Respect my authority!

[Xavier]

Understandable, but what the hell is he supposed to do now?

[Khamsin]

Seems like guartz would prefer government, taxes, and all the benefits they provide to be an elective plan rather than a requirement.

Only he doesn't seem to realize that if it's elective, our police and military have no reason not to enforce their will on you.

Family A: Elects to pay taxes and receive police and emergency support, government programs, etc.
Family B: Does not elect to pay taxes, receives no support, and fends for themselves. Their property is its own enclave sovereignty.

Family A lives as we do now. Family B is the government's bitch.

Why? Because the police and military can just waltz in and conquer Family B, since there's no obligation to protect them.

Understandable, but what the hell is he supposed to do now?

Write her letters from prison asking her go back to school and get her GED.

[Woozie]

So she skipped school while with her mother (not while with the father?) and passed every part of her G.E.D. test except the part that people tend to struggle with most, so her father has to go to jail for half a year because 'court order says so'? Seems to me like the punishment didn't fit the crime, but I just skimmed through the article and the posts in this topic, so I guess I could be missing something that made the 180days more reasonable.

[Correction]

So she skipped school while with her mother (not while with the father?) and passed every part of her G.E.D. test except the part that people tend to struggle with most, so her father has to go to jail for half a year because 'court order says so'? Seems to me like the punishment didn't fit the crime, but I just skimmed through the article and the posts in this topic, so I guess I could be missing something that made the 180days more reasonable.

Classic example of 'read more than the OP before posting'

[Woozie]

I reread the topic, and still don't see why 180 days is justified. Would you mind explaining with something more than "court order"?

[Correction]

I reread the topic, and still don't see why 180 days is justified. Would you mind explaining with something more than "court order"?

Judges have a lot of latitude when it comes to sentencing guidelines, but most of the people I've seen under court order face the same 180 day jail time if they fail to comply. It may seem excessive but that's what makes obeying the court order less-than-optional. Too light a sentence and court orders everywhere would fall through. Sure the judge could have ordered less jail time but in this case they elected not to. Bad judge? That's up to the people who put him on the bench in the first place.

[archibaldcrane]

Jesus Christ Correction - do you have insider info the rest of us aren't privy to?

You have no idea what the father did or did not do from the time the court order was issued up until now. The only information any of us have is that the court ordered him to care for the education of his daughter, and that she failed one portion of the GED.

For all you know he could've been tutoring her every night and she just sucks balls at math.

I, personally, don't think that there could be any "education-related" caregiving or lack thereof regarding a 16-17 year old girl that would warrant a 6-month jail term. Period. You clearly have a different opinion, which is fine, but you are adamant that he deserves this jail term based on no other information than that she's failed the math portion of the GED and a judge deemed that enough to be in violation of his order. You do not know, at all, what education-related activities he was or was not engaging in with his daughter - you only know that she failed a test.

Am I characterizing this correctly?

[Woozie]

I reread the topic, and still don't see why 180 days is justified. Would you mind explaining with something more than "court order"?

Judges have a lot of latitude when it comes to sentencing guidelines, but most of the people I've seen under court order face the same 180 day jail time if they fail to comply. It may seem excessive but that's what makes obeying the court order less-than-optional. Too light a sentence and court orders everywhere would fall through. Sure the judge could have ordered less jail time but in this case they elected not to. Bad judge? That's up to the people who put him on the bench in the first place.

Okay, thanks, that explanation does make more sense. So he was just sentenced to the standard court order jail time.

[Correction]

Jesus Christ Correction - do you have insider info the rest of us aren't privy to?

You have no idea what the father did or did not do from the time the court order was issued up until now. The only information any of us have is that the court ordered him to care for the education of his daughter, and that she failed one portion of the GED.

For all you know he could've been tutoring her every night and she just sucks balls at math.

We also know that she was spending time at her mother's house and being truant from school. The dad doesn't get to pretend he didn't know about it. If he's under months of threat of jailtime to make sure she's getting her education done properly, and he didn't exercise the necessary diligence to ensure that, it's no great leap of logic to conclude that he was willfully ignoring the court order. That's how it would look to the judge's eyes for certain.

[guartz]

To re-think the jail principle is a different thing than to re-think our entire government structure.

So yeah, stfu.

I'd beg to differ, it's revolutionary. You can't take away force from government and except it to resemble anything like it is now. Governments ARE force. In fact, a good definition of government is an entity that has monopoly on force.


The basic principles behind anarcho capitalism is that initiation of force is immoral and anathema to freedom. Social structure should be solely based on incentives, which is natural/innate in every human.

Monopoly on violence didn't create cities or start industrial revolutions. The market force did. You all take it for granted, but look at it from another perspective, like a city of new york.
Millions rely on food, water and other essential stuffs, ALL of that is provided by a natural force we call the market. All of that is possible and more, and it doesn't require that humans change who they are, like socialism for example.

People won't change into blood thirsty lunatics over night just because there isn't a dude with shades, a badge and a handgun around the corner watching them.

If somehow 100 babies were born on an island without outside contact, and somehow survived to adulthood, they won't grow up talking about Jesus, laws or taxes. They'll have a intricate system of trade and social regulations, and the only time force would ever come into play is if one of them was a little bit more clever then the rest and made himself the "leader"
so he got to sit around and reap the rewards of everyone else's toil.

