or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tonton

And there we have it.1. Under a strict interpretation of the NAP, you cannot effectively enforce any laws without violating the NAP by making an arrest or seizing evidence. As I claimed.2. Government is a better way to manage enforcement and adjudication, because of checks and balances, the representative voting system, and open candidacy, as I claimed.Are we done now?
Yes, I was arguing a strict interpretation, because that's what MJ is arguing in his claim that government is fundamentally immoral.In the context of government vs. nongovernment, as you say, we might need to have the ability to detain suspects to collect evidence and hold a trial. Who do you suggest should have this right of detention of suspects? Private enterprises? Nongovernmental social constructs like the ridiculous feudal Irish example? How is that any better than...
Wrong, and wrong.Is the suspect now the aggressor? How on earth do you know? How can you prove it without his cooperation? You can't. So you can't prove he's the aggressor. So how do you bring him to trial, or collect evidence, without initiating force? You can't. So he walks away unless you take initiative force. Which is what I've been arguing all along.It is absolutely impossible to enforce the NAP without violating the NAP.Or is omniscience of guilt part of the NAP plan?
Tell me one policy you think doesn't affect me or my family. Just one. I challenge you. I bet you whatever you like that I can tell you how every policy I take a position on in fact does.
Your belligerence should be legend. Just two posts up I mentioned my daughter. And there are other ways.
Planning the perfect crime under the rule of law:1. Leave absolutely no evidence.2. Establish a perfect alibi.(Easier said than done)Planning the perfect crime under NAP:1. Say "I didn't do it" and refuse to cooperate with any investigation.Yeah, you're right. It's not at all clear that that's easier. Riight. You refuse to give an example because you "don't have to". Not at all because you can't.
These policies affect me directly and indirectly. It affects my life.
People who escape justice in our society don't do it with anywhere near the ease with which they would under NAP. That is clear. I've shown one example. I could show a hundred, but it's futile. Yet... It's still one more example than the number you've given to counter. It's an example that you have yet to disprove (and couldn't).
I have indeed showed an example of how easy it would be for someone to walk away from a crime. Your denial doesn't change that.And just admit it. You don't want to answer my question about how justice would be brought (your claim that it could be done) because you haven't thought that far ahead. You can't answer the question.
New Posts  All Forums: