The Fundamental Political Question

[gaffo]

Besides, diplomacy doesn't work. It is always a compromise between those threatening force and those attempting to avoid it, which always means surrendering something without resistance to the aggressor for a temporary respite, and only pertains to collectives.

Diplomacy works when both parties are willing to compromise and are of similar power.

Diplomacy = Compromise and why it does works (both parties get some of what they want, and not the rest - and determine war with is too great of a risk and a loss of the concesions they get via diplomacy.

Individuals never have to compromise their values.

really?

in my life i have had to compromise in nearly all things - at least once or twice a year, if not a month. week or day on some level.

So long as one never threatens force against anyone else and only deals with others rationally, offering value for value to everyone's mutual agreement or benefit, every threat may be dealt with directly and justly, evaded or terminated.

but deplomacy is not based upon reason (nor life for that matter) - but instead upon ego/ pride (national pride), and power (can i get more power if i negociate than via war i might loose).

"reason" is lightyears behind and irrelivent to this life - for both persons and States.

in this life its all about emotions (pride), and power/advantage.

-folks/nations just use Negociation for those ends instead of your imagined "reason".

[gaffo]

Besides, diplomacy doesn't work. It is always a compromise between those threatening force and those attempting to avoid it, which always means surrendering something without resistance to the aggressor for a temporary respite, and only pertains to collectives.

Diplomacy works when both parties are willing to compromise and are of similar power.

Diplomacy = Compromise and why it does works (both parties get some of what they want, and not the rest - and determine war with is too great of a risk and a loss of the concesions they get via diplomacy.

Individuals never have to compromise their values.

really?

in my life i have had to compromise in nearly all things - at least once or twice a year, if not a month. week or day on some level.

So long as one never threatens force against anyone else and only deals with others rationally, offering value for value to everyone's mutual agreement or benefit, every threat may be dealt with directly and justly, evaded or terminated.

but deplomacy is not based upon reason (nor life for that matter) - but instead upon ego/ pride (national pride), and power (can i get more power if i negociate than via war i might loose).

"reason" is lightyears behind and irrelivent to this life - for persons and States.

in this life its all about emotions (pride), and power/advantage.

-folks/nations just use Negociation for those ends instead of your imagined "reason".


your post seems very naive to me.

[RCSaunders]

I would only, "fight," if it were a last resort, in which case there is no limit to what is right.

not so, there is a limit your response to an offense, when you have the perp subdued via whatever -say you shot the 14 yr old thug in the head, and so he is on the floor and no longer a threat, via nature law self defense you no longer have the right to shoot him 5 more times.

which was what happened here in Ok 8 yrs ago. and why he is still in jail and the 14 yrs old is dead.

-----------

if the former vet marine had shot him once in the head- as he did, and so was lying on on the floor and so so not longer a threat - and the kid might have lived (no clue on that, but one bullet to the head instead of 5 more improved that chance - not read the coroners report (not relivent actually - 1st bullet was legal per NL/self defence - not the other 5 - which the vet took the time/turned his back (so knew the kid was incapacited and so no threat) - he walked to the back room, and reloaded his gun and shot the kid 5 more times.

-

charged with murder and rotting in a jail because of it.

and GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fine with the first bullet, not the rest though.

so let the fucker rot!

Laws (which are nothing but the inventions of oppressive governments) do not define what is right and wrong for me. If someone initiates the use of force, they have declared themselves incapable of dealing with others as a human being, that is, by means of reasons. Reason and force are contradictions. Use force and you have exempted yourself from being considered human. One cannot take a chance that because a rabid animal is down, it is safe. Shoot it until you run out of amo.

[henry quirk]

one to the chest; one to the head

anything more is a waste of ammo

[commonsense]

but never in the back.

[henry quirk]

but never in the back.

never say never

[gaffo]

I would only, "fight," if it were a last resort, in which case there is no limit to what is right.

not so, there is a limit your response to an offense, when you have the perp subdued via whatever -say you shot the 14 yr old thug in the head, and so he is on the floor and no longer a threat, via nature law self defense you no longer have the right to shoot him 5 more times.

which was what happened here in Ok 8 yrs ago. and why he is still in jail and the 14 yrs old is dead.

-----------

if the former vet marine had shot him once in the head- as he did, and so was lying on on the floor and so so not longer a threat - and the kid might have lived (no clue on that, but one bullet to the head instead of 5 more improved that chance - not read the coroners report (not relivent actually - 1st bullet was legal per NL/self defence - not the other 5 - which the vet took the time/turned his back (so knew the kid was incapacited and so no threat) - he walked to the back room, and reloaded his gun and shot the kid 5 more times.

-

charged with murder and rotting in a jail because of it.

and GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fine with the first bullet, not the rest though.

so let the fucker rot!

Laws (which are nothing but the inventions of oppressive governments) do not define what is right and wrong for me. If someone initiates the use of force, they have declared themselves incapable of dealing with others as a human being, that is, by means of reasons. Reason and force are contradictions. Use force and you have exempted yourself from being considered human. One cannot take a chance that because a rabid animal is down, it is safe. Shoot it until you run out of amo.

ok Jerome Ersland, if you say so. hows the chow in the big house? and your butt buddy? a nice fellow?

[RCSaunders]

but never in the back.

never say never

Of course. If the perps running away dragging my four-year-old daughter he'll be shot wherever I can put a few rounds.

[RCSaunders]

not so, there is a limit your response to an offense, when you have the perp subdued via whatever -say you shot the 14 yr old thug in the head, and so he is on the floor and no longer a threat, via nature law self defense you no longer have the right to shoot him 5 more times.

which was what happened here in Ok 8 yrs ago. and why he is still in jail and the 14 yrs old is dead.

-----------

if the former vet marine had shot him once in the head- as he did, and so was lying on on the floor and so so not longer a threat - and the kid might have lived (no clue on that, but one bullet to the head instead of 5 more improved that chance - not read the coroners report (not relivent actually - 1st bullet was legal per NL/self defence - not the other 5 - which the vet took the time/turned his back (so knew the kid was incapacited and so no threat) - he walked to the back room, and reloaded his gun and shot the kid 5 more times.

-

charged with murder and rotting in a jail because of it.

and GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fine with the first bullet, not the rest though.

so let the fucker rot!

Laws (which are nothing but the inventions of oppressive governments) do not define what is right and wrong for me. If someone initiates the use of force, they have declared themselves incapable of dealing with others as a human being, that is, by means of reasons. Reason and force are contradictions. Use force and you have exempted yourself from being considered human. One cannot take a chance that because a rabid animal is down, it is safe. Shoot it until you run out of amo.

ok Jerome Ersland, if you say so. hows the chow in the big house? and your butt buddy? a nice fellow?

You worry about a lot of things, but my welfare is not one you need be concerned with.