Our own race?
An Poblacht Abú, then. You Anglos are on your own (y' sword-confiscatin' feckers).
So make sure everyone in your neighborhood gets a proper DNA profile done! You never know which ones are white-passing!
senseless act of gun violence
Which leads to the question, would they have considered death by stabbing or beating to be sensible and reasonable?
No no no, you don't understand. White people never do anything bad, and when they do, it's fully justified because obviously, someone from another color group made them do it.
Any white-looking person who does bad things is probably (((((9(9(((9(((99 one of THOSE )0))00)))))))00)).
You allow it? What's wrong with you?
Neither do the communists, which is why they always have death camps.
So post something new.
Username checks out
"first generation"
So your own admixture is okay because the statute of limitations ran out, I suppose?
It'd be a short conflict that ignited others, though. See, you're already picking sides.
The core principle of this would be that everyone has a right to defend their rights and the rights of others, and there is nothing wrong with organizing on a voluntary basis to defend the rights of oneself and others.
Oh, I've got a lot of nitty-gritty sort of questions, but let's start with a couple of big ones, and maybe we can hit some more later.
(Side note: It's a shame a lot of folks aren't going to see this as the thread rolls off down to the bottomless void over the next couple days, but damn if I'm not interested in your answers.)
I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others.
"Imposing" is a squishy sort of word, unfortunately; human nature is less rational than rationalizing, as this one blogger I used to follow would say. So the question is then, what happens when the members of your society start rationalizing what "imposition" means? Do you already have some concrete examples of what rights they enjoy, or do you wait until the conflicts begin before lining it out?
And more importantly, how do you get everyone in the society to agree to the definition you propose--and how do you hold them to it?
Which leads into another question, and I promise this is the last one for now: If someone new enters the society in question, how do you secure their agreement to those same terms?
that's why it's hard to describe exactly what such a system would end up looking like without trying to forcefully impose a top-down system on people.
Some examples of rights-based and -honoring societies that emerged from the pure market would probably go a long way toward helping. Surely there are some?
It's called "gaslighting", and abusers love to do it.
She would never fuck herself because NOBODY wants to fuck her, not even her. HEYOOOO
Anyway, who can now trust the "first [category here] EVAR" narrative after the Black Panther "first black superhero movie EVAR" fiasco? They say it's about highlighting achievement, but they just erase everyone who went before.
How about we help by referring to it as "culturally American" instead of "culturally white"? Then, people don't have to feel like they're pretending to be something they're not.
Her ass, too.
Well, if that's what you'd do as a cop, I'm glad you're not a cop.
What I described IS the police paying attention and acting responsibly. It's what they should be doing. It's what we pay them to do. Those tasks need doing, and downvoting me to the Earth's core won't make them go away. If we don't hire someone to do it, we have to do it ourselves.
And considering how simplistic people's "solutions" to problems tend to be even on our side of the political spectrum, I'm not sure that would be a good idea.
If you've allowed the police in your community to go that far outside of their job duties while ignoring their real ones, consider some employee turnover.
But close to legitimate is still not legitimate.
You talk a lot about what you think shouldn't exist, but can you line out what you think SHOULD? Let's say you get your wish, and you've torn down all nations and states. How would a society that you would consider "legitimate" deal with the daily troubles that every society eventually must?
Note that I am saying "society", and not "government". I would like to know how you think people would interact on the whole--and not "should" or "I would hope", either.
Show me your vision. Show me you can build as well as destroy.
Well, no, they already engage in "hormone therapy" for their own athletes. Just not the kind of hormones the trannies mean.
You're in luck; there's an entire political party that campaigns on making everyone equally miserable (and eventually dead by violence).
And you'll even get to vote for them after you die, too!
I wasn't aware that Poland was part of the U.K.
They most absolutely were. You can insist they were good red-blooded Republicans or whatever, but their policies were built upon collectives and centralized government control (through proxies if necessary).
FDR built his "New Deal" upon fascist ideas, as modeled by Italy and Germany.
Didn't arrest yet. Sometimes you catch them later, when they're not in a knot of mass hysteria.
Probably won't arrest at all, sure, but it's early to say definitively. I expect to be wrong, but I hope to be right.
A well-reasoned comment that highlights the nuance of these situations. Seeing something and jumping to a froth-mouthed conclusion is how we got Saint Floyd.
Question: Do you think any government represents its people?
Thanks for taking some time. I need to do some follow-up and redirect here:
But see, here's the thing. You used "imposing" in the context here: I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others. But the ordinary understanding of "imposing on others" doesn't involve force or violence; it includes being a disruption or a burden, placing upon them a duty they find onerous.
That example alone, right out of the gate, should highlight the problem with arriving at a meeting of the minds with no shared frame of reference or language/jargon. Without that, you can't have a valid contract. So, again, we're still stuck on the point of "How do you ensure that everyone understands and agrees to the same rights within your stateless society?"
And I still await an answer.
You mention insurance agencies, but we weren't talking about insurance agencies; we were talking of the basic question of rights as understood by the society as a whole, and thus the individuals within it.
But let's go ahead and advance on the point of "agreements between individuals" and put these nebulous "insurance agencies" aside for now. Does everyone in your society have a separate, independent, individual contract with everyone else in your society, properly negotiated and agreed? Or are you proposing a social contract, delineated in advance--and therefore in writing, and somehow deemed agreed-to for purposes of enforcement?
That's a market, however, not a society. Black markets exist in all societies, to varying degrees, but they are not a common culture, identity, or purpose. I'm talking about human beings functioning in social as well as economic activity, so...an example of a society that emerged from the pure market, please.