Guns used for lawful self-defense Pt. 5

[Jason]

Coventry? Why Nellis? So you could go to Vegas?

[Seth]

Coventry? Why Nellis? So you could go to Vegas?

North of Nellis, in the bombing range.

"Coventry" is the name of a science fiction short story by Robert Heinlein that's consistent with his Libertarian beliefs.

The theory is that in a Libertarian society, the appropriate way to deal with serious anti-social behavior (initiation of force or fraud on others) is to withdraw the benefits of society from the offender. The Coventry model suggests that a large, unoccupied part of the country should be set aside and walled off from the rest of the nation, with the walls/fences carefully guarded to prevent escape.

Criminals who cannot live within a Libertarian society are removed to Coventry, which is legally outside of society. They are declared "outlaws," meaning literally they are outside the law...and are not protected by the law. Inside Coventry there are no laws enforced by the larger society. It's a completely independent society where the dregs and anti-social are sent to protect the larger society, and the only rules in Coventry are those that are made by the inhabitants, which may be a viable society or utter anarchy or Law of the Jungle.

Nothing is provided to the inhabitants from outside because they have, by their initiation of force and fraud on others, forfeited all rights to support and participation in outside society. They may make of their lives what they will, in absolute freedom unfettered by the larger society...and fettered only by their ability to achieve what they want...or defend against aggression by other inhabitants.

The central theme is that if you cannot live within the ethical and moral boundaries of the society, then society is justified in excluding you from the benefits such societies offer.

And if you do escape, you're still and outlaw, and therefore may be killed by anyone at any time, because you have no protection of law.

This notion of outlawry is very, very old, and was practiced by the Norse thousands of years ago as an alternative to either incarcerating someone (which requires precious resources to maintain them) or simply killing them. Criminals were outlawed and could not take refuge in any community, and could be killed on sight by anyone without legal consequence.

[Jason]

Oh. So just like Australia was used by the British Empire then.

[MrJonno]

To most of us we'd rather be dead than imprisoned against our will by arbitrary authority.

Really who here would also rather be dead than imprisoned regardless of the reason?

[Blind groper]

Just a comment related to freedom.

The United Nations has, among its other freedoms that must be provided by a free country, listed the freedom to get a decent education, and the freedom to access reasonable health care, regardless of financial position.

I think we can agree that the USA fails badly on these two freedoms. As I pointed out several times, the USA is not a free country, and being permitted to own tools for committing murder does not make it so.

[Seth]

Oh. So just like Australia was used by the British Empire then.

Yeah, pretty much. The UK's mistake was trying to police it after they dumped the criminals off. They should have just kicked them off the boat off shore and if they made it past the sharks, they were on their own.

[Seth]

Just a comment related to freedom.

The United Nations has, among its other freedoms that must be provided by a free country, listed the freedom to get a decent education, and the freedom to access reasonable health care, regardless of financial position.

I think we can agree that the USA fails badly on these two freedoms. As I pointed out several times, the USA is not a free country, and being permitted to own tools for committing murder does not make it so.

Nonsense. Anyone in the US can get a decent education. The only thing that prevents them is their own (or their parents) limitations.

But your fundamental mistake is in miscategorizing privileges as rights.

Rights, which is to say freedoms of action that are capable of being defended against intrusion by others, are self-effectuating. You cannot claim as a right (or freedom) anything that forces another to act on your behalf against their will. Doing so disparages their superior right to be free from enslavement.

All human beings have a natural, fundamental right to life, liberty and property. For example, "property" includes the right to keep and bear arms. But that right does not include forcing an obligation on others to PROVIDE those arms for you. You have the right to an education, but you don't have a right to demand that other people pay for it, because that is enslaving them to your interests.

What you have is an equal OPPORTUNITY to seek out and obtain an education...at YOUR expense or through the VOLUNTARY efforts of those who value an educated public.

The same is true of every "freedom" the UN mentions that requires the participation of any other person or persons against their will, like, specifically, health care. You have a right to seek out health care and obtain it if you can. You do NOT have a right to demand that anyone give you that health care if they don't care to do so.

[orpheus]

Just a comment related to freedom.

The United Nations has, among its other freedoms that must be provided by a free country, listed the freedom to get a decent education, and the freedom to access reasonable health care, regardless of financial position.

