Sorry. Not sorry.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

Governments minimize violence by claiming a monopoly on it. ...

And if we didn't do it collectively, a lot more individuals would do it themselves.

I don't buy it. This is an example of the default thinking I mentioned in #607. And see the question in #607.

[redpoint5]

Exactly. If the government isn't protecting my family, life, and property, I will take the necessary steps to secure them myself. Nobody would agree with my sense of justice since we all have differing opinions on the subject. That is the unifying reason for government; that they enforce the rules dispassionately that we all agree on. To the extent that rules are not enforced dispassionately is an indicator of the level of corruption.

[Fat Charlie]

Our government kills people "over there" for a lot of reasons. Mainly because if you spend a ton of money to make sure any conflict happens there and not here, you actually save money by not having conflicts here- and conflicts that don't blow up your own buildings can be pretty lucrative on their own.

The question, though, is where the problem lies. There's all sorts of unwanted behavior. Generally, we don't prevent them in the most efficient ways, but in ways that make money for someone influential.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

... they enforce the rules dispassionately that we all agree on.

I couldn't disagree more.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

Our government kills people "over there" for a lot of reasons. Mainly because if you spend a ton of money to make sure any conflict happens there and not here, you actually save money by not having conflicts here- and conflicts that don't blow up your own buildings can be pretty lucrative on their own.

The question, though, is where the problem lies. There's all sorts of unwanted behavior. Generally, we don't prevent them in the most efficient ways, but in ways that make money for someone influential.

Re: paragraph 1: US militarism and hegemony has their knee on much of the world's neck.

Para 2: I guess I can agree with that. It seems to be in conflict with para 1.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

I couldn't disagree more.

Agreement can be active or passive. Doing nothing is an agreement that the injustice is not so egregious as to warrant bloodshed. I don't agree with 100% of the law, but in a sense I do because I don't forcefully oppose it. Trample 1a though and you might get some disagreement from me. 1a doesn't exist to protect bigotry, but to protect the right to think. Nobody is justified in removing the right to think. That's the most dangerous right to remove, which is why the 1a is the 1st.

[redneck]

.

And the 2nd protects the 1st...


>

.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Agreement can be active or passive. Doing nothing is an agreement that the injustice is not so egregious as to warrant bloodshed. I don't agree with 100% of the law, but in a sense I do because I don't forcefully oppose it.

That's a ridiculous expectation, especially for a country that supposedly has rights, freedoms, representation, and democratic functions. Our government should be so advanced that we don't even feel the need to vote.

And you're the 'law and order' person that wants to crack down harder on people.

Trample 1a though and you might get some disagreement from me. 1a doesn't exist to protect bigotry, but to protect the right to think. Nobody is justified in removing the right to think. That's the most dangerous right to remove, which is why the 1a is the 1st.

The 1A is supposed to prevent Congress from making laws against those items it mentions.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redneck

And the 2nd protects the 1st...

The 2A is the biggest pacifier of the bunch: "As long as they don't come for our guns, things aren't that bad. Once they come for ours guns, then I'll do something, by golly."

The other initial amendments also give false security.

[freebeard]

"Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom to exercise neither." Garrison Kielor

I couldn't disagree more.

Half quote. Consider: "That is the unifying reason for government..." This is not describing what obtains under a two-party, first-past-the-post system.

"Studied refusal" is an excellent example of your word choices and combinations being perplexing.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22studied+refusal%22

DDG is your friend.