And that's exactly how it is now, we have these leaders who claim authority over people, over a social structure, but those leaders are completely unnecessary. It's a viral addition, it has no business in human social structure. It serves NO purpose. It doesn't preserve individual freedoms, it only hinders them. It doesn't provide life essentials, it only uses them. It does nothing but set it's false maxim, not unlike religion, for everyone to obey for its survival only. This same system has been responsible for countless millions of murders this century alone.

" Buuuuut guartz! What if somebody wants to hurt me? Who will protect me? "

I'm sure if we sit down and think about it, we can come up with a system of protection that doesn't require lifetime of obedience, subjugation and servitude. A system where a phrase like "If you are not with us, you are against us" would never be used.

Anyway, my point is that reliance on blunt force is archaic and humanity can do better, without a whole lot of effort. Of course, that means majority of people have to stop fearing the proverbial gun in the room almost simultaneously.

[Beckwin]

oh god shut the fuck up guartz.

you can rethink the jail mentality of "let's keep cramming too many people into prisons" without deciding you need to get rid of government entirely.

Government needs force to keep order? Society needs it to regulate itself. You just don't like the idea that you can't make money off of being a vigilante or w/e. Grow up.

[Blarg]

Kinda skimmed this thread but does being legally an adult not mean anything anymore?

[Correction]

Kinda skimmed this thread but does being legally an adult not mean anything anymore?

She was a juvenile under his sole custody when the court order was issued. Details matter. Skimming is dumb.

[Kuya]

The basic principles behind anarcho capitalism is that initiation of force is immoral and anathema to freedom. Social structure should be solely based on incentives, which is natural/innate in every human.

Rhetoric.

Monopoly on violence didn't create cities or start industrial revolutions. The market force did. You all take it for granted, but look at it from another perspective, like a city of new york.
Millions rely on food, water and other essential stuffs, ALL of that is provided by a natural force we call the market. All of that is possible and more, and it doesn't require that humans change who they are, like socialism for example.

More rhetoric.

People won't change into blood thirsty lunatics over night just because there isn't a dude with shades, a badge and a handgun around the corner watching them.

That's not really the point at all, and no less idealistic than socialism.

If somehow 100 babies were born on an island without outside contact, and somehow survived to adulthood, they won't grow up talking about Jesus, laws or taxes

.
I suppose that the fact that even old tribes had hierchies just sort of goes over your head. It seems we like placing our responsibility unto others, and it seems that there is always going to be someone who is going to want to be/have something better than everyone else.

I'm sure if we sit down and think about it, we can come up with a system of protection that doesn't require lifetime of obedience, subjugation and servitude.

Have you sat down and thought about it yet?

[Maxxthepenguin]

hahahahaha

ahahahahah

hahahahaha

Guartz, it's been too long since you posted raw crazy

[Tyche]

oh god shut the fuck up guartz.

you can rethink the jail mentality of "let's keep cramming too many people into prisons" without deciding you need to get rid of government entirely.

Government needs force to keep order? Society needs it to regulate itself. You just don't like the idea that you can't make money off of being a vigilante or w/e. Grow up.

Great point. The last few generations have been growing up by leaning on negative freedom (not that it's a bad thing or should be seen in a negative connotation). The idea of positive freedom would almost be absurd in this day and age. "Two concepts of Liberty" and "The Fear of Freedom" are 2 great essays to read as long as you bear in mind that they were written over 50 years ago. Just look at people these days, they cannot impose any type of positive freedom upon themselves. If you cannot regulate yourself in your daily life, I couldn't imagine what would happen if a government wasn't there to regulate the populous.

[Beckwin]

Have you sat down and thought about it yet?

he did, and it comes down to private armies and shit, that must be relied on to not be corrupt at all.

those were some lulz/facepalm PMs.

[gandorf]

I was in a pt before so couldn't really get my point across. I first started skipping school when I was 13, got in a lot of trouble went to Djj(what its called around here. It's like a kids jail for anyone under 18) for 5days. It fucking sucked there. You were there with older kids that did shit like armed robbery and rape.

I started going back to school when they threatened to take my mom away. I started skipping school again when I was 16 drop out when I was 17. From my experience and from what I heard they have sent 9yr olds to Djj. Can you imagine what it would be like being there at 9? I know I had nightmares about going back when I was 13/14.

Now back to the should the parent be held responsible for the child acts in this case? I believe no. MY mom tried really hard to make me goto school but she never really could get me to. Does that mean she failed as a parent and should be taken away? The answer is a big fat NO. She raised 4 kids by herself she did everything she should have.

For all we know this guy could have done the same kept a roof over her head food in her tummy. He might have not been to smart and couldn't tutor his child does that mean he deserves jail time?

If kids don't want to goto school their only hurting themselves. Life is all about making wrong decisions and learning from them.

[Xavier]

Not that I take anything you say very serious, but capitalism would absolutely collapse without a system in place to insure the protection of private property.

If not the government, then it would be private contractors/mercenaries.

[Nystul]

Have you sat down and thought about it yet?

he did, and it comes down to private armies and shit, that must be relied on to not be corrupt at all.

those were some lulz/facepalm PMs.

This is why he won't take my challenge- because my challenge stipulates that it has to apply to the "real world" and not some idealized society where people don't do the bad things that they so often do.

And I guarantee you this- any civilization that were to start with 100 babies - a blank slate - would certainly not have Jesus and Taxes in their vocabulary...because they'd invent a different language.

They would, however, have some form of government, and there WOULD DEFINITELY be religion. These concepts have arisen again and again and again throughout societies.