I think we can agree that the USA fails badly on these two freedoms. As I pointed out several times, the USA is not a free country, and being permitted to own tools for committing murder does not make it so.

Nonsense. Anyone in the US can get a decent education. The only thing that prevents them is their own (or their parents) limitations.

Small point, perhaps, but no. You're wrong. And between my wife and me we have several decades of teaching and dealing with the administrations of New York public schools at all levels (K-12). Plus the work I've done in other school districts around the country, and as a college professor at both public and private institutions. Some places are excellent. Others are abysmal. And social mobility is not such that people can just move to a good school district - sometimes because of the in some cases there isn't a decent school anywhere nearby at all. And it's getting worse.

Furthermore, the best schools we have are on a par with the rather evenly distributed average in the Scandinavian countries. Their quality of education far exceeds ours, hands down.

Finally, university education. It's paid for by taxes in Scandinavia. Here, the cost of even a mediocre college education is huge; a good one is astronomical and rapidly becoming out of reach of most.

So, you're wrong.

edit: besides, "Anyone in the US can get a decent education." Decent? That's all you think we as a nation should provide our children? Decent? How ambitious of us. How farseeing for the freedom of the next generations. And education really does bring freedom, in any truly meaningful sense of the word.

[Seth]

Just a comment related to freedom.

The United Nations has, among its other freedoms that must be provided by a free country, listed the freedom to get a decent education, and the freedom to access reasonable health care, regardless of financial position.

I think we can agree that the USA fails badly on these two freedoms. As I pointed out several times, the USA is not a free country, and being permitted to own tools for committing murder does not make it so.

Nonsense. Anyone in the US can get a decent education. The only thing that prevents them is their own (or their parents) limitations.

Small point, perhaps, but no. You're wrong. And between my wife and me we have several decades of teaching and dealing with the administrations of New York public schools at all levels (K-12). Plus the work I've done in other school districts around the country, and as a college professor at both public and private institutions. Some places are excellent. Others are abysmal. And social mobility is not such that people can just move to a good school district - sometimes because of the in some cases there isn't a decent school anywhere nearby at all. And it's getting worse.

You hit the nail right on the head: "Social mobility." The finest educations on the planet are available in the US. That doesn't mean that they are available EVERYWHERE. But any parent who cares about their children's education will do whatever is necessary to find a top-notch school for their kids, even if it requires moving across the country, which is exactly what my parents did. They moved to Boulder, Colorado in 1956 precisely because it was both a college town and had top-notch primary education.

And if you, as a parent, can't move to a good school, then MAKE a good school. It's up to parents to make sure that their kids get a good education, and that requires that they be involved with the school rather than being absentee parents and letting the Marxist fucks at the NEA decide how to educate their proletarian proteges.

Nobody said it was easy, but it's out there if you want it.

Furthermore, the best schools we have are on a par with the rather evenly distributed average in the Scandinavian countries. Their quality of education far exceeds ours, hands down.

Depends specifically on which school system/district/school you're talking about, doesn't it?

Finally, university education. It's paid for by taxes in Scandinavia. Here, the cost of even a mediocre college education is huge; a good one is astronomical and rapidly becoming out of reach of most.

You mean like a "good" Russian university education? Do you know how many Russian "doctors" (physicians) there are? Do you know how many of them work as physicians?

Very few. Most of them are women who work in shops or offices. And to practice medicine in the US if you immigrate, a Russian "doctor" has to go back to medical school for about 4 years.

The reason American university education...and every socialist university education is worthless and becoming more worthless is precisely because a degree is seen as a "right," and in order to award degrees to the numbnuts who go to college because the government pays for it they have to lower the standards right down to the bottom of the cesspool in order to graduate anyone.

It's a least-common-denominator system that means nothing insofar as actual knowledge is concerned.

University (and for that matter high school) should be reserved for those who are truly interested in a good education and taking advantage of what's available...through hard work and scholarship. Everybody else should learn how to read and write and cypher enough to flip burgers, dig ditches, lay asphalt or change hotel sheets, and that's all the education anyone ought to provide them.

So, you're wrong.

