wak90

It's not arbitrary! It's rooted in slavery and racism!

Can you maybe think of an instance in history where it might be justified to shoot law enforcement who are following the law.

Just give it 3 minutes.

> Using deadly force in self defense against law enforcement officer is only justified when that law enforcement officer is acting outside the bounds of the law.

I'd say I'm astonished but I'm not.

They were protesting an ICE facility. Sort of famous for not wearing uniforms and hiding their faces. Maybe you think these tactics are justified but it has led to a lot of police impersonation.

Your interpretation of the facts and institutions here are thoroughly alien to me.

There's so much unpacking to be done I'm not sure I have the time on my smoke break but I'll give it a shot.

First, law enforcement as a concept is not static. It is a social construct. For me, the only acceptable reason for LE to draw a firearm is to exercise deadly force to protect civilians from a deadly force. For you, it seems you find it justifiable for agents of the state to exercise deadly force against people for vandalism and protest. I do not accept your view. Calling people rioters doesn't really change any facts except to bias the reader against them. Stating that the protesters were armed is not a good argument either. In Texas it is legal to open carry firearms so that is not a justification for deadly force.

You don't actually know that these people tried to break into a government facility. The case centers around the protesters allegedly luring law enforcement out of the facility. Sort of the opposite. Then the prosecution said the intent was to create an ambush.

But all of that is "well technically". The root here is that ICE is now an unaccountable irregular military equipped occupation force. When someone, anyone, raises a firearm toward you, you can either get shot to death and hope they get convicted after the fact (and again I point to Pretti and Good) or you defend yourself and then deal with survivor problems later.

Just because someone has a badge and a uniform does not mean you don't have a right to defend yourself from them, even if the courts are not honoring that right.

The "officer" was chasing people on foot and drew his weapon. He was then shot.

Given the Pretti and Good murders, in my opinion this is a clear cut case of self defense.

Lol the US didn't ratify that either

Do you not see the difference between controlling territorial waters and bombing civilian water infrastructure

How is that "saving grace" in any way

Most propagandized people in the history of the world

Good thing the US economy is Chevron stock value and nothing else.

No, it doesn't. The person I'm responding to is using semantics to claim the 4th amendment didn't mention scope and therefore privacy against search is irrelevant. My point is that acting as though the constitution of the us is some infallible holy text leads society down a path with learned priests interpreting arcane texts (you are here). Instead of acting as a rational society and addressing a need for citizens to have privacy in a changing technological world.

Debating who the "we" is is losing the forest for the trees--we're wading into a conversation debating the power of a state or local municipality instead of looking at the actual issue where the federal government isn't protecting is citizens because "technically the slaveowners didn't say cell phone in their document".

Has anything changed since the sacred texts were written or we just going to keep acting as though we can never adjust the laws

China is the only hope

Lol I have 18 right now and that's after years of having none

Every dumbass divorced Dad "she asked if the wash was done and I said yes"

Real big brain on you. The solution isn't to make ebooks free to libraries, it's to shut off access. This is a good thing!

Lol no

Like, I wouldn't spit the food out.

But I would be disgusted. Someone told me they planned their vacation with an llm and I couldn't help but express disdain for this friend of mine.

Why are we outsourcing creativity and research and interest in discovery to an llm?

What rules based "order" lol

It's pretty indicative of the situation that you're unironically trying to say Malthus was right about some things, actually.

They deploy trucks to see how the bridge vibrates.

Yeah I was typing up a response the inherent disconnect between taking the allegations seriously enough to provide an escort while still allowing the abuser free to assault other women is galling.

> I'm not sure what you're saying, Microsoft wasn't broken up.

I am saying this isn't theory. That this happens basically any time a company has monopolistic power. We cannot expect companies to behave altruistically (nor should we, the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit).

> "Companies would engage in anticompetitive behavior and avoid scrutiny" in which case that's a regulatory failing

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. And the regulatory response is to break the company apart or provide a public service that meets the need of the public if the monopoly is natural.

The legal duty is to maximize shareholder value. Because that is the only interest of a shareholder. I am aware I'm repeating myself here but that necessarily means the company must behave in a way that they maximize their profit under the law as it currently stands regardless of morality/ethics. Given the US government has not done any monopoly control since I can remember, avoiding regulatory scrutiny is a farcical risk.

The original point we were discussing is that private monopolies by themselves can be okay but monopolistic manipulation should be punished. And I disagree with that point because monopolies (and any company) must maximize their profit. Nevermind the legal duty to their shareholders, companies must maximize profit.

I am aware of the legal duty. The legal duty is to maximize shareholder value but not explicitly break the law.

What do you think this looks like in practice? Because it makes logical sense to me that monopolistic companies would use their monopolistic power to come as close as they can with anti competitive behavior without attracting scrutiny which is why you break them up in the first place. And it's not theoretical, there are many examples not least of which is Microsoft.

>Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly.

Can you elaborate your thoughts here because the point of breaking up companies with monopolistic power is they cannot be divorced from monopolistic abuse of that power. It is written into US law that the company has a legal duty to it's shareholders. It seems your point is a distinction without a difference.

Credit unions are regional but they have networks you can interact with. I've lived all over the country with a credit union based out of Ohio with I think less than ten branches. I have no problem finding fee free ATMs, have deposited paper checks both through their app and in network credit unions. The credit union network also offers financial advisors. I've got a mortgage and auto loan through them as well.

This is going to sound insulting and it is not meant to be insulting.

Your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism and Rand. Her philosophy is particularly odious to people on the left and is especially incompatible with anarchist political philosophy. The idea that there are special super intelligent humans who should be placed at the top of society's hierarchy and be given free range to make any and all decisions for those lower on the hierarchy is outright rejected as baseline anarchist political thought.

Sure bud. As a semi anarchist, here is a very widely accepted definition of fascism.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...

Edit: you're also very wrong about number 2, you just haven't been exposed to people proposing solutions.

Here is a 20 year old very famous book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_Prisons_Obsolete%3F?wprov=...

I didn't say it wasn't. I'm saying calling an anarchist someone out of the "objectivist" manifesto is especially insulting.