The Individual as Property [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Individual as Property


Chiefret
05-01-2013, 09:39
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/the_individual_as_property.html

A sig worthy quote from the article.


But not the modern python state; laws have become nooses around the necks of the citizenry while leaving the predators (who follow no law but their own) free rein.

jthrelf
05-01-2013, 09:53
great article... thanks for posting!

Zyzogg
05-02-2013, 07:29
Interesting concept; whether you are your own property or belong to the collective society/state. Consertive vs liberal. I will have to mull over that for a few days...thanks!

Z71bill
05-02-2013, 08:40
The assumption that individuals should be allowed to - take the law into their own hands - and go administer a little justice - may sound good at some level.

But just imagine if you could hit someone with a bat - just because you thought they had done something wrong.

The mother blames the drug dealer - but doesn't the son have a much greater level of fault for getting on drugs?

If the mother wants a world that allows personal - individual responsibility to matter - then she should be looking to her son first.

Sure everyone cheers when a drug dealer gets a beat down - but where would the line be drawn? And - Maybe more importantly who gets to draw it?

If your neighbor doesn't like it that you own a gun - can he ambush you - claim he felt you were a threat - and not be punished?

Chiefret
05-02-2013, 09:02
The assumption that individuals should be allowed to - take the law into their own hands - and go administer a little justice - may sound good at some level.

But just imagine if you could hit someone with a bat - just because you thought they had done something wrong.

The mother blames the drug dealer - but doesn't the son have a much greater level of fault for getting on drugs?

If the mother wants a world that allows personal - individual responsibility to matter - then she should be looking to her son first.

Sure everyone cheers when a drug dealer gets a beat down - but where would the line be drawn? And - Maybe more importantly who gets to draw it?

If your neighbor doesn't like it that you own a gun - can he ambush you - claim he felt you were a threat - and not be punished?

Hmm, I don't see it like that at all. The mother contacted the police and was told nothing could be done. At that point she acted in "self defence" of her family. Fortunately her actions were not lethal. I think more to the main point of the article, 60 years ago the drug dealer would probably been hauled off to jail while the mother given a ride home by the police.

Z71bill
05-02-2013, 10:07
Hmm, I don't see it like that at all. The mother contacted the police and was told nothing could be done. At that point she acted in "self defence" of her family. Fortunately her actions were not lethal. I think more to the main point of the article, 60 years ago the drug dealer would probably been hauled off to jail while the mother given a ride home by the police.

I need to assume that the mother had no evidence to support her claim - other than maybe the word of her drug addicted son.

You are just accepting the guy she beat up is in fact doing something wrong - based on what a mother of a drug addict thinks.

This is the flaw in your position.

Can I just decide you are a drug dealer - and it is your fault my kid is on drugs - and come over to your house and beat you with a bat?

Chiefret
05-02-2013, 10:20
I need to assume that the mother had no evidence to support her claim - other than maybe the word of her drug addicted son.

You are just accepting the guy she beat up is in fact doing something wrong - based on what a mother of a drug addict thinks.

This is the flaw in your position.

Can I just decide you are a drug dealer - and it is your fault my kid is on drugs - and come over to your house and beat you with a bat?

Your argument is exactly what the article speaks to.

In your view, any situation of self defence is unjustified because the individual stepped outside the bounds of the collective rules.

Bushflyr
05-02-2013, 10:46
The hypocrisy is thick with this one. :upeyes: All the right wingers on this board piss and moan about "personal freedom" then gleefully cackle when an honest businessman gets attacked by an irate relative of a customer.

In this instance the woman took a baseball bat to the drug pusher who was gleefully destroying her 20-year-old son with heroin.

REALLY? So how was this guy destroying her son? Her adult son who made his own choices. If he were selling a defective product, maybe cut with powered glass or something, she could have been justified, but no mention was made of his business practices.

They then applaud when a seller of drug x gets beat down, but of course, they have to put down their glass of drug y so as not to spill it in their repository of ash from drug z.

Throw the book at her. The right wing hypocrites are so brainwashed that they can't even see what she did, blaming the pusher for her son's problem, is exactly what they claim to hate most about the left wingers. Namely not taking responsibility for their own actions and blaming a third party for their situation. She should have taken the bat to her son if she wanted to do some good.

Chiefret
05-02-2013, 11:34
The article does not try to argue the woman’s case. Rather, point out the change in our society from individualism to collectivism. NY City is an excellent example of this collectivist thinking. The individual in that society has abdicated their right to self-determination and defense for security and protection from the collective, (government). They get neither. But try to buy a 32 oz. soft drink and you will have to leave the collective.