No, I'm not.

edit: besides, "Anyone in the US can get a decent education." Decent? That's all you think we as a nation should provide our children? Decent? How ambitious of us. How farseeing for the freedom of the next generations. And education really does bring freedom, in any truly meaningful sense of the word.

If true, then it's in the rational self-interest of parents and, for example, business to voluntarily donate to provide a good education.

I don't have any kids, so it doesn't benefit me much at all to pay property taxes that go to the schools because the Marxist fucks who run many of them are just turning out indoctrinated little Maoists anyway.

[orpheus]

Just a comment related to freedom.

The United Nations has, among its other freedoms that must be provided by a free country, listed the freedom to get a decent education, and the freedom to access reasonable health care, regardless of financial position.

I think we can agree that the USA fails badly on these two freedoms. As I pointed out several times, the USA is not a free country, and being permitted to own tools for committing murder does not make it so.

Nonsense. Anyone in the US can get a decent education. The only thing that prevents them is their own (or their parents) limitations.

Small point, perhaps, but no. You're wrong. And between my wife and me we have several decades of teaching and dealing with the administrations of New York public schools at all levels (K-12). Plus the work I've done in other school districts around the country, and as a college professor at both public and private institutions. Some places are excellent. Others are abysmal. And social mobility is not such that people can just move to a good school district - sometimes because of the in some cases there isn't a decent school anywhere nearby at all. And it's getting worse.

You hit the nail right on the head: "Social mobility." The finest educations on the planet are available in the US.

Wrong. Some excellent educations, yes. For many, impossible to access. Not hard, impossible - because our system is fucked.

That doesn't mean that they are available EVERYWHERE. But any parent who cares about their children's education will do whatever is necessary to find a top-notch school for their kids, even if it requires moving across the country, which is exactly what my parents did. They moved to Boulder, Colorado in 1956 precisely because it was both a college town and had top-notch primary education.

Well, that's nice for you. For many it is literally impossible. They do not have the freedom to do so, because our system is fucked. You just put blinders on and refuse to see it.

And if you, as a parent, can't move to a good school, then MAKE a good school.

Whee!

It's up to parents to make sure that their kids get a good education, and that requires that they be involved with the school rather than being absentee parents and letting the Marxist fucks at the NEA decide how to educate their proletarian proteges.

Ah, so you've never seen inner city education (for example, though the problems aren't limited to urban areas by any means), and the impossible situations many families face. Families who want to be involved, who in many cases are involved - and it still doesn't matter because for many our system is fucked.

Nobody said it was easy, but it's out there if you want it.

For a hell of a lot of people, no, it's not.

Furthermore, the best schools we have are on a par with the rather evenly distributed average in the Scandinavian countries. Their quality of education far exceeds ours, hands down.

Depends specifically on which school system/district/school you're talking about, doesn't it?

No, not really. The level of education at the vast majority of Scandinavian schools is beyond anything in any US district except a very, very few places here. It's incredibly rare.

Finally, university education. It's paid for by taxes in Scandinavia. Here, the cost of even a mediocre college education is huge; a good one is astronomical and rapidly becoming out of reach of most.

You mean like a "good" Russian university education? Do you know how many Russian "doctors" (physicians) there are? Do you know how many of them work as physicians?

Very few. Most of them are women who work in shops or offices. And to practice medicine in the US if you immigrate, a Russian "doctor" has to go back to medical school for about 4 years.

You do know that Russia and Scandinavia are not the same, right? Either you're dodging, or you really don't know the difference. Neither alternative do your side of the argument any good.

The reason American university education...and every socialist university education is worthless and becoming more worthless is precisely because a degree is seen as a "right," and in order to award degrees to the numbnuts who go to college because the government pays for it they have to lower the standards right down to the bottom of the cesspool in order to graduate anyone.

It's a least-common-denominator system that means nothing insofar as actual knowledge is concerned.

Pretty much everything you've just written is wrong.

University (and for that matter high school) should be reserved for those who are truly interested in a good education and taking advantage of what's available...through hard work and scholarship. Everybody else should learn how to read and write and cypher enough to flip burgers, dig ditches, lay asphalt or change hotel sheets, and that's all the education anyone ought to provide them.

