88 replies to this topic

[Solarclimax]

What is a civilised society ?

[magellan]

I'm not alpha-male, so I'm a bit afraid of the physical aggresion of Alphas. Then again, physical attacks I can handle, and in today's society, again physical attacks are unlikely to occur. Police are there to dissolve physical altercations. Intellectual manipulation and psychological "warfare" is more troublesome. our world's evolving to the age of Intellectual giants and Psych alpha, and not "caveman" alphas.

predators still watch and wait
be prepared mentally is only way
this is where martial arts often fail--teach physical but not mental (ring/cage is not street)
all the physical training in the world will fail if the heart rate gets above a certain point
sudden brutal attack = fight/flight/freeze response = loss of fine motor control
if there is hesitation = bad guys win
read book "Mindsighting" to overcome this

Edited by magellan, 09 January 2010 - 03:46 AM.

[karlsmith]

I will do anything to save myself or my loved ones. If necessary I'll use deadly force (I'll try to avoid) to stop anything bad happening to my loved ones.
currently I keep a pair of brass knuckles for my self protection from street thugs.

edited by Matthias: commercial link removed

Edited by Matthias, 03 April 2010 - 03:37 PM.

[Aetherius]

So long as you have free thinking there will always be the spawns of probability that include satanists, violent nihilists, obsessive dictators, and all sorts of other philosophical causes for extreme imperfection.
If something doesn't benefit you then just leave it alone, if it does harm without possibly offering anything in return, kill it.

[Heliotrope]

So long as you have free thinking there will always be the spawns of probability that include satanists, violent nihilists, obsessive dictators, and all sorts of other philosophical causes for extreme imperfection.
If something doesn't benefit you then just leave it alone, if it does harm without possibly offering anything in return, kill it.

Yes indeed. Kill it. When it tries to kill you, it stops being a "he/she." If speed is of utmost concern, do whatever it does to you. If one has to die, better it than you.

Sadly, in our Imperfect World, you may get jailed for a long time, due to your over-defensive action. If speed's not concern, call 911. The cops can triangulate your position to the square meter, I presume.

[Wandering Jew]

Most support deadly force. Sounds like deadly force against burglar/robber whatever is a right choice! The perp can be vindictive, he can sue you for damages, or even attempt harm on you fr 2nd, 3rd, the thousandth time. You can't be locked in your house to protect your loves.

That may be why many advise "Aim to Kill." Dead perps can't sue. Dead perps can't seek revenge. Perhaps a live bad guy can make one's life a living hell?

Edited by Wandering Jew, 18 April 2010 - 10:35 PM.

[Alex Libman]

Sorry to spread my Anarcho-Capitalist "propaganda" to yet another thread, but the market mechanism that would encourage ever-greater innovation and application of "less lethal" self-defense technologies would be a justice system based on restitution, which also makes for a more effective deterrent than idle imprisonment at tax-victim expense. Less-lethal weapons would also be beneficial from life insurance cost and PR point of view.

Why kill the perp when you can knock him out / wall him in / GPS tag him, call in a reputable private security / arbitration agency, document his crime (i.e. "open source justice"), confiscate his property (proportionally to the jury verdict), and possibly send him to a work prison to pay for the rest? While incarcerated he will be "strongly encouraged" (unless he wants to spend the rest of his life on gruel and water) to work to the best of his ability to earn his keep, pay you more restitution, and otherwise accumulate "karma points" toward his future emancipation, which can be achieved earlier if he is found to be trustworthy enough to continue paying you restitution (ex. a fraction of his salary) while he's out "on parole".

Edited by Alex Libman, 18 April 2010 - 11:19 PM.

[shifter]

If society WAS civilized, people wouldn't be going around bashing, raping and killing each other in the first place. If you find yourself in a situation where you do need to defend yourself, the law currently states that you can use minimal force to neutralize the threat.

