33 Comments
  1. …unless they scrape off the “ota” first to make it spell TOY, or alternatively everything but the “YO”

  2. Was taking the camera at gunpoint really a Libertarian move? I could relate to disposing of the tape/deleting the contents, but actually taking it by force?

  3. Taking the camera is justified if it is turned over to the police as evidence.

  4. Whether or not taking the camera was justified would be a task best left to an arbitrator in a free society.

    If the two parties came to me with the dispute, I’d find in favor of the guy who took the camera. He might have preferred to not have the police involved and it would be better for everyone typically if they weren’t. By taking the camera, he was protecting himself against a potential malicious false complaint to police — by maintaining custody of documentation of what really happened that day.

    Furthermore, as the wronged party, he was due some sort of compensation. While it is a legitimate question to ask if the value of the camera either exceeded or failed to meet an approrpiate dollar value for compensation, possession being nine tenths of the law and simplicity being a virtue I’d say everybody came out square and they should STFU, pay me my fee and go home.

  5. Brad — that’s not a precedent I can support… but at least I agree whole-heartedly on your logic process. :)

    That is indeed what should happen in a free society.

  6. Re #3, Stephen, are you kidding? What fantasy pillow do you sleep on? You want to talk about the camera??!!!

    Not all life happens in armchairs over a beer and the luxury of consequenceless idle conversation. Could we be troubled to discuss the point of the video?

    In a real situation of that type, I’d shoot the bat-guy square in the face in a heartbeat. Or put a throwing knife through his throat.

    Come at me yelling and shaking a baseball bat with the ability and an apparent willingness to maim or kill me and two things have already happened: I have a “reasonable man” defense and you’ve forfeited your right to your obviously insignificant life. I retain the right to mine, so guess who wins?

    Oh, wait… as I recall, I _did_ shoot the guy when that happened to me, but then he was pointing a gun, not swinging a baseball bat.

    Appoint me your executioner and I’ll be mailing your estate a bill.

    And all the way through that, I’d have stayed on point.

    -0-

  7. So, Allen, your point is that we shouldn’t discuss the camera because you totally like, shot a guy in the face once. Well shut my mouth.

  8. Re #11, No, Stephen, my point is that until I posted at #8, the discussion was irrelevant to the post, and 5 of the first 7 comments were pursuant your diversion.

    Forgive me if I’m a little adamant about it, but after 35 years of watching the LP follow tangents to their most minute wastes of time, well….

    Particularly when the camera question, in every possible iteration, was asked and answered and argued ad inifinitum more than 30 years ago when such nuances actually looked new.

    So yes, I object to the repetition and the culture of digression, which have combined to make us memoryless and mindless and ineffective.

    The discussion you seek is in a hundred books on the subject. It may be titillating to you, but it’s dusty to many of us. Even if the original poster finds the camera question interesting, I doubt that’s the point to which he was posting.

    At the least, you could wait for relevant discussion to occur before changing the subject, okay?

    Thanks!

    -0-

  9. Allen, your arguement is divergent, thus by your own logic you shouldn’t be commenting. Not only this, but you propose that we cease discussion on issues which are over thirty-years-old or appear in writen form, you have thus negated science, philosophy, mathematics, politics, religion, your own opinions and have raised to a high standard last nights television. And what of twenty-nine year olds? I guess they’re shit out of luck, right?

    Here’s a hint: If you do not wish to read items which you find old-hat, use your freedoms and stop reading!

  10. Plain logic I’m afraid, but I’m willing to disagree on that with a man of your stature.

    The feeling is more than mutual.

  11. That’s two personal attacks. Didn’t your net-nanny teach you any netequette? Oh, well, here’s a bit of balancing before we close this out, this old and childish jabbing scramble to be right at all costs. I’m glad you surfaced while you still know everything; obviously, nobody who came before has any value to someone of your particular intellect who would rather talk than research (I note that you didn’t ask for even one title when you whined, “And what of twenty-nine year olds?”.) Anyway…

    Went to public school, did you, Stephen? That would explain your being afraid of plain logic.

    No worries about any mutual feelings. Your disdain for others and your tendency to make it personal are subcultural and not shared, only disgusting.

    -0-

  12. “Re #3, Stephen, are you kidding? What fantasy pillow do you sleep on?”

    Please do not speak of personal attacks, you both clearly trade in them and began the tirade.

    “Went to public school, did you, Stephen? That would explain your being afraid of plain logic.”

    Again, clear ad hominem.

    Time and again you have dodged my questions and analysis and have decided to rather make appeals, whether it be to authority, experience, prejudice or one of the many other logical fallacies you’ve entertained. I’m afraid this is one case where beating your chest achieves nothing.

    I hope you can agree that we’re done here.

  13. As I said, an offer of balance. You took my first quip personally, so that’s one for you to make even. Your second invited a game, and now you don’t want to play.

    At least I got in some discussion on the issue.

    Sure, we’re done.

    Everything you want to know is out there. Happy reading!

    -0-

  14. Assuming the event happened in Ohio, I’d say that the BMW driver’s duty to flee had been expended – especially so at the end of a dead-end road and while acting in defense of the passenger. A good concealed handgun licensee would have avoided confrontation though by informing the police (via cell phone) that he was being harassed by another driver who was following him in a case where the persuit was so lengthy.