Z71bill
05-02-2013, 11:41
Your argument is exactly what the article speaks to.

In your view, any situation of self defence is unjustified because the individual stepped outside the bounds of the collective rules.


Not even close --



Step back from the details and try and answer my question.

Can I just decide you are a drug dealer - and it is your fault my kid is on drugs - and come over to your house and beat you with a bat?

Then even though I have no evidence of you doing anything wrong - I claim self defense.

You seem to think it OK if it is someone else that gets the beating - but I can't believe you would be OK with a beat down.

Chiefret
05-02-2013, 11:45
Can I just decide you are a drug dealer - and it is your fault my kid is on drugs - and come over to your house and beat you with a bat?

You seem to think it OK if it is someone else that gets the beating - but I can't believe you would be OK with a beat down.

Read my last post. No, I'm not here to defend her case. That has already been done.

Glock20 10mm
05-02-2013, 11:48
Well at least you get it Chiefret.

LASTRESORT20
05-02-2013, 11:54
A very good read!

Z71bill
05-02-2013, 12:03
Read my last post. No, I'm not here to defend her case. That has already been done.

OK then I have no idea what you are talking about -

You understand the mother was wrong to go beat the guy with the bat - but think she should be able to buy a 32 ounce soda?

What if she thinks the guy selling her the 32 ounce soda is responsible for making her fat. Can she then go hit him with a bat and call it self defense?

After all she owns her body - has a right to protect herself - and the guy is hurting her by selling her large sodas.

Sam Spade
05-02-2013, 20:04
The author chose a crappy example to illustrate his point. I agree with the above--had our bat-girl beat the consumer (or perhaps raised him properly to begin with) then we might be making an argument for individual and familial responsibility and ownership of problems.

Instead, she chose to inflict a punishment decided by her and her alone on another individual, who was presumably sovereign in his own right.

The example has nothing to do with whether or not you own yourself. It has everything to do with how you're allowed to interact with your peers.

racerford
05-02-2013, 21:20
She should not have talked to police and gotten a lawyer immediately. Based on the fact that she said when she followed and confronted him, he reached inside his vehicle something the size of a brick (weapon) she got her bat. Perhaps she could have plead self defense. also, if she had not confessed and there were no other witnesses (story doesn't say), she would not have been convicted, as the victim could not identify her.


It appears the son was an adult, so responsible for his own actions (using heroin). Would it have made the story different if he had been a minor and not of the age of consent? Maybe she should have filed for a restraining order. Maybe she should have filed for conservatorship.

Either way she does seem to have taken responsibility for her actions. She didn't deny she had done it.


Bushflyer, you call the drug dealer an "honest businessman". Honest means honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair. I don't think that describes a drug dealer. Also, if the dealer ever sold to him while he was high, it absolutely is not true. Once high he cannot really have informed consent to enter in a contract (drugs for money). The transaction is no longer upright and fair.

I don't condone or applaud her actions, but I do understand them. I get to say this without the hypocrisy that you think all people have about recreational drugs, because I do not smoke, drink alcohol, or do recreational drugs.

Bushflyr
05-02-2013, 21:43
Bushflyer, you call the drug dealer an "honest businessman". Honest means honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair. I don't think that describes a drug dealer. Also, if the dealer ever sold to him while he was high, it absolutely is not true. Once high he cannot really have informed consent to enter in a contract (drugs for money). The transaction is no longer upright and fair.

In the context of the story there was no mention of thievery or other dishonesty. I obviously don't know the seller personally, but just because you, or a majority of the population, doesn't like his product, there's no reason to assume he's not honest. The legality of what he's selling has nothing to do with character.

SpectreRider
05-02-2013, 22:06
Tagged to read later

NMG26
05-02-2013, 22:27
rethought it........deleted.

NMG26
05-02-2013, 22:55
The underlining premise of the article:

The Progressive thinking is that nobody has a right to govern himself, so Christianity and Judaism are rebels, antithetical to the cause of community and the idea that "it takes a village".

The lady did not hurt anyone.......really. She could have. She showed constraint even in her anger and fear.

The jury had no one not willing to not convict. After reading the story (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/jury-expected-to-get-jefferson-county-heroin-assault-case-this/article_ba92c931-df23-5318-b318-2443968c96cd.html) I would like to think that I would have been that person.

I see the noose around my neck.

This mindset is now a part of the American psyche.

"She broke the law and must suffer the consequences", is the noose.









.

NMG26
05-03-2013, 09:53
bump...