I meant if they were there during the shooting. — I like sushi

Had they done their fucking job there would not have been any shooting. There were only three people shot that night.

I’m sure given the circumstances the police were extremely mindful and trying to avoid such a thing — I like sushi

Yeah, because he was white. That's the point.

I wouldn’t just assume they’d shoot someone black on that night for carrying a gun. Arrested? Very likely. — I like sushi

I'd laugh, but it's not funny.

Anyway, I'm going to leave you with the floor. I'm done.

If the police were there it would have been different. They weren’t. — I like sushi

Bullshit. They were there and they did shit. Apparently it's you that didn't watch what was going on. Maybe the judge ruled the cops interaction with the shooter as inadmissible and thus, you, like the jury, didn't see it. Because, you know, you watched the trial. Don't know. Anyway, as an apparent lay-person on the law, maybe you should learn to distinguish between the trial and and the facts.

If you interested/concerned then why not watch the trial and put your mind at rest rather than listening to stories? It looked crazy to me so I watched large portions of the trial. I still think it’s weird that a 17 yr old, or anyone, can walk around with a gun. That said, he clearly acted in self defence. — I like sushi

You see, that the thing about video. I saw the cops all butt-hole buddy with him before the shoot. That's my outrage. Had he been black, he would have been on his face, or shot down like a dog.

I know about heat of the moment. That's not the source of my chagrin.

From what I can tell there is outrage simply because he was white and the police didn’t shoot him. — I like sushi

Pretty much. That was the source of my outrage.

Shortly after the initial incident, I saw videos and heard stories. My heart became bad. Very bad. Especially when I heard about the conduct of law enforcement officers who had interactions with the shooter before the shooting.

I decided my thoughts were bad for me, and that I could put it out of my mind, at least temporarily, by honoring the rule of law and awaiting action, if any, from the justice system. Some time went by.

Then the verdict came down, and my heart went bad again.

Lots of couldashouldawoulda went through my mind: actions that might have been different, from onlookers, police, victims, shooter. What I would have done. That all means nothing. Nothing.

I went to bed that night and dreamt "Peace, humility, grace."

Those things are not me. But I decided they would be advisable, and that I should try to change. It is hard. Very hard. For those of you who have these things innate to your character, give thanks.

Delete post.

Peace. Humility. Grace.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but out west we have coops. Some are food coops. Some are electric coops. Some are Ag coops. There are financial coops called credit unions. Any member of the community who accesses the purpose of the coop is a member of that community. All have a voice. There are boards, elected by the members. It's not centrally planned, but somebody has to run the show while members go about their business. It's kind of a commie thing, when you think about it. But don't tell that to any of the members I know. Even if there is not a competitive alternative.

but you can temper the power they have to reflect the will of the majority. — Manuel

But retain the power they have to prevent the will of the majority to exclude a minority.

So how to talk with them ? — Nothing

Like anything else, we define the terms of the discussion, working backwards toward a premise to be agreed upon, and then argue forward from there.

Central and non-central then becomes a false binary choice. Being such, the discussion can be meaningful only along some tangent. — tim wood

:100: :up: I agree and only rolled with a tangent of my own, assuming his military reference was being used as an example of central planning, with the opposite being free-markets. But yes, we are lacking in any substantive criteria/definitions. That never stopped me :lol:

So-called “trickle” kinds of economics are pejoratives, and not actual theories. — NOS4A2

They aren't pejoratives. Well, trickle-down may be, now that it has been exposed. But trickle-up still needs a 40 year shot at it. The theory is as I stated.

Supply and demand side are both increasing growth models.

Hayek would point to his Local Knowledge Problem, which suggests that the vast majority of the knowledge required for rational planning exists outside the grasp of any central authority. The knowledge is dispersed among all people, decentralized.

The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate “given” resources—if “given” is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these “data.” It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality.

https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html — NOS4A2

Sounds like an argument for trickle-up economics. Take from the hoarders and give to those who know best, and who will actually spend it in the community. If the hoarders want to get in on the action, they actually have to work for it. But if they don't want to work, it's not a problem: They are wealth creators and they'll just bootstrap some more money out of thin air. It's a win-win.

Is it already too late?

If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?

Will we actually turn ourselves into Venus?

If it's not too late, what exactly can we do to contribute to mitigating it?

Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our times? — Xtrix

I think it's too late. Tipping points will (or have been reached) regardless. I don't know about Venus. Maybe not that hot. It is too late, but what we can do is accelerate it to mitigate it. I think that if you bring on the pain, and the end, sooner, there might be something left to work with after the lesson is learned. But the longer the foot-dragging, and the slower the boil, the more we destroy what's left, and the less there will be to work with after the lesson is learned.

The problem is, the pain needs to be felt by those with the power to do something about it. Some people actually need to get Covid, be put on a vent and suffer before they come around. Sometimes they need to see a loved one suffer and die. People are stupid that way. But so long as it affects someone else, Meh. Open up those Arctic shipping lanes so's I can make me some muny!

I consider it the issue of our times for the last 50 years.

why it is important for so many people to say humans are not nature, — Nothing

It's a matter of convenience. People (should) like a baseline from which to start placing burdens of proof. The baseline is Earth without people. I hear people came into being about 200k years ago. But some folks, quite reasonably I think, push the baseline up to when we started making fire. Others push it up further, quite reasonably I think, to domestication of species (plants, animals). At that point we've kind of gone off the rails; relatively speaking, of course. It's all natural, yes. But a good baseline to help us in deciding how far off the rails we can go, without ruining the gifts that we were given, is the Earth with space, clean air, clean water, clean food, and without a parasite killing the host.

Anywho, that's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Ultimately, the most forceful argument for central planning of the economy is moral. — frank

Only if it works.

There really aren't any good practical arguments, are there? — frank

If it works, it's practical.

I just think that if we threw as much money at central planning as we do the military, we could have gold-plated food, shelter, and healthcare, instead of gold-plated toilet seats in a new super-sonic jet that can't get off the ground.

Instead of ugly-ass projects and tenement buildings, we could have some really cool stuff. And think of all the jobs created to do this, from Landscape Architects, to nail-benders to etc. Doctors and nurses getting paid without the insurance sucking sound between them and the patient, and healthy food that tastes good.

And guess what? I think the U.S. could afford to do that AND still have the baddest-ass military on the planet, by far. But I don't make policy. Shrug.

I miss the times . . . — NOS4A2

Pro tip: If you truly miss those times, then all you have to do when you read an article is scream "FAKE NEWS" and you will be transported right back to those times you miss.

I suppose Biden could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and I wouldn't care. I mean, he didn't lower the bar. He gets a pass now.

So why is this true at the level of goods and services, but not for the military? — frank

The military is grossly inefficient and prone it misallocation of resources. It works, yes, but we throw colossal shit tons of money at it for the return that we get. But here's the deal: It provides jobs. So the better question is, why can't those jobs be created building basics needs? Or better yet, why are those jobs which currently exist to provide basic needs considered part of the welfare state and a waste, instead of being counted like the guy building bombs?

I hate ugly central planning. But I think Europe has some cool shit. It's not an either/or. It's priorities.

Like hookers and Blow? or concrete and pollution? Noise and light pollution? I am actually ok with the hookers, they need to make a living somehow. — Book273

Yeah, like that. When told me "You be you" I wondered "Who am I?" So I jumped in my car and drove 125 mph to town without my drivers license (I ran a person off the road; hope it wasn't AJJs loved one, but I know he'd understand). I walked into the store, no shoes, no shirts, no pants, with my M-4 slung over my shoulder and demanded service. I then went to a restaurant and blew cigar smoke into the lungs of all the other patrons. When confronted, I just schooled them about some tobacco company scientist who said it's harmless. "Do your research!"

The damn hooker wanted to see my vax card and I flew off the handle. I told her that the slippery slope of state oppression started when they wouldn't let me in school without a polio vax and now look where we are! Soon we will be on the trains to the camps! By GUM!

Some asshole told me I had to get six feet away from his hot girlfriend. I can't believe I can't even snuggle with strangers. WTF? But the final straw was the guy who asked me to put a 1 ounce piece of cloth over my face. Sure, I pack a 39 ounce gun, but that is my choice. A piece of cloth is the final straw.

I got tired of all the Mussolini, jack-booted, brown shirt shit and came home. I never should have left. But I know if I got Covid, I can always go the hospital and get a bed.

Don't tread on me!

Yes, but isn't this the conquers privilege? — Athena

It is, but we should be honest about it. Honest with ourselves. You can know what the U.S. has done and still love her. But there are lessons to be learned.

Those who do not ascribe to the notion of "conquerors privilege" and "total war" must be prepared to live with endless simmering hatred and low-intensity war. Had the U.S. done to the Germans, the Japanese, the Vietnamese and the Afghans what we did to the Indians, then there would be no Confederate Statues, Flags and whatnot. There would be no NeoNazis. Vietnam and Afghanistan would be the 51st and 52nd states. Germany would have been given to the Jews, the south would have been given to the former slaves, enemy children separated and re-educated, enemy women and old men made dependent wards of the government on distant reservations, mixed in with people they don't know, culture and religion denied, and the enemy boys and men of fighting age would have been forced into indentured servitude for Jews and blacks, or summarily executed.

And the world would hate us but we wouldn't care.

But when you choose to use Special Operations forces, precision-guided weapons, declare "police actions" and avoid Constitutional Congressional Declarations of War, using other tactics to avoid collateral damage and make the home front feel more self-righteous about a war, then you get the ongoing issues we currently have. And we leave "innocent" wives and children and old people to provide aid and comfort to the combatants. And the world still hates us.

The alternative is to do nothing. In the case of Vietnam, that probably would have been a good idea. Socialism should be allowed to experiment with many different manifestations. With Afghanistan, we would have to live with the fact that women and boys will be treated like shit. We will have to be great champions of human rights for us, while turning a blind eye to the rest of the world.

We could try to ostracize and cancel and embargo, but then what of Saudi Arabia and the tin horn pieces of shit in Central and South America?

To be consistent, we would have to take money out of the equation, and quit letting it rule our domestic and foreign policy. We would actually have to live up to our own ideals, as set forth in or organic documents, and we can't have that now, can we? I mean, we'd then have to admit how we fucked some Indians, not merely in war, as conquerors, as we did with some tribes, but with violations of our own word, our own laws, and our own Constitution.

The U.S. should do some soul-searching, but that would require education. It's much easier to tell ourselves myths about how great we are. Hell, just put up a statute of a fucking racist traitor in the town square and talk about our proud heritage as we waive an enemy flag. Why teach our kids history when Billy Bob and Cletus can point to their daddy with pride?

Welcome to America. It's hell being #1. But it's better than being #2. Maybe we are getting tired. Maybe China can be the new #1, but without even the pretense of our organic documents.

End morning rant.

Yes, when it closed the borders, it did. — Book273

Meh. A true rebel wouldn't let a little thing like a border stop him. :wink:

No states are morally legitimate; — Pfhorrest

Can you help me out here, and provide an example of anything at all that is morally legitimate? Thanks.

You’re agreeing with and providing support for rhetoric spoken by Mussolini. — AJJ

:rofl: And you are agreeing with and providing support for the state which abides the rhetoric spoken by Mussolini. Does that make you a hypocrite? Or did the evil state deprive you of the choice to leave?

Well, I'm going to leave you rebels alone for a spell, while I go into the big city and enjoy all that society dun brung me.

Liberty and individual growth in behalf of the state. — AJJ

What part of "allowed to" did you not understand?

And:

For we, too, maintain the necessity of safeguarding the conditions that make for the free development of the individual; we, too, believe that the oppression of individual personality can find no place in the modern state. — NOS4A2

We are experiencing this, now:

A huge and disproportionate development of the individual of classes, would prove as fatal to society as abnormal growths are to living organisms. — NOS4A2

But it's the 1% and the Libertarians that are the parasites. Can you say Trump?

Freedom a concession of the state — AJJ

Again, you are free to walk into a bar in Wyoming, but the freedom to do so is a concession of the owners and the local yokals. You mind your fucking manners or you'll get your ass beat. Don't like it? Feel free to exercise your freedom to stay out and go somewhere like Somalia or Afghanistan where the evil state doesn't exist.

It’s not that broad. — AJJ

The quote is that broad. Individualism = good but individualism can't threaten collective. That is literally every single group on earth. If you want to walk into a bar in Wyoming, you mind your manners.

They never predicted that it would come from the institutions of liberal democracies themselves. — NOS4A2

They were right. It didn't.

The Mussolini quote describes your own view. Paxton’s book emphasises a feature of fascism that we’re finding in rhetoric such as yours. — AJJ

Like I said, the Mussolini quote is so broad as to be meaningless, hence the "no true Scotsman" reference. I suppose you would want a state to destroy itself on the whims of an individual? Oh, wait, that's what Mussolini and Hitler did. So I guess you were wrong. The fact I use seat belts, don't speed, get a small pox and polio vax makes me a fascist? :roll:

They are now, because they offered it to us and you accepted. — AJJ

You have to put your comments in context or they cannot be understood. Who is doing what now, because they offered what to us and I accepted what? I thought we were talking about a Mussolini quote?

Now it’s you. Read the Mussolini quote; read Robert Paxton’s book; your politics appear unambiguously to be fascist. — AJJ

By his definition, all states are fascist. What's next, no true Scotsman? What's you're recommendation? No state?

You’re a fascist, Harry. — AJJ

Fascism, like white supremacy and Covid, was not wiped out in WWII and the Civil War and now. So yeah, now we have to keep dealing with the variants: Neo-Nazis, White Power and Delta. There's a lesson in there somewhere, but since we are human, there's no sense hoping we'd learn.

We’re fighting, so we’re told, a war... — AJJ

Yeah, against a virus. And we're losing because so many people support the virus. Good thing we won the war against polio, small pox etc. Or did we? Hmmmm.

We do not. Let it run. ALL of our attempts to control it thus far have resulted in epic failure, — Book273

What do you mean by "we" and "our"?

"Our" epic failure is because "we" didn't do shit. "We" sat around and complained and didn't do anything until someone threatened "our" privilege, and even then "we" reluctantly went out and got a vax. But "we" are probably still not masking or distancing because "we" are sticking it to the man.

Polio, Small Pox, etc. Not so much. That was "we" and "our". There is no "we" or "our" any more. "We" are now all rebels without a cause.

If government governs effectively, it is oppressive.
If government governs ineffectively, it is incompetent.
If government does not govern at all, it is incompetent.
If government is obstructed by individuals, it is oppressive and incompetent.

It reminds me again, of children (and some of the arguments made on TPF) who hate their parents for bringing them into this world, against their will, without any choice, and then believe their parents thus owe them for the rest of their lives. The parents can't teach those kids anything, once they become adults. It is always some other person that teaches them. And it's usually the hard way.

Government is just a big meanie. :cry:

My employer's "polite" request was "Get the vaccine or get fired, — Book273

Only because too many people refused to mask and distance when politely asked. It will step up from here, and really get draconian if people don't accept polite requests. It already has. Some people have died, while others are incapacitated.

I got the injection. — Book273

Good. Now mask and distance. You can still catch and spread even though you are vaxxed. It's not 100%.

So we will never defeat Covid unless 100% of the world's population is vaccinated? Then Covid will never be defeated because you will never reach 100% world vaccination. — Harry Hindu

Look into polio, small pox, etc.

We can only imagine what might have happened had officialdom stayed out of the whole thing, but I bet we would have faired better without it. — NOS4A2

Do you have any evidence of that? You know, like a country that accommodated every whim of the children? If no country did that, are you saying the whole world is wrong and you are right? On the other hand, the guy who just ran over 50 people and killed 5 really only killed the old folks. So, by Q analysis, it must be okay.

