@Tretiak's banner p

Tretiak


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2023 May 22 21:47:03 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 2418

Tretiak


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2023 May 22 21:47:03 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2418

Verified Email

IMO there is a very important difference between someone dying (in an accident, of natural causes) and someone being murdered. In the second case you are walking a fine line between criticizing someone who died (ok) and celebrating political assassination (not ok).

Yeah, not really. There's no wide gulf I really see people here distinguishing when someone says they're happy to see Charlie Kirk dead. You're as much accused of being a jerk with bad taste if you were saying you were happy he was assassinated. And I don't see people here or anywhere else saying they openly support the principle of assassinating their political rivals as an offshoot to what happened to Charlie Kirk.

There's clearly something I'm missing here. Shanghai isn't Hong Kong last time I checked.

Financial support for riots/ers is a crime after all

It is?

In the case of something like January 6th, assume for the sake of argument it was an attempt at a coup (in my view it of course wasn't). An almost direct but legally implied right to overthrow a tyrannical government is built into the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. Why wouldn't any of the rioters get off on that defense? Because that one isn't entirely clear to me.

It doesn't mean the police can't arrest you for activities outside of work. It means corporations can't terminate you from your job for your out-of-work activities.

... hell I like it...

Aside from the fact that I've actually met libertarians who are fine with privately own cities operating as if they were corporate fiefdoms and see that as the highest form of social organization, in reality it'd be a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it.

There was a book I read years ago and for the life of me I can’t remember who the damn author was or what the title of it was, but it was by a prominent American Jewish lawyer (not Alan Dershowitz).

He was a radical advocate of social and economic laissez-fairism. To such an extent he thought if you were someone who harbored racist beliefs and wanted to hang Neo-Nazi slogans on the window of your business, you should be able to do that. Or if you were a prejudiced business owner who wanted to refuse someone because of their religious beliefs you could turn away anyone you wanted for any reason.

I think there’s a point where unconstained liberty brings you far too close to the breakdown of society and it just becomes unworkable. Large segments of society refuse to cooperate with each other. Everyone is suspicious of their neighbor. People have to travel far out of their way to buy groceries or make a living. Violent retribution is always a looming concern. Corporations may refuse to provide power to your neighborhood’s electric grid. Who knows, police may refuse to help you if you get into trouble; depending on who you are. But at least you have freedom of speech and expression.

But without the metapolitical and social prerequisites that allow a shared community to flourish, it’s ultimately worthless. It’s why when the program of economic “shock therapy” was introduced into Russia under the Yeltsin era, hitmen and assassinations were a readily available service in the Russian free market.