You're Merrick Garland. Would you rather?

Garland is under increasing pressure to "DO Somthing" about the twice impeached seditionist in Fla and his minions who join him in the sedition. Several Congress Critters need to be indited in the next two months.

DIY-HP-LED said:

Otherwise it ends up being settled by a gun, I gather up people who agree with me and attack the lone wolf who has no friends or support, end of story.

Click to expand...

I feel bad that you're so afraid and controlling you need to attack people. Have you tried a more indica dominant ? Do you get enough exercise and sleep? Lol.

It is always wrong to attack a person who isn't or hasn't attacked you. It is always wrong for a group of people to attack a person who isn't or hasn't attacked any of them. When I say "attacked", I mean trepassed, as in violated another persons rights.

Somebody who has different preferences than me, but has not violated my rights, might not be a person whose preferences I endorse, but unless / until they violate my rights, I won't attack them or like you, cowardly get a posse together to attack them. Voting in that sense is like getting a posse together to force your will on other people who aren't necessarily doing anything to deny your rights. A more accepted form, but still heinous type of
action based in gang rape tactics.

Merrick Garland is a parasitic coward, as are most politicians and bureaucrats. They have no qualms attacking people who haven't violated their rights.
Merrick Garland should quit his job. Maybe work out a little bit too, he's kind of a pencil neck geek.

Rob Roy said:

I feel bad that you're so afraid and controlling you need to attack people. Have you tried a more indica dominant ? Do you get enough exercise and sleep? Lol.

It is always wrong to attack a person who isn't or hasn't attacked you. It is always wrong for a group of people to attack a person who isn't or hasn't attacked any of them. When I say "attacked", I mean trepassed, as in violated another persons rights.

Somebody who has different preferences than me, but has not violated my rights, might not be a person whose preferences I endorse, but unless / until they violate my rights, I won't attack them or like you, cowardly get a posse together to attack them. Voting in that sense is like getting a posse together to force your will on other people who aren't necessarily doing anything to deny your rights. A more accepted form, but still heinous type of
action based in gang rape tactics.

Merrick Garland is a parasitic coward, as are most politicians and bureaucrats. They have no qualms attacking people who haven't violated their rights.
Merrick Garland should quit his job. Maybe work out a little bit too, he's kind of a pencil neck geek.

Click to expand...

Not me Rob, I'm just using it as an example of human nature when there is no government. People will form into packs and the scum will float to the top for leadership in the form of warlords or local strongmen. Other communities will exist, but not many individuals who are not full parts of these communities. The point is communities will survive, not individuals clinging to imaginary rights, groups will smoke out the lone survivalists. It takes a community to survive social breakdown, not individuals, they quickly die. The larger the organized number, the better the chances and the more specialists in the group will allow better use of technology giving a better quality of life to the group and better defense.

DIY-HP-LED said:

Not me Rob, I'm just using it as an example of human nature when there is no government. People will form into packs and the scum will float to the top for leadership in the form of warlords or local strongmen. Other communities will exist, but not many individuals who are not full parts of these communities. The point is communities will survive, not individuals clinging to imaginary rights, groups will smoke out the lone survivalists. It takes a community to survive social breakdown, not individuals, they quickly die. The larger the organized number, the better the chances and the more specialists in the group will allow better use of technology giving a better quality of life to the group and better defense.

Click to expand...

So if humans are so incapable and evil, and need to be "governed" (dominated) are you saying that politicians are the most capable and caring people there are?

That's funny, the thing you fear, bad people dominating others, is exactly what happens when there is a coercion based entrenched hierarchy, otherwise known as government.

Also, a community and a hierarchical based government should not be described as if they are the same thing. It's like the difference between a leader and a master. People follow LEADERS of their own volition, people have no real choice whether or not to follow a master, which is what every politician in a coercion based government is. Worse, than that, they use your money (taken from you) to maintain that status, even if you are peaceful and simply want no part of them.

I am not the loner you attempt to portray me as. I am an independent minded person, who has no need for a master. I like to cooperate with people rather than dominate them. Sometimes when I cooperate with people there is no defined leader, sometimes I'm the leader, sometimes someone else is the leader. There is no permanent leader though, who permeates every aspect of your life and never goes away.
If I can't cooperate on a given endeavor, I then agree to leave people alone as long as they do the same. That is the basis of a free and peaceful society.

The difference in our perspectives is mine defaults to you are free to make choices and live with the consequences. Your perspective is you are a subject, free to follow orders, even when the orders being imposed violate, rather than protect a right.