State's Rights

General Buck Turgidson said:
A "governmental" role is different from a "federal government" role. And yes, the prohibitions against the use of force against others, except in self-defense, but Zimmerman is claiming self-defense under applicable state law so . . . yeah, what's the legitimate federal government role here from the Libertarian perspective?
Click to expand...
We've already spoken about that here, but I'll repeat it. I suggest you sound the words out so you don't miss it this time.

It depends on whether you believe the rights of the kid who were shot were violated. Again, the lowest effective level of government necessary to protect the rights of the individual against aggression. If the local government is ineffective, the State should step in, if both the State and the local government will not protect the individual's rights then, however unfortunate, the Federal government should step in. The rights of the individual are paramount in libertarianism. Pretending we haven't explained this to you several times before makes me think you are being a bit disingenuous in your argument.
 
Damocles said:
We've already spoken about that here, but I'll repeat it. I suggest you sound the words out so you don't miss it this time.

It depends on whether you believe the rights of the kid who were shot were violated. Again, the lowest effective level of government necessary to protect the rights of the individual against aggression. If the local government is ineffective, the State should step in, if both the State and the local government will not protect the individual's rights then, however unfortunate, the Federal government should step in. The rights of the individual are paramount in libertarianism. Pretending we haven't explained this to you several times before makes me think you are being a bit disingenuous in your argument.
Click to expand...


On what basis does the federal government step in without offending the state law and George Zimmerman's right to act in his own self-defense in accordance with state law? I mean, there's a pretty significant tension (not only with respect to the whole federal v. state government thing) that this case presents for Libertarians. On the one hand, you have a state level determination that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense as codified in state law and then you have the death of Martin, the denial of life to him.

Now, I can see the argument that Libertarians believe in the ability of the federal government to protect rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as against state action, but I don't see any principled Libertarian argument for federal intervention here where (1) the state hasn't denied anything to Martin, a private actor has, and (2) state law protects Zimmerman's right to self-defense, a basic principle of Libertarianism.
 
Derp Derp said:
The problem with the authors argument is that they are demonstrably wrong as these types of killings have more than doubled in Florida since the law was enacted and the killers have succesfully used this law to avoid prosecution. In a perfect world he may be right on principle but in reality people are dying and the public is less safe.
Click to expand...

It seems that with all the negative attention Florida is getting over the incident that some members of the legislature are going to look at the law. This is a good thing.
 
Rana said:
It seems that with all the negative attention Florida is getting over the incident that some members of the legislature are going to look at the law. This is a good thing.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think that Law, like Medicine, as a profession should operate under the same principle of "First do no harm.".

I appreciate the sensitivity people have towards their personal liberties but I don't want to live in fear I might get my ass shot off cause some nut job with a gun doesn't like the way I look and then pops a cap in my ass when I tell him to GFO and then has a State sanctioned get out of jail free card.

The devil is in the details but considering how the Castle principle has worked just fine for hundreds of years and this new law has precipitated an increased number of deaths, not decreased, then maybe, just maybe, this is a bad law which cannot be fixed and it might be in the Florida publics best interest to revert back to the Castle principle.
 
Damocles said:
Okay, catb.org is a site to teach you "ethical hacking". Not even close to a site full of experts on libertarianism.

The wiki link clearly states that while Libertarians believe government should be limited, that it should be limited to specific things which include protecting the individual against attack, that government's role is in protecting the individual from "aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud".

And your third link talks about: responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense).

The two sites that have reasonable definitions clearly indicate that Libertarians believe that there is a governmental role in protecting the individual against aggression, theft, etc. The catb site is seriously not even close to a political site. As I said, it's where you go to learn to hack computers.
Click to expand...

THats all true, your point?
 
Rana said:
It seems that with all the negative attention Florida is getting over the incident that some members of the legislature are going to look at the law. This is a good thing.
Click to expand...

changing this law is going to result in more people being charged with murder for self defense. hope you feel good about ruining lives.
 
Derp Derp said:
I agree. I think that Law, like Medicine, as a profession should operate under the same principle of "First do no harm.".
Click to expand...
tell that to the police and government.

