osan
Member

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

Short answer: If you are still fighting it you are losing it.

After 26 years, I'd have to agree.

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

Short answer: If you are still fighting it you are losing it.

After 26 years, I'd have to agree.

Originally Posted by Mach

"castle doctrine," which permits homeowners to use deadly force against intruders. The revised law will allow invited guests, such as babysitters, to use lethal force.

I find it amazing to consider just how hopelessly corrupt a land we are, and have been for so very long a time when I read things like this. To think not only that some people would dare usurp the authority to remove those which are the most obvious prerogatives of free men, but also that we as a people would

Read More

Originally Posted by osan

We did.

and

Originally Posted by PierzStyx

Uhm, no. Not all of us. Only most of the countries involved. We few radicals and rebels do what we can to prevent it. Whether that works or not still doesn't change whether it is our fault or not.

To which I responded thusly:


The number of people out there who are putting their asses on the line is vanishingly small. My statistical assessment therefore stands. To wit...

The fact is this: we failed from the earliest days.

Read More

Originally Posted by Bryan

How would you defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct? The use of private security firms is a stock answer, but let’s consider some more detail. Consider the following situations…

And it has its problems. It is a partial answer at best.

1) A band of thugs is going around robbing people, how do you defend your home from invasion?

By killing them to eliminate them from the book of immediate and potential future threats to others, including

Read More