Which is only good if our justice system was decent. My opinion is a criminal forfeits his rights when he decides to break the law. Jail should be more about punishment then 'rehabilitation'. Unfortunately we have jails that cost more per prisoner than a 5 star hotel. And even the harshest criminals have rights to adequate meals, exercise, TV, visitors and even internet. Its a joke.

If someone wanted to kill me or people I care about, I'd like to leave a lasting impression of regret for the remainder of their useless life. Perhaps eating through a straw or bound to a wheelchair will make them wakeup each morning feeling sorry about what they did/tried to do.

F&$k 'em. Send em to Gulag!!!

Sorry to spread my Anarcho-Capitalist "propaganda" to yet another thread, but the market mechanism that would encourage ever-greater innovation and application of "less lethal" self-defense technologies would be a justice system based on restitution, which also makes for a more effective deterrent than idle imprisonment at tax-victim expense. Less-lethal weapons would also be beneficial from life insurance cost and PR point of view.

Why kill the perp when you can knock him out / wall him in / GPS tag him, call in a reputable private security / arbitration agency, document his crime (i.e. "open source justice"), confiscate his property (proportionally to the jury verdict), and possibly send him to a work prison to pay for the rest? While incarcerated he will be "strongly encouraged" (unless he wants to spend the rest of his life on gruel and water) to work to the best of his ability to earn his keep, pay you more restitution, and otherwise accumulate "karma points" toward his future emancipation, which can be achieved earlier if he is found to be trustworthy enough to continue paying you restitution (ex. a fraction of his salary) while he's out "on parole".

[Alex Libman]

I never said that the society needs to be drastically more civilized in order for private defense agencies / polycentric justice systems to function, especially since the first Anarcho-Capitalist societies will be products of natural selection - privately owned seasteads and "gated communities" that most petty criminals will not be able to buy into or easily access.

I agree with your statement that "a criminal forfeits his rights when he decides to break the law", but only if you mean Natural Law, not what some government demagogues wrote down on a piece of paper (ex. the tax code, drug prohibition, etc). Also a criminal does have the negative Right to Life if he surrenders and ceases being a threat, and a prisoner does have a Right to Emancipation which, naturally implies a Right to a fair and open trial, access to all information that may aid in proving his defense, etc.

Both "punishment" and "rehabilitation" legitimate purposes of incarceration, and so are "protecting the public" and even "protecting the perpetrator from severe ostracism / vigilante violence if he's seen as having escaped justice unrepentant", but the victim's Right to Restitution is the core of the justice process in a free society. (That's why there can never be a "victimless crime". For example, the parents / guardians of a "statutory rape victim" may prosecute on their dependent's behalf, even against her will, so in that case they would be the victims, but she may reverse the guilty verdict as soon as she is emancipated and becomes a self-owning adult.)

If there are multiple victims and/or multiple "next of kin" / people contractually empowered to act on the victim's behalf, then the jury awards them "shares" of the total Restitution amount, just as multiple people can share the guilt for a single crime. The victims' shares are like corporate shares - they can be bought, sold, borrowed against, insured, etc (though most victims probably won't look to kindly on the idea of selling their restitution shares except for a very good reason). The people holding the restitution shares get to decide how the prisoner is to be treated, except that they cannot violate the same Rights that parents / guardians cannot violate in a child - the Right to Life and the Right to Emancipation. The latter means the prisoner's case can be brought up for review - periodically, if there's new evidence pertaining to the case, or if there is evidence of jury corruption or prisoner abuse, which may result in an early release.

So this system of victims profiting from their criminals would not only discourage crime, but it would also discourage the death penalty. Why kill someone when you can profit from them instead? It would probably have some beneficial psychological benefits as well. A Holocaust surviver once said that if Hitler had been captured alive then he shouldn't have been given the death penalty, but he should have been made to live in Israel (or Warsaw, Moscow, etc) and spend his days being visited by his victims and their families and made to listen to all they'll have to say to him. Such a punishment would be entirely feasible and even very probable under Anarcho-Capitalism (though I of course hope the world will never see another criminal whose restitution shares would be held by so many millions of people).