  15. informing the police (via cell phone) that he was being harassed

    Unless he’s one of the growing contingent of people who leaves the cell phone at home or — gasp — got rid of it.

  16. I love these discussions :-)
    Calm down though fellas; the Vid is a fake and the camera plays second in this play. Notice the change in demeanor with the ball players once confronted. Looks like a leopard when confronted with a lion. I could care less what happened with the camera. Good banter though!

  17. What I want to know is, what level of arms are we willing to permit? The second ammendment was written when guns took forever to load and were a bitch to shoot. Now we have AK-47s that will take out a crowd of people in a handful of seconds.

    And what about bombs? Is it okay for a private citizen to own a bomb powerful enough to destroy a building? A city block? A city?

  18. Terroja; actually… by strictly following the letter of the laws written into the Constitution of our united states… not only should we “allow” all people to have artillery, tanks, bombs, and personal assault weapons, they should be *PROVIDED TO EVERY ABLE BODIED MALE OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP* by the state.

    I’ll follow up with codes, legislation, and precedent to that effect when I have more time. Off to the road for me!

  19. Feel free to do so. But my question is more in regards to whether or not it would be a good idea for civilians to have legal access to such things.

  20. Terroja… in that light, think of the following:

    “Citizens should not be in fear of their governments. Governments should be in fear of their citizens.”

    Is it a good idea? Nuclear weaponry I think is beyond the scope of the overall intent of the founding fathers. But military-grade arsenals and armaments? Absolutely, unequivicably, YES. Private militias were seen as the sole line of defense against militaristic privations by the state.

    Consider further the argument generally made (mind you, I own two weapon-style knives and no guns) that an armed society is a polite, and safe, society.

    Finally, consider:

    “Those whom sacrifice their freedoms in the name of safety deserve neither.”

  21. Yes, that’s a fine argument. And I agree that the government ought be kept at bay, but don’t you think a by-product of civilian militias might well be the occasional civil war?

    Freedom and safety are an always have been at odds, but freedom doesn’t mean much to the dead. I don’t see how the rights of the individual can be protected in dog-eat-dog society.

    I believe, of course, that people should succeed or fail based on their ability, not according to their need. However, in a society where anyone can legally build an arsenal, then whoever has the biggest arsenal will exercise a certain level of control over those with inferior or no weapons.

    Perhaps this is just wild speculation on my part, but assuming it’s not, wouldn’t the result be hundreds of mini-fascist states and not the rugged individualist ideal of libertarianism?

  22. Constitution, schmonstitution…

    In an anarchist society:

    1) Small arms for personal defense and defense against tyranny will be readily available at cheap prices.

    2) Aggressive and/or irresponsible behavior with small arms with be dealt with swiftly, justly and efficiently.

    3) Your neighbors won’t have nukes because they won’t be able to afford the insurance premiums that would require.

    End of fucking story.

  23. And I agree that the government ought be kept at bay, but don’t you think a by-product of civilian militias might well be the occasional civil war?

    Suppose this is true. Don’t you think the byproduct of a regime monopoly on weapons might be an occassional war and/or internal tyranny and mass murder by government? Nah, nothing like that could possibly happen, much less have precedent.

    I don’t see how the rights of the individual can be protected in dog-eat-dog society.

    Of course, they can be protected much better by a police-dog society. After all, when you give one faction all the power, history shows that they will always use it justly and wisely for the benefit of all.

  24. in a society where anyone can legally build an arsenal, then whoever has the biggest arsenal will exercise a certain level of control over those with inferior or no weapons.

    Unlike now. Right?

    Perhaps this is just wild speculation on my part, but assuming it’s not, wouldn’t the result be hundreds of mini-fascist states and not the rugged individualist ideal of libertarianism?

    Perhaps this is just my fanciful imagination, but just for the sake of argument, couldn’t a government monopoly on weapons result in one giant fascist tyranny and not the fully libertarian society we enjoy today thanks to the omnipotent protection of the flawless constitution given to us by liberty-loving, non-slave-owning forefathers?

  25. cannoli – I don’t disagree with anything you said. I don’t see how my pointing out possible flaws with a suggested solution means that I an in favor of the present system. I happen to think that there is, most likely, a solution that avoids the failings of either the current system or the system you would have it replaced by. I believe people should be able to protect themselves, but I don’t think they should be able to build private armies. I know that the theory is that the militia is supposed to keep the government in line, but as we have seen with Hezbollah in Lebanon it can work too well and the whole country can wind up dragged into a war by an army that isn’t even official. I don’t know what the middle ground is, but I’m not going to pretend that our ideal is flawless just because the alternative is flawed.

  26. Terroja asms, “I don’t see how the rights of the individual can be protected in dog-eat-dog society.” And drew a nice bit of irony and the usual kill-em-all reply, but no socially-acceptable answer.

    Who will answer the question? As one of the most common fears that stop people from considering our solution, this one is important.

    -0-

  27. I answer with another question: Why must a well-armed, libertarian world be a dog=eat-dog world? Humans are inherently both cooperative and competitive.

%d bloggers like this: