That's probably the dumbest law I've seen ever since that law that was passed in some US city that made it so you couldn't show your boxers when wearing jeans (it was removed, but still, it was dumb law); 'Cause we all know that whoever wears a hoodie is a 'street thug'. :whistle: [/b][/quote] That is one law I would fight to the death . In winter, all I wear is hoodies. So I wouldn't obey this law at all.
That is one law I would fight to the death . In winter, all I wear is hoodies. So I wouldn't obey this law at all. [/b][/quote] You should come to England and walk around my town for a day, then see if you agree or not. Granted, not everyone who wears a "hoodie" is a criminal but unfortunately in my town and probably many others in the UK, this is the case. Just low life pre - teens with nothing better to do than antagonize the public. I think banning hoodies in public areas (i.e shopping centers) is a step in the right direction, atleast now the authorities will be able to see their faces when they commit these crimes. This is just one of the many steps they can take to prevent street crime. If you don't want to be catergorized as a criminal, then don't mask your face. I think people who fight against this rule are just doing it for the sake of it, i'd rather them ban hooded tops and me not wear one, than them not banning them and seeing the street crime figures continue to rise.
I don't know, banning a piece of clothing just because it happens to be associated with criminals? Banning hoodies won't stop criminals, believe me. Most of the criminally inclined that I know don't go out of their way to wear a certain type of clothing. It narrows you down and allows you to be caught. This will only help criminals be more anonymous. People will engage in criminal acts wearing hoodies or otherwise. Not only that, but it's a violation of the freedom to express yourself. What if I look really crappy with a baseball cap on? What else am I to do to cover my head? Beanies and bandanas? Nope, they are also classified with criminals, so cross that out. I guess I just have to sunburn my face (since I kind of don't believe in sunblock). Then there are self conscious people. What if you don't like being seen in public? What if you are conscious about the way you look? You need to cover your face. I went through that before, and all I wore were hoodies because I didn't want to be seen. Banning clothing is a stupid solution to a problem with the crime rate. How about... oh... increasing security? Taking precautions? And one more thing. You don't know anything about crime until you've lived in California. Enough said.
I don't know, banning a piece of clothing just because it happens to be associated with criminals? Banning hoodies won't stop criminals, believe me. Most of the criminally inclined that I know don't go out of their way to wear a certain type of clothing. It narrows you down and allows you to be caught. This will only help criminals be more anonymous. People will engage in criminal acts wearing hoodies or otherwise. Not only that, but it's a violation of the freedom to express yourself. What if I look really crappy with a baseball cap on? What else am I to do to cover my head? Beanies and bandanas? Nope, they are also classified with criminals, so cross that out. I guess I just have to sunburn my face (since I kind of don't believe in sunblock). Then there are self conscious people. What if you don't like being seen in public? What if you are conscious about the way you look? You need to cover your face. I went through that before, and all I wore were hoodies because I didn't want to be seen. Banning clothing is a stupid solution to a problem with the crime rate. How about... oh... increasing security? Taking precautions? And one more thing. You don't know anything about crime until you've lived in California. Enough said. [/b][/quote] Yes, i agree with you. I think this has been perceived a little out of proportion, Hoodies are not banned in the whole country, just in the majority of public buildings, such as shopping centers. The reason for this being that it's mostly under-age youth offenders who have no real criminal mind, but just think it's cool to offend the public. The hoodies are being singled out because sadly enough, it's usually kids dressed in sports attire such as hoodies and track suit bottoms that do this shit. I agree that the governement can do better things such as upgrade security and so forth, but this thread asked what's the best thing they've done, when my government do that, i'll list it.
Yeah, there is nothing wrong with hoodies. However, when there is 10 of them with hoodies, with caps perched so far on the back of their heads tearing apart lampposts and related objects that is a different story.
