Police Kill Americans at an Alarming Rate, and They are Not Just Minorities

[Harte]

Government crime is not recorded as other crimes are. This is because they are not counted as crimes. This is because they are given special words that exempt them.

For example; Taking property against consent of the rightful owner is called theft. Theft is a crime because it violates rights. You have a right to your stuff because you traded your time expertise and labor, your life, for stuff. It is yours. If someone takes it against your consent, they are stealing because they are taking a piece of your life/time.

If someone uses deceit or fraudulent terms, coercion, etc to take stuff against consent of the owner, it is still theft.

But government can take things against consent because it isn't called theft. It is called fines or taxation, regulatory standards, etc. It works exactly the same way. But it isn't theft because it is called something else because they say so.

Sorry, but you are legally allowed to take other people's property in the event that you win a decision in court.

This power is analogous to that of the government.

Another example would be abduction.

If you forcefully take someone, it is called abduction. You have a right to decide what you do with your time life and body, and to travel freely. If you abduct someone because they don't have a piece of plastic or numbers or whatever, it is still abduction. But when government does it, it is called being arrested. It also works the exact same way, but isn't really violating because it is a different word. Thus it is not counted as a crime.

You are completely off your rocker.
Criminals shouldn't be arrested then?

Harte

 

[Japrim]

Sorry, but you are legally allowed to take other people's property in the event that you win a decision in court. This power is analogous to that of the government.

Allowed by whom? Who decides when theft is acceptable? What gives anyone a right to steal?

Getting a criminal's permission to steal is not rightful. It is still theft.

You have a right to defense of your self family and property regardless of what any court or government says.

Another example would be abduction.

If you forcefully take someone, it is called abduction. You have a right to decide what you do with your time life and body, and to travel freely. If you abduct someone because they don't have a piece of plastic or numbers or whatever, it is still abduction. But when government does it, it is called being arrested. It also works the exact same way, but isn't really violating because it is a different word. Thus it is not counted as a crime

You are completely off your rocker.
Criminals shouldn't be arrested then?

When someone attempts to commit a crime, they should be defended against by any and all means necessary or available. If someone tries to abduct you or your family, friends, etc... the right to defense applies.

No one has a right to abduct. The only exception I can possibly think of would be a parent acting within their rights. But that is different. Strangers do not have a right to abduct you because you don't agree with their forced opinions.

For example; If someone wants to drive around with no numbers on their car, with a few thousand pounds of heroin, assault rifles and rocket launchers, selling their drugs, they are absolutely within their right to do so, as long as they do so without violating anyone's rights.

If someone wanted to abduct, beat, steal from, or kill them for their victimless behavior, they are in the wrong.

What government does is write on paper that they cannot exhibit victimless behavior and drive around with no numbers on their car, with a few thousand pounds of heroin, assault rifles and rocket launchers, selling their drugs. Then it sends people to hunt them and abduct, beat, steal from, or kill them for not obeying their opinion.

Government calls the local merchants criminals and violates them by systemic order. All the retards fail to see the difference and end up calling the victims the criminals.

Of course they shouldn't be abducted. They did nothing wrong. They violated no one.

Criminals, however, those who do things like try to steal your car or abduct you for whatever reason, should be shot on sight. ...whatever clothes they may be wearing.

 

[Japrim]

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

All who are reading and rejecting what I am saying; Your frustrations and/or rationalizations are what is known as cognitive dissonance.

You statists are slaves who are being violated at a constant by your own demands. When I use principle and point it out to you in simple, clear and concise terms, you reject it. That is because you have been brainwashed from birth to accept systematic violence as an accepted norm, even good or preferable to actual peace and order.

I am the one arguing in favor of respecting universal natural basic inalienable human rights. Yet people will fiercely defend the use of coercion and violent force to control other people and force their opinions onto them. ...because that's what they have been taught is right.

 

[Japrim]

Sorry, but you are legally allowed to take other people's property in the event that you win a decision in court. This power is analogous to that of the government.

The taking of rightful property against consent of the owner is called theft. It always qualifies as theft as long as it meets the aforementioned criteria. It only needs to be taken against the owner's will.

If 1 person takes property against the will of the owner, it is theft.

If 2 people take property against the will of the owner, it is theft.

If 10 people take property against the will of the owner, it is theft.

If 100 people take property against the will of the owner, it is theft.

If 1000 people take property against the will of the owner, it is theft.

If 100000 people take property against the will of the owner, it is theft.

If 1000000 people take property against the will of the owner, it is theft.

If 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 people take property against the will of the owner, it is theft.

If 1 or two or a million billion google bazillion people take property against consent of the owner, it is theft.

If someone or a bazillion people use coercion, stealth, deceit or some other means to facilitate the taking of property against the consent of the owner, it is theft.

If someone or a bazillion people have religious ceremonies, say magic special words, write it down and sign it, use coercion, stealth, deceit or some other means to facilitate the taking of property against the consent of the owner, it is theft.

So, what is a group of people called a "court" deciding to take property against willful consent of the owner?

Theft.

Theft is wrong. Theft is a violation of rights.

Violence is criminal.

Courts are violent, therefore criminal.

"Legally allowed" = getting a criminal's permission

Since theft is a violation of rights, violence, the right to defense applies.

You have a right to defense of your property against anyone who attempts to take it against your willful consent.

If someone steals your property, you have a right to take it back.

