shoot some privileged woman with righteous social justice.

[Fats of Fury]

Assaulting children is one of the main drivers for his LIE-bertarian views

[JesseAz]

Why not read the primary sources yourself jeff? Or are you waiting for the correct narrative to push?

[JesseAz]

I mean, does this sound like he didn't violate the nap?

"My kids have to deal with this and probably have a mental illness now because they almost lost their lives. There’s bullet holes in my kitchen because he sat in the f–ing hallway watching me move," she said while confronting the protesters. "He tried to kill me in front of my kids."

[JesseAz]

Here are the pictures jeff

https://mobile.twitter.com/DeevonRahming/status/1548497205752766467

[JesseAz]

Here is the neighbor confronting the protestors.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DeevonRahming/status/1548439171693367301

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The question here isn't whether the person was guilty or innocent of whatever crime he was accused of, the question is whether the person was treated justly or unjustly by the police.

None of your links speak to this question.

[sarcasmic]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3562531-family-of-andrew-tekle-sundberg-calls-for-release-of-police-footage-after-fatal-shooting/

Looks like his parents said he was mentally ill (they're always just changing their lives around but never do) and shot randomly in a populated area. Then he hid. Finally it ended after six hours when a police sniper shot him from across the street.

I have a little trouble believing the sniper killed him because he was an imminent threat to the officers. Rather they just didn't feel like dealing with the bullshit so they killed him so they could go home.

I could be wrong.

[sarcasmic]

Correction: he was shot by two police snipers, not one. So much for one-shot-one-kill. More like two cops, a dozen donuts, and a couple 30 round box magazines.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Wait, that can't be right. You are supposed to form knee-jerk judgments based on one-sided Twitter narratives. You aren't supposed to actually try to discover the facts of the case. You can't possibly be a libertarian!

[sarcasmic]

You could have done the same thing. Wasn't hard. You have a city and a last name from the original link.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Yeah I could have. I get tired of doing Jesse's homework for him though.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

What do you think is just for somebody who attempted murder?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Well, since we haven't yet reached the Judge Dredd stage of the criminal justice system, I think the proper thing for the police to do is, to the best of their ability, arrest the suspect without killing him and without risking the lives of anyone else. Shooting him because "I'm tired of this standoff" is probably not the appropriate response here.

[sarcasmic]

From what I read it didn't look like he was trying to kill anyone in particular. That's what murder is, right? Illegally killing someone on purpose? He was recklessly shooting into a building. Murder requires intent.

Regardless, he obviously needed to be taken into custody.

But sniped from across the street? I dunno man. I read nothing about hostages. Seems like he was more of a threat to the police's bedtime than to their lives. "Six hours is enough. Take him out. Let's go home. Let the cleanup crew do the rest."

[Nardz]

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/07/14/the_feds_pile_up_vaccine_adverse_event_reports_as_they_decry_scaremongering_elsewhere_841872.html

[Nardz]

Hmm, since the link formatted weird, here's it easier to see

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/feds-pile-vaccine-adverse-event-reports-they-decry-scaremongering-elsewhere

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

Still not convinced everything in the US is poisoned from the top down by WHITE SUPREMACY and SYSTEMIC RACISM? Well here's proof: psychopathic racist cops put bullets in an innocent BLACK BODY once again.

This is Tekle Sundberg. Minneapolis Police Department killed this smart, loving & artistic 20-year-old after an hours-long standoff while he was experiencing a mental health crisis. We need ANSWERS from MPD as to why Tekle's mental health crisis became a death sentence!

#BLM
#DefundThePolice
#(ExceptTheCapitolPolice)

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Someone needs to put bullets in Ben Crump

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Or a small nuke in Minneapolis.

[JasonAZ]

What is the world coming to when a smart, loving & artistic guy can't stalk a woman and try to murder her without the police coming to her aid? - One of the better comments on this Tweet.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/Chris_Said/status/1548490788765437952?t=oAhjQgqpQPAp9nuswiEquQ&s=19

Two years ago this outcome was predictable, but the even still the magnitude of this effect is astounding.

In June 2020 I felt strong social pressure to not question anything about the nature of the ongoing protests. I feel guilty I didn’t say more publicly. There is overwhelming evidence that they drove the homicide spike, mediated by police pullback.

[Links]

[Nardz]

"Scientist"

https://twitter.com/EllieLobel/status/1548724619258974210?t=-LC1weqy4wY-Jr-f7DvJ5w&s=19

Are you high? Serious ?. Manchin is exactly why our gas prices are cock bag high. His investments in fossil fuels. SMDH

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

The fuck?