You should come to England and walk around my town for a day, then see if you agree or not. Granted, not everyone who wears a "hoodie" is a criminal but unfortunately in my town and probably many others in the UK, this is the case. Just low life pre - teens with nothing better to do than antagonize the public. I think banning hoodies in public areas (i.e shopping centers) is a step in the right direction, atleast now the authorities will be able to see their faces when they commit these crimes. This is just one of the many steps they can take to prevent street crime. If you don't want to be catergorized as a criminal, then don't mask your face. I think people who fight against this rule are just doing it for the sake of it, i'd rather them ban hooded tops and me not wear one, than them not banning them and seeing the street crime figures continue to rise. [/b][/quote] Joe,I dunno what part of England you live in but you aint seen 'hoodie yobs' ,as they've become known as, until you see North London.It's been about 5 years since I was last mugged but I see,and try to stop,plenty of muggings about 90% of them I'd say the muggers were wearing a hoodie with a cap underneath the hood.Thats the typical London mugger,wearing a hoodie and a cap so that CCTV can't see their faces properly.Its bad in London,very bad in North London. It might be a stupid law but if its a law that'll prevent someone from potencialy getting hurt or perhaps even killed for their money then so be it. And as for Blair I've met him a few times and I gotta say he's a decent person (who listens to classic rock B) ),however some of the choices he's made such as joining Bush in this anti-terror thing and keeping our troops in Iraq for more than 3 years now has given him a reputation of being a shitty Prime Minister.However the way he handled the London bombings was superb and I give credit to him for his handleing of the tragedy.
Ant, Any sort of coercion is completely illogical. This is so because, if, like I said, my mind is my means of survival, why would I use my fist to "convince" someone if I could convince them with my argument? I wouldn't. Therefore, those who resort to violence are weak minded, and practitioners of unsound logic. This same shoddy logic is one which the government practices. By point of gun they make you pay taxes, and demand that you be the means of their survival. The ruled, however, if they lived by their reason and logic, would realize that they don't need a master to whip them into doing good. They don't need anyone to claim ownership over, they don't need to be owned, and the only people they need to be the means of survival of is themselves. Coercion, as I've proved earlier, is illogical to a human. What is logical is mutual benefit, and trade. We as a race have proved that we can satisfy mutually the selfish interest of two beings simultaneously with communication and volition, not coercion and violence. But, again, the government does not practice trade. It practices coercion. They force you to give them money via taxes so that they can keep taking money from you, and they claim in return that you get protection of your rights. How do they protect your rights? The government, by claiming ownership of you in a world where you own yourself entirely from birth, is the biggest violator of your rights! Whatever it "provides" to you, you could purchase better from a privatized industry, where they indulge in trade, not coercion. The government does not whithhold the power to give. Consider again how the government "protects" my rights: by violating every last one of them. There has never been a government that has truely protected the rights of its citizens, that's a contradiction in terms. The government, by definition, violates your single most basic right of self ownership. The government also does not provide an army. The soldiers are citizens, not government officials. Other individuals provide an army. The government may train them and arm them, but the assumption that this can't be done by privatized businesses cannot be made. There aren't any? Says who? A free society requires a free market. Here's a nice PDF I'd like you do read before continueing this discussion: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf It's lengthy, but I read it, and I believe you have the ability to also do so. You're accusation of poor economic power is utterly groundless. You offer no reason or proof to you claim, instead, you ask ME to give reason and proof to YOUR hollow statements. Just to answer your one question, everyone should be completely selfish, and work for themselves, also working under their natural logic and reason, the means of their survival.
The only necessary evil of anarchism is the flaw of the human race. Since we are flawed, we are built with guilt, jealousy, greed, etc. Anarchy is, in a sense, the perfect government (right beside Communism)... however in human society it doesn't work. The government 'protects' its people violating others. By nature, the United States is a warmongering society and not very considerate of other peoples. Take for example, the Native American tribes you had mentioned earlier. Look what has happened to them. Take slavery, for instance. Take what could have possibly been the greatest violation of human rights, the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and possessing all of their property. And finally, the 'war' on Iraq. One of the primary problems with government in general is that there IS police action at work. With violence as the only thing keeping a society in line, how can there be coexistence? There is only thought of defenselessness and poverty in a flawed society such as this. Without greed, jealous, hatred, etc. none of this would exist. Without a government, money wouldn't even matter, and it has often been said that money is the root of all evil. But of course, I'm babbling, so forget all I said.
Link, I don't mean to sound rude here, but you do not understand the principles for economics. Taxes are a means of improving the economy of a country. For example, import taxes are vital to the industries inside of a country. This makes it so that people have to pay more for a good or service from another country. Why would the government do this? If there's a failing business, then it is a common practice to follow. Do you really think that the vast amount of people to populate the entire Earth have participated in such practices simply because they felt like it? No offense, but for some reason I think a time-tested tradition such as taxes laughs right in the face of your belief in anarchy. Mutual benefit and trade is exactly what countries engage in. Perhaps you do not believe countries participate in trade, but they do -- where do you think a good amount of people obtain their money? An extremely high percentage of people in the United States are either employed by the government or benefit from the government itself. The government also engages in a sort of coercion, if that's how you want to believe it, but that's now how most people choose to believe it, so I would love to know how you "proved" your opinion. The government does not claim "ownership" of a person, despite whatever belief you have of that, either. The government claims responsibility of you, not ownership. Please, prove to me that they claim ownership of a person, as it is perfectly legal to change citizenships. Your silly definition of what is a standing army and what isn't is absolutely and utterly asinine, as well. The government pays for the services of a standing army, no it is not the government itself (The government is not a physical entity! Even if it were government officials who were the army you would argue that it's citizens yet again, as government officials are still citizens!) that is the army, but it provides an army to you at the expense of taxes. I never said that a privatized business could not create an army... but it would not be a standing army, and it would still cost you. So are taxes really that bad off -- you're paying for it either way, are you not? Mercenary armies are not feasible for the entire world. Also, the government provides a common currency for all of its peoples and backs this up with gold in Fort Knox... tell me, how are you going to create a currency for your anarchist system? Or are you simply going to partake in your barter system, which is a proven failure as people do not always agree on things to trade? What if someone kills someone else? What are you going to trade then? What if someone bashes a priceless car of your's in -- are you going to want something they can trade in return? And, who says there are not any police or military forces? Historians and political scientists say so! I understand what a free market is, and anarchism does nothing more than a government-based system to promote this. In fact, free market is more wide spread in government systems than anywhere else. You really should attend a economics class before continuing this discussion. My accusation of poor economic power is no more groundless than anything you've stated so far, only backing yourself up with opinions.
Ant, http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html This may help you a bit. Protect? Protect from what? Competition? Competition makes products better, lowers prices, and developes technologies. If there is a foreign business that makes a better product for less cost, why should an individual be punished for demanding better, and wanting better? You forget that in an anarchy there is no concept of a "country's industry." There are individuals working for their own benefit. When this is done reasonably, everyone collectively prospers. And since when has tradition alone proved anything right? That's the same logic that wanted to keep slavery around and wanted to silence women. I was talking about the relationship between the "ruled" and the "rulers." There is no trade, no volition involved. You may change countries, yes, but isn't that parallel to a slave changing owners? Government itself is your master, yet you did not choose it to be so. By calling me a citizen of any nation, you, at the same time, imply that that a governing body forces me to pay taxes to support it and abide by the rules it sets. By doing this, you violate my most basic right of self ownership, by forcing me by point of gun to do what I normally would not. There is no such thing as a "free" citizen. I completely fail to see how anyone else agreeing with me would have any affect on its validity or truthfulness of my argument. Proved my opinion? Which part? This whole argument is a proof. Do you mean the bit about coercion being illogical to a human? I did prove it, and you did nothing to disprove it, I said: "Any sort of coercion is completely illogical. This is so because, if, like I said, my mind is my means of survival, why would I use my fist to "convince" someone if I could convince them with my argument? I wouldn't. Therefore, those who resort to violence are weak minded, and practitioners of unsound logic. This same shoddy logic is one which the government practices." If you want me to go into further detail, I'd be glad