What a bright picture you paint for your children's generation. Dismal, Seth. And so unimaginative. Furthermore, it's plain that you really don't want some people to be free at all.

So, you're wrong.

No, I'm not.

edit: besides, "Anyone in the US can get a decent education." Decent? That's all you think we as a nation should provide our children? Decent? How ambitious of us. How farseeing for the freedom of the next generations. And education really does bring freedom, in any truly meaningful sense of the word.

If true, then it's in the rational self-interest of parents and, for example, business to voluntarily donate to provide a good education.

I don't have any kids, so it doesn't benefit me much at all to pay property taxes that go to the schools because the Marxist fucks who run many of them are just turning out indoctrinated little Maoists anyway.

Shortsighted, anti-freedom, anti-American.

[Blind groper]

On the quality of American education.

I do not claim to be an expert here. However, I have a sister who is. She spent a number of years in Abu Dhabi training teachers. Many were highly paid expatriots, because the United Arab Emirates has a lack of teachers but heaps of oil money. My sister taught a number of Americans how to teach. She reported that these were smart and dedicated teachers, who nevertheless were lousy teachers because they had never learned good teaching technique. They were keen and developed into excellent teachers under her tutelage, but according to my sister, if they were typical it means schools in the USA are pretty crappy.

[Seth]

Just a comment related to freedom.

The United Nations has, among its other freedoms that must be provided by a free country, listed the freedom to get a decent education, and the freedom to access reasonable health care, regardless of financial position.

I think we can agree that the USA fails badly on these two freedoms. As I pointed out several times, the USA is not a free country, and being permitted to own tools for committing murder does not make it so.

Nonsense. Anyone in the US can get a decent education. The only thing that prevents them is their own (or their parents) limitations.

Small point, perhaps, but no. You're wrong. And between my wife and me we have several decades of teaching and dealing with the administrations of New York public schools at all levels (K-12). Plus the work I've done in other school districts around the country, and as a college professor at both public and private institutions. Some places are excellent. Others are abysmal. And social mobility is not such that people can just move to a good school district - sometimes because of the in some cases there isn't a decent school anywhere nearby at all. And it's getting worse.

You hit the nail right on the head: "Social mobility." The finest educations on the planet are available in the US.

Wrong. Some excellent educations, yes. For many, impossible to access. Not hard, impossible - because our system is fucked.

Do they have feet...or wheels? If you can't get a good education in the ghetto slums of New York, stand up on your hind legs, pick up your kid and your bindle and hit the road, Jack. Millions did it during the Great Depression...so much so that California tried to pass a law to keep people from coming into California if they were indigent. California lost that case in the Supreme Court, which means that anyone in this nation can take shank's mares to a better place and a brighter future...if they have the gumption to do so.

If they don't, then they suffer the consequences of their actions, which is fine with me. I've had to do so all my life.

[Seth]

Oh dat data keeps on a-rolling in...:

Crime
Georgia Homeowner Introduces Knife-Wielding Robber’s Backside to His .45-Cal
Jun. 10, 2013 8:57pm Jason Howerton

68
113
0
1
23

Georgia Homeowner Shoots Masked Robber on His Porch

shutterstock.com

A 36-year-old homeowner in Glynn County, Ga., shot a knife-wielding masked robber several times after the man lured him out of his residence by ringing the doorbell twice.

The incident occurred at around 11 p.m. on Saturday, according to police.

The homeowner told police he heard his doorbell ring but didn’t see anyone outside. A short time later, the doorbell rang again.

He opened the door this time, but he was armed with his .45-cal handgun for his protection, WJXT-TV reports.

As soon as the man stepped onto his porch, a masked man reportedly lunged at him with a knife, according to the Times-Union. The robbery suspect was later identified by police as Anthony Devine.

The homeowner, believing his life was in immediate danger, shot the suspected robber multiple times with his .45-cal pistol. He then ran into his home and called 911.

Police arrived at the scene to find the suspect near the front door with several gunshot wounds to his butt and back.

Devine was transported to Memorial Medical Center in Savannah, though his condition was unclear.

[Blind groper]

Once more Seth resorts to anecdotes, since he has no real data.

[Seth]

Once more Seth resorts to anecdotes, since he has no real data.

Once more BG denies reality after a visual inspection of his upper colon.