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/TimHinchliffe/status/1548334358901112833?t=14zMvfjvGBNa4yVvhgQ7QQ&s=19

For anyone looking for background on the great reset and where this is heading, I invite you to check out The Sociable: [link]

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Watch: As Mask Mandate Looms, LA Hospital Officials Mock COVID "Media Hype"
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/watch-mask-mandate-looms-la-hospital-officials-ridicule-covid-media-hype
"Certainly, if the experience of our hospital is reflective of across the county, which I believe it is, we're just seeing nobody with severe Covid disease. As of this morning, we have no one in the hospital who had pulmonary disease due to Covid. Nobody in the hospital....NOBODY. Nobody who had Covid-19 disease as we would see it in the past. So I guess it is hard to get a little more excited."

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Somebody is going to get a poor performance review. Or not get invited to the next Newsom fund-raising.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/dutch-nitrogen-scientist-questions-basis-government-climate-mandates
When it comes to the Dutch government’s calculations of ammonia and nitrogen oxide deposition—the basis of climate mandates that would slash livestock numbers and put many farmers out of work—Hanekamp is especially critical of “the science.”
He thinks it relies on vague definitions, excessive deference to expert judgment, and a narrow focus on costs rather than both costs and benefits.
“We now treat farmers as polluters, end of story, which is a very strange perspective,” he said.

[JasonAZ]

Thx for the links Nardz.

[Nardz]

*thumbs up emoji*

[sarcasmic]

J. Lo is going to take Ben's name. I don't think J. Aff has the same ring to it.

[sarcasmic]

whoops, forgot the linky

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11022501/Jennifer-Lopez-MARRIES-Ben-Affleck-obtaining-marriage-license-Nevada.html

[The Margrave of Azilia]

NC Board of elections: Check signatures on third-party petitions, but not on mail-in ballots.

"“The lack of accountability through the absentee ballot process lends itself to the opportunity to cheat,” Tucker said. “It doesn’t mean all absentee ballots will be scrutinized, but the ones that look fraudulent and suspect just like we looked at the petitions for the Green Party. The process is the same. So, we are doing for one but not the other?”"

https://jocoreport.com/ncsbe-votes-against-ncgops-request-to-compare-signatures-on-absentee-ballots/

[Weigel's Cock Ring]

Boy, the fugazis sure had themselves a lazy, relaxed weekend!
Here's the latest story they'll completely ignore:

‘I’m A Pedophile’: Biden-Era USPS Chief in Mail-In Ballot Unit Arrested After Trying To Meet Teen Boy For Sex.

Russell Rappel-Schmid, the Chief Data Officer for the U.S. Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), was caught in San Diego, California attempting to meet a 14-year-old boy for sex.

The PRC is responsible for overseeing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) – which deals with mail-in ballots during election season – and Rappel-Schmid was tasked with running the commission’s data management and compliance with the OPEN Government Data Act.

While federal authorities have not yet confirmed the man in the video is Rappel-Schmid, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department announced that Rappel-Schmid was released from the city’s Central Jail early Tuesday morning after being arrested on Monday. His felony arraignment is set for next Monday.

https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/07/13/top-usps-official-arrested-for-trying-to-meet-teen-boy-for-sex/

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Well, here we go. Expect a SCOTUS case challenging Obergefell in the near future.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3563173-cruz-says-marriage-equality-like-abortion-should-be-left-to-states/

"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Saturday said Obergefell V. Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court precedent that legalized same-sex marriage, should be overturned with states left to decide their own marriage laws."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Soon, anyone caught watching a Judy Garland movie will be locked in a deep dungeon.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Perhaps, as we relearn the virtues of local decision-making, we'll also reacquire a taste for individualism"

https://reason.com/2022/07/13/renegade-d-a-s-who-defy-state-mandates-are-often-freedoms-last-line-of-defense/

That was about abortion, but no doubt Reason will apply the same reasoning to other subjects.

[sarcasmic]

Oh my God! The Supremes are practicing federalism and allowing the states to make their own laws without being bossed around by D.C.! The horror! It's... it's... I don't have the words!

It's fucking beautiful. Now let's see them tear down the alphabet administrative state the progressives have been building for the last century.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Federalism that produces more liberty is great.
Federalism that produces less liberty is just creating local tyranny.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/USATODAY/status/1548737548058365952?t=5AdI57H4a2dVouRDnJH44w&s=19

Today, living your best life includes being true to who you are. That's why an increasing number of people, primarily women, are marrying themselves, in a practice known as "sologamy."

[Link]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Then find themselves intolerable, so they sue themselves for divorce.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So evidently there is a "brain-eating amoeba".
That could explain a few of the commenters around here.

https://www.ky3.com/2022/07/16/missouri-resident-with-brain-eating-amoeba-has-passed-away/

[chemjeff radical individualist]

No major problems with ballot drop boxes in 2020, AP finds

https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-2022-midterm-elections-covid-health-wisconsin-c61fa93a12a1a51d6d9f4e0a21fa3b75

Someone tell Dinesh D'Souza

[Mother's Lament]

The same AP whose board of directors is composed exclusively of Democratic Party members and former DNC executives?