Derp Derp said:
I appreciate the sensitivity people have towards their personal liberties but I don't want to live in fear I might get my ass shot off cause some nut job with a gun doesn't like the way I look and then pops a cap in my ass when I tell him to GFO and then has a State sanctioned get out of jail free card.
Click to expand...
typical bed wetting panty wearing liberal point of view. how do you feel knowing that you can easily ignore the obvious criminal threats out there already?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
On what basis does the federal government step in without offending the state law and George Zimmerman's right to act in his own self-defense in accordance with state law? I mean, there's a pretty significant tension (not only with respect to the whole federal v. state government thing) that this case presents for Libertarians. On the one hand, you have a state level determination that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense as codified in state law and then you have the death of Martin, the denial of life to him.

Now, I can see the argument that Libertarians believe in the ability of the federal government to protect rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as against state action, but I don't see any principled Libertarian argument for federal intervention here where (1) the state hasn't denied anything to Martin, a private actor has, and (2) state law protects Zimmerman's right to self-defense, a basic principle of Libertarianism.
Click to expand...

So to Dung, if a person shouts 'self defense' it must be 'self defense'???

1) This law does not cover what Zimmerman did.
2) This was not self defense
3) Zimmerman did not act in accordance to state law.
4) Link us to where the State determined that he acted in self defense.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Even if you believe in the concept of Stand Your Ground, this law is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Translation: 'Like every other liberal on this board, I am going to stomp my feet and continue calling this law bullshit... and NO, I will not provide any evidence that it is. I will instead continue to pretend the law allows people to just shoot each other'
 
Superfreak said:
So to Dung, if a person shouts 'self defense' it must be 'self defense'???

1) This law does not cover what Zimmerman did.
2) This was not self defense
3) Zimmerman did not act in accordance to state law.
4) Link us to where the State determined that he acted in self defense.
Click to expand...


SF: I'd be more that happy to discuss these points with you if you were to try to attempt to explain your reasoning. You're just stating the same conclusion three times and then asking for proof of something that we all know to be true given that the police didn't fucking arrest him.
 
Rana said:
It will ensure that it is self defense and not murder claimed as self defense as seems to be the case in the Martin/Zimmerman case.
Click to expand...

So you think it should be guilty until proven innocent? You think that removing this law will prevent defendants from claiming self defense?
 
Superfreak said:
Translation: 'Like every other liberal on this board, I am going to stomp my feet and continue calling this law bullshit... and NO, I will not provide any evidence that it is. I will instead continue to pretend the law allows people to just shoot each other'
Click to expand...

I've already explained it to you, like, two dozen posts ago and you ignored it. Go back and read it and if you have any questions about anything in particular, I'd be happy to address them.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
SF: I'd be more that happy to discuss these points with you if you were to try to attempt to explain your reasoning. You're just stating the same conclusion three times and then asking for proof of something that we all know to be true given that the police didn't fucking arrest him.
Click to expand...

1) I addressed it several times already, the law DOES NOT ALLOW excessive force.
2) The law does not allow someone to be the aggressor and then claim self defense
3) I will ask you AGAIN, since NO LIBERAL will answer these...

a) Is the Sanford police... the State? Because it is the Sanford police that have yet to make an arrest and the local DA that has not filed charges. Unless of course you wish to link us up to the liberal source that all you liberals seem to have that shows the State has proclaimed it self defense.

b) What is the timeline that you think should be in place for the State to take over local cases? a day? a week? a month?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I've already explained it to you, like, two dozen posts ago and you ignored it. Go back and read it and if you have any questions about anything in particular, I'd be happy to address them.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. You pretend that he can just claim self defense and be immune. That is NOT what the law allows for. But if you believe it does, CITE the section of the law you are referring to.

What I am referring to is this: (since it pertains to THIS case)

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Click to expand...

Just in case you didn't know... skittles are not equivalent force to a gun.

For all you liberals who continue to refuse to read the law... once more I will provide it for you...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
 
Derp Derp said:
The problem with the authors argument is that they are demonstrably wrong as these types of killings have more than doubled in Florida since the law was enacted and the killers have succesfully used this law to avoid prosecution. In a perfect world he may be right on principle but in reality people are dying and the public is less safe.
Click to expand...

Something that supports your comment of the killings doubling, would be nice.
 
Rana said:
They haven't doubled, they have tripled
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/03/self_defense_deaths_have_tripl.php
Click to expand...

something that's both amusing and horrifying by the media at this point, from this article....

The number of "justifiable" deaths in Florida that have resulted from self defense has tripled since 2005

using 'justifiable' in quotes to move the term from legal to morally objectionable is pretty disgusting by the media, and truly sad that you morons are licking it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top