If they refuse, you have a right to do whatever necessary to defend your right to property, up to and including the use of deadly force.

 

[Harte]

Sorry, but you are legally allowed to take other people's property in the event that you win a decision in court. This power is analogous to that of the government.

Allowed by whom? Who decides when theft is acceptable? What gives anyone a right to steal?

Getting a criminal's permission to steal is not rightful. It is still theft.

You have a right to defense of your self family and property regardless of what any court or government says.

No, you don't.
You can't invent your own rights.

Another example would be abduction.

If you forcefully take someone, it is called abduction. You have a right to decide what you do with your time life and body, and to travel freely. If you abduct someone because they don't have a piece of plastic or numbers or whatever, it is still abduction. But when government does it, it is called being arrested. It also works the exact same way, but isn't really violating because it is a different word. Thus it is not counted as a crime

You are completely off your rocker.
Criminals shouldn't be arrested then?

When someone attempts to commit a crime, they should be defended against by any and all means necessary or available. If someone tries to abduct you or your family, friends, etc... the right to defense applies.

No one has a right to abduct. The only exception I can possibly think of would be a parent acting within their rights. But that is different. Strangers do not have a right to abduct you because you don't agree with their forced opinions.

For example; If someone wants to drive around with no numbers on their car, with a few thousand pounds of heroin, assault rifles and rocket launchers, selling their drugs, they are absolutely within their right to do so, as long as they do so without violating anyone's rights.

If someone wanted to abduct, beat, steal from, or kill them for their victimless behavior, they are in the wrong.

What government does is write on paper that they cannot exhibit victimless behavior and drive around with no numbers on their car, with a few thousand pounds of heroin, assault rifles and rocket launchers, selling their drugs. Then it sends people to hunt them and abduct, beat, steal from, or kill them for not obeying their opinion.

Government calls the local merchants criminals and violates them by systemic order. All the retards fail to see the difference and end up calling the victims the criminals.

Of course they shouldn't be abducted. They did nothing wrong. They violated no one.

Criminals, however, those who do things like try to steal your car or abduct you for whatever reason, should be shot on sight. ...whatever clothes they may be wearing.

Whatever. I'm out. You have no argument here, and are apparently incapable of discussion.

Harte

 

[Japrim]

No, you don't.
You can't invent your own rights.

Who is inventing rights? Are you accusing me of being god? WTF are you smoking?

Please explain to me how anyone has a right to violate?

Who has a right to steal?

Whatever. I'm out. You no argument here, and are apparently incapable discussion.

No, I am typing out all sorts of good intelligent factual clear and concise things to discuss and think about. You are the one running from discussion. I think what you mean to say is that you disagree but cannot argue, that you are still experiencing cognitive dissonance and need to further consider the truths that I have pointed out.

 

[Japrim]

Do not confuse an edict with a right.

Government edicts/laws are 'shall be by force'.
Rights are an inalienable condition of being a human.

Government edicts/laws are forced demands.
Rights come from god and/or nature. They simply are. They do not need to be forced.

A court has nothing to say about rights. It simply must accept them as reality like everything else. If a court invents the right to steal, antithetical to reality, then the court is the one in violation. The court is the one in fantasy land trying to create a false forced reality.

 

[Japrim]

Where did the universe come from? What was here before it? How did it get here? Where and how or what did it all start from? Whatever that answer is, it is our premise for reality, also known as truth.

Reality is. It is not something else. It is what it is because it is. It simply is what it is and we accept it.

Fact: Biology, living organisms are a part of the real true natural universe.

Fact: DNA is the primary determinant of the form of biological creatures, their needs, behavior, how they adapt and evolve, etc.

This is the very core premise of what inalienable rights are. Humans are humans because we are humans, because nature and our DNA says we are humans. We have a right to be human.

Inalienable means inseparable, that it cannot be separate or alien, that it is simply a part of something. Inalienable rights simply means rightfully being a human. We cannot be anything but human.

A simple example of an inalienable right would be the right to breathe air. Nature says that we are humans that require a nitrogen/oxygen mix to be constantly inhaled and exhaled. Nature says that if we do not have adequate gas to breathe, we die. Thus we have a right to breathe.

A more complex example would be all the things that are typical peaceful human behavior, all the things that humans do to live a healthy happy life.

You have a right to exist as a human being, to do all the things that humans do, that define us as human, that makes people happy during their limited time in the physical realm.

You have a right to be a human and do whatever you want, up to the point where it encroaches upon or violates the rights of other to indulge in their human experience and also be happy.

Freedom is choice unbridled, ungoverned, limited only by ability. Liberty is choices of behavior governed by the value and respect for the rights of others.

In essence, Liberty is Live and Let Live.

If your government or civilization deviates from what I have just explained, it will only increasingly become dysfunctional as it is premised on something besides reality in combination with being forced.

You cannot force a false reality. Reality is what it is. It is not what it is not. It is what is is.

Fact: Humans have rights.

 

[Japrim]

I didn't invent rights. God did. I do understand and see the real world though.

In the real world, funny clothes and bullshit on paper don't mean a god damned thing.

I vote for an encore;

 

[Classicalfan626]

I didn't invent rights. God did. I do understand and see the real world though.

In the real world, funny clothes and bullshit on paper don't mean a god damned thing.

I vote for an encore;

Is that rap music? I hate it! You are entitled to your opinion, but liking rap is not a good opinion.