Gosh. Imagine that.

Let's post some links to the AP directors for Jeffy.

Patrick Talamantes
https://twitter.com/ptalamantes

Patrick Talamantes (He/Him)@ptalamantes
CEO,Talamantes Strategies. Biz transformation/media/social justice. Fmr @mcclatchy #SBGI #ChemicalBank. Cardinal. @breakthroughco Black lives matter.

[Mother's Lament]

Paul C. Tash
https://voterrecords.com/voter/16986948/paul-tash

David M. Paxton
https://voterrecords.com/voter/30487725/david-paxton

[Mother's Lament]

Partnership for New York City letter January 4, 2021

“With claims of electoral fraud having been fully considered and rejected by federal and state courts and state government officials, the integrity of the 2020 presidential election is not in doubt,”

The two-paragraph statement from the Partnership for New York City organization was signed by... Hearst CEO and AP Chairman Steve Swartz

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/nyc-business-leaders-urge-congress-224917741.html

[Mother's Lament]

Richard A Boehne
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jJ5V48Vr8hS6H4ICcx3O-C2tlFs1EJT5OGg7NyklKpM/edit#!

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I see. So AP can't be trusted because they are run by Democrats. Is that your position?

So if we are to take your standard, then most of Jesse's links (and yours) can't be trusted either because they come from outlets run by Republicans.

Fair?

[Nardz]

No, you Ying pedophile piece of shit.
You and the left/media/Ds in general have a history of lying. Your entire life is a lie. And you'll be lucky the moment it's ended.

[Mother's Lament]

I see. So AP can't be trusted because they are run by Democrats. Is that your position?

You're trying to redefine my statement again to say what you want to answer, you little weasel.

You can't trust Democrats to be honest about election fraud when they have a vested interest, Jeffy. Particularly AP chairman Steve Swartz who was publicly involved back in 2021 with advocating for ratification.
This is called conflict of interest, Jeffy, and it's not a good thing. Remember that, "conflict of interest". Look it up.

Of course they entitled to hold their opinions, but nobody should think for a second that it's anymore impartial than if Don Jr. and Ivanka wrote it.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

No no, you are moving the goalposts.

You are arguing that this particular AP story can't be trusted because AP is run by Democrats. That's the line you took above, right?

So, then, no story from Fox News can be trusted because it's run by Republicans.

Fair is fair right?

[DesigNate]

He didn’t move the goal post Jeff, he explained why they can’t be trusted. And I don’t think anyone here trusts Fox News anymore than any of the other MSM outlets. Except for leftist morons like shrike or Tony who obviously watch the station way more than any of the regulars.

More to the point of your original post, I’m sorry I’m not going to trust the word of State actors who have a vested interest in asserting that unsupervised drop boxes were totes legit. Especially in light of the fact that at least some state courts have found (and pretty clearly rightly so) that the administrative changes in 2020 were unconstitutional (if not federally, at least at a state level).

Was any of this enough to change the results? To crib Hillary “at this point, does it matter?”

By and large, no, because the damage has been done and the only reason it really matters is to restore people’s faith in the system.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Here's another AP article. Is it full of lies too? Is it pushing a Team Blue narrative?

Scholz: Germany’s increased coal, oil use will be temporary

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-climate-germany-berlin-olaf-scholz-d00a2a55943b817e7cc19b65239d7327

[Mother's Lament]

Probably. Just like you it's who they work for.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1548856343649554432?t=bHScOo_FpDMM2ZvzwtcuQg&s=19

This was stopped by a good guy with a gun... don't expect national media coverage.

[Link]

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1548707221818728450?t=weJDcE95XWf2gztT0GRQdg&s=19

Homeless shelters in Washington D.C. are filling up with asylum seekers from Texas and Arizona. Mayor Bowser says “I fear that they're being tricked into nationwide bus trips when their final destinations are places all over the United States of America.”

[Link]

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/AurelianofRome/status/1548826593338032129?t=_2gFLcXeh9kKUDJZ3IRA_w&s=19

The next steps are to house individuals in the municipalities surrounding DC that have the highest incomes per capita.

[Link]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"their final destinations are places all over the United States of America"

She presumably meant *after* their asylum applications had been granted.

The mayor must be a good administrator, after all, her video-game namesake is an efficient ruler of a large territory.

[A Thinking Mind]

Why isn't she asking the people themselves if they've been tricked into coming to DC? I'm pretty sure they've been asking immigrants if they want to go to DC before loading them on a bus. Or is she just taking the progressive assumption that poor people are too stupid to make any decisions for themselves?

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/ViralNewsNYC/status/1548805251192524800?t=BFQIO4i2mVnDCDPuZU8K4A&s=19

100s line up at a pop-up Monkey Pox Vaccination site in Brooklyn NY

#monkeypox #Brooklyn #vaccine

[Video]

[Diarrheality]

test