to. Whether you believe it asinine or not, it gets the point across that an army is made up of people. Why could armies not exist in an anarchy, if the same people are in anarchy? Do they necessarily have to be supported by taxes? Taxes would imply coercion. I know government is not a physical entity, it is a metaphysical one that mankind has let enslave them, because they've turned away from their natural reason and logic. You mean to say that being forced to pay, and choosing to pay are the same thing? If anything in this thread is silly, it's that statement. The government provides federal reserve notes that aren't actually worth anything. Gold would be preferable, but the barter system could work too. Then again, people could also make paper money if they chose to. In anarchy people have the possibility to do whatever they want, and that even means that groups of people can have "governments" within an anarchy (obviously, people sign up, just like this message board, there are ToS to abide by, but you register upon your own free will). But the axiom it revolves around is self ownership and individual volition. People that wanted to trade would have to agree what to trade with. Your example of a "proven failure" is fairly weak. If people don't agree on what to trade, obviously, on the axiom of individual volition, they don't trade! All violence and coercion is the logic of the government, keep in mind. How else will true anarchy be established unless that faulty logic is trampled on and discredited vastly or by all? By that, why would there be any practicing of the logic of government, force and coercion, in an anarchy? When people truely live by their reason and logic, they will find out that it's not in their best interest to coerce anybody, just as it is not in their best interest to be coerced. So you're telling me that a free market functions better in an unfree society than a free one?
Now, that's not very true, I don't think. I don't see flaws in human nature. Selfishness is a virtue. I see most problems you bring up as diversions from human logic.
I'm really not going to bother anymore with this... you can keep searching Google for things to backup your opinion and using big words, but it's not going to change my opinion. And I can keep arguing otherwise, but it's not going to change your opinion. It just amazes me that you think 'well, what if...' about anarchism. I know that sounds strange, but let me explain it: you keep thinking 'what if anarchism...' instead of actually understanding the concepts behind it. There is no police force or military in anarchism -- it's not in anarchism, period. If you are really and anarchist you should know that. If there is any force behind anarchism it'd be a voluntary militia, and I'm not even going to go into the problems for that when I've already stated I'm going to stop the conversation. It's obvious to me that you don't understand the economic or historic aspect of anarchism. Perhaps when you take a college-level course in economy or government you'll understand all of what I've been saying to you, but right now there's simply no way I can talk to you when your opinions won't even allow you to see my arguments (case-in-point: "So you're telling me that a free market functions better in an unfree society than a free one?"). Perhaps you should research the flaws in anarchism as well as anarchism if you're going to put so much faith into it without actually knowing much about it.
Alright, and you can keep telling me how and how much I've researched, and keep telling me that I don't know my own opinions, while laughing at my questions instead of answering them. However, as you can see, it hasn't gotten us far. Good day.
Pros of the American Government: Bringing drugs to America Cons of the American Government: Bringing drugs to America EDIT: Oh, and for them making McDonalds!!
Now, that's not very true, I don't think. I don't see flaws in human nature. Selfishness is a virtue. I see most problems you bring up as diversions from human logic. [/b][/quote] No double posting. With selfishness comes possessive attitude, and with that attitude comes the unwillingness to cooperate, which is pretty much the basis of human society today, if you think about it.
I'm from Us. I have to three things that are bad about it. Worst: Why do we still have troops in Iraq?, Why did they raise the price of gas?. and Why does George Bush like to piss off the rest of the world? Good:It's good that we haven't been bombed yet.
im sure he didnt realize he did that, hes been here for quite a while. im almost positive he knows the rules. as for my government, im not sure which one that would be. im pretty much a canadian citizen living in america. most of the benefits dont apply to me.
The Government of the United States of America Positive (not necessarily the modern government but mostly the government throughout time): Giving the citizens a relatively plentiful amount of opportunities and freedoms. Negative: 1. Supporting the filthy rich lazy ass corporations and ignoring the poor. 2. Discriminating the human race by prohibiting homosexual couples the right of marriage and the included benefits. 3. Limiting and frowning upon research that could save millions of lives (stem cell research)