I believe that true and reliable justice is not attainable by statist systems, or at least has not been achieved by any "Justice Systems" proposed to this point. The problem I see is that many convictions are gained by various testimonies, including the testimony of "experts". The problem, as I see it, is twofold:
What does this imply? Carry a weapon, or at least learn to be one. Women, especially. The fact of the matter is, we are all responsible for our own protection. If a potential rapist can't be convicted for rape, you can't be convicted for spilling the SOB's innards, either.
The world of the Anarchist Paradise is the Wild West with internet.
PS I also think, given that they deprive someone of property, itself a form of violence, that civil cases should be held to the standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", as well. Just think of the lawsuits against, for instance, *** implant makers, for injuries that years later they are proved not liable for. Do they, or their insurance carriers, have any recourse? Tens of millions of dollars have been stolen on the basis of bogus, hyped-up "science".
PPS Geez, for a rather libertarian, adult website, y'all sure are sensitive about things regarding "dirty" words. It's like those ham-handed library filters that won't let you see a site about wild donkeys because they have the word ass in them. Oh, look, I got bleeped. [UPDATE: THEY ACTUALLY DON'T BLEEP ASS] I mean, my last posting was talking about *** implants. I can't say ***? Apparently not. What if I have a *** in my armor. I'll see if you bleep that. Maybe I'll go eat some saur ***. Nothing like fermented cabbage, after all!
JCFolsom: If a potential rapist can't be convicted for rape, you can't be convicted for spilling the SOB's innards, either.
If a potential rapist can't be convicted for rape, you can't be convicted for spilling the SOB's innards, either.
Um, a potential rapist never actually committed rape. Whereas, if you kill someone, you did kill them. So I think you meant to say if a rapist cannot be convicted for rape, you cannot be convicted for spilling the SOB's innards, either.
However, even this line of reasoning is flawed. Just because I accuse someone of a crime, that does not give me permission to kill them, or even harm them in any way, shape, or form. Otherwise, if I wanted to kill someone, I could just accuse them of a crime and then kill them.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
JCFolsom: PPS Geez, for a rather libertarian, adult website, y'all sure are sensitive about things regarding "dirty" words. It's like those ham-handed library filters that won't let you see a site about wild donkeys because they have the word ass in them. Oh, look, I got bleeped. [UPDATE: THEY ACTUALLY DON'T BLEEP ASS] I mean, my last posting was talking about *** implants. I can't say ***? Apparently not. What if I have a *** in my armor. I'll see if you bleep that. Maybe I'll go eat some saur ***. Nothing like fermented cabbage, after all!
Any reputable forum should restrict language. It lends credibility to the forum.
Spideynw:Um, a potential rapist never actually committed rape. Whereas, if you kill someone, you did kill them. So I think you meant to say if a rapist cannot be convicted for rape, you cannot be convicted for spilling the SOB's innards, either.
Nah, man, by potential rapist, I mean someone actively trying to rape. He's only "potential" because you spill the SOB's innards first.