Your description of the state as an overbearing parent is quite apt, so I can appreciate the analogy. — NOS4A2

It's apt because it is not an overbearing parent, but a loving parent trying to err on the side of leniency; bending over backwards to accommodate the child, so he might continue living in the family, availing himself of all the benefits of the family, without killing or injuring anyone.

One thing your lack of analytic reading skills had you miss was the word "Anticipatorily" when I said:

Anticipatorily, or responsively, the group can do nothing, all the way up to and including public torture and execution of the individual. — James Riley

Anticipatory action is like "no shoes, no shirts, no service." And speed limits, drinking age limitations and countless other laws that you obey without question. It's government giving you the opportunity to not kill or harm others.

However, your use of terms like "overbearing" when it comes to polite requests to mask, distance and vax, sounds suspiciously paranoid, like Q and other insecure, scared, paranoid individuals who think government is out to get them. It's sad, really. It would be funny but who would think what the government has requested is some how too much? To continue the family analogy, the sad part of this is not that you are like the child calling child services on their parents, because the child isn't getting their way. But, rather, the child actually thinks that mom and dad are abusing him by making him eat his vegetables. That's some Q level paranoia right there. So the child should not be surprised when child services rolls it's eyes. :roll:

Your example speaks of Mohammed Ali being jailed because he refused the draft. I'll pass. — NOS4A2

I know you will pass. That is the difference between you and Mohammed Ali and you and Socrates. But hey, you can always emulate Rand Paul.

My guess would be that the treaties made with native americans limited the remedies available, but I haven't read any of them. — Ciceronianus

I don't remember any remedies being specified, although they may have been. In international law, it is generally assumed that a breach would obviate obligations. So, I suppose the Sioux could fire up the war parties again. After all, it was the U.S. that sued for peace when it was getting it's ass kicked. But as opined above, this, to me, is more about us and our honor and our word, than it is about remedies for the Indian.

I can still love the U.S. while admitting just how flawed she is. Amends would be nationally cathartic. But that's just me.

What of that which I enjoy has the left, society, and civic-minded people brought to me? — NOS4A2

What do you enjoy in life that was not brought to you by the non-human natural environment? That.

Anyway, some on TPF argue about the way things should be. I'm not going to argue that, because I will stipulate that we should have that Libertarian Eden, with all rights and no responsibilities. No, what I am going to do is tell you the way things are, whether you like or not:

Groups of people cannot be expected to sit idly by, while individuals move through the group, killing or injuring other members. Anticipatorily, or responsively, the group can do nothing, all the way up to and including public torture and execution of the individual. Where on that continuum a group falls, depends upon the type of group. When I look at the world today, I see all groups erring on the side of leniency; some even bending over backwards to accommodate the individual, so he might continue moving through the group, availing himself of all the benefits of the group, without killing or injuring anyone.

But the group may or may not ramp up the response, depending solely upon the actions of the individual. If the individual stomps his little feet and cries, and refuses to avail himself of the opportunity to avoid killing or injuring others, whilst availing himself of all the privileges, then he can expect to be sent to his room without his supper. If he continues to be a selfish, inconsiderate, disrespectful, petulant, obstinate little baby, then he can expect a spanking (vax). He will have brought it upon himself. But so far, all I'm seeing is a threat of "time out." Maybe being sent to his room without supper.

I know Libertarians, who fancy themselves as adults, simply and absolutely HATE the parental/state example because the see it as being so accurate. But again, we aren't talking about the way things should be. We are talking about the way things are. So if you don't want to be treated like a little baby, then you must quit acting like one. You might think the state is a big meanie. :cry: Okay. So stipulated. The state is a big meanie. :roll: But remember, if the state has failed to stop Covid, it's only because the state is not as mean as you make it out to be. And if it is incompetent, it's only because it's giving you a "time out" and not spanking you. Maybe Austria is thinking it's time for a spanking. Time out didn't work.

That is your lesson for the day.