Edited by Alex Libman, 19 April 2010 - 02:35 AM.

[Sebastian]

The question itself is flawed.

Civilized society is irrelevant if you or your loved ones are being physically threatened.
Obviously yes to both.

[Lallante]

There are no such things as Alpha Males anymore, they are an obsolete evolutionary cul de sac. Those men who believe they are Alpha male types are just confused adolescent minded fools who need to be educated. Those are generally the types who sit back in their chairs and vicariously live through UFC and MMA while doing nothing to enhance the society we live in. Again education is the answer.

There are still plenty of "alpha males" around, tho I agree they're immature. Immature, but can cause many needless sufferings like physically assaulting someone. They tend to take risks, including risking others' lives and their own. If physically confronted, we may need "alpha bodies" , but most of us have smarter ways of descalation.

Typical beta.

A lot of alphas are assholes, but so are a lot of betas, you just dont resent the betas because there is no reason to be jealous of them. Alpha in this day and age has nothing to do with physical strength or domination, but it entirely to do with attitude and (resulting) social hierarchical positioning.

The idea that being alpha is somehow linked to being thoughtless, aggressive or immature just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be alpha. Possibly also resentment.

Anyone with experience of the corporate, political or other high-octane and intelligence driven areas will know what I am talking about.

Edited by Lallante, 20 April 2010 - 03:06 PM.

[Lallante]

More on topic:

Self-defence is an odd term that is often misused. I will not get into the legal meaning (which is different in the US to the UK for example), but rather what I consider to be the most easily defensible philosophical definition - the use of proportionate force to protect oneself or another from harm.

Consider the following scenarios:


a) Homeowner shoots and kills unarmed burglar on his property.
b) Homeowner shoots and kills unarmed burglar on his property who has assaulted homeowner and continues to do so.
c) Homeowner shoots and kills unarmed burglar on his property who has assaulted homeowner and is clearly trying to kill homeowner (strangulation or blunt force trauma).
d) Homeowner shoots and kills knife wielding burglar on his property who has not acted with any additional aggression.
e) Homeowner shoots and kills gun wielding burglar on his property who has not acted with any additional aggression.
f) Homeowner shoots and kills gun or knife wielding burglar who is actively attacking him or another person.


Of these scenarios, only c) and f) are true self-defence. Situations b) d) and e) are probably legally (or morally) excusable if the homeowner had a genuine and reasonable fear for his/her life (the difficulty of proving this will be more difficult for b) or d) than for e)), however they are not true self-defence as objectively speaking the response is not proportionate to the threat. If the homeowner had no reason to fear the death of himself or another then these situations should, in my opinion, be treated as a crime.

Finally scenario a) is clearly murder.

[rwac]

they are not true self-defence as objectively speaking the response is not proportionate to the threat.

And what is your basis for stating that the response needs to be proportionate to the threat ?

Very often, a "proportionate" response is impossible. Burglars generally tend to be younger and stronger than their victims.

Edited by rwac, 21 April 2010 - 01:19 PM.

[Lallante]

they are not true self-defence as objectively speaking the response is not proportionate to the threat.

And what is your basis for stating that the response needs to be proportionate to the threat ?

Very often, a "proportionate" response is impossible. Burglars generally tend to be younger and stronger than their victims.

My basis is subjective - my personal opinion, and the way the law in the UK (correctly, imo) defines it.

There are no objective bases on these kinds of question, only subjective ones.

I think you are misunderstanding "proportionate". The defence must be proportionate to the threat - the threat to an old or infirm person from a young strong person is much greater than were the positions reversed.

A disproportionate response is a response that uses vastly more force than is neccesary to ensure your safety. For example if I saw someone on my lawn at night and I fired off a few shotgun rounds and killed him, that would be vastly disproportionate as although he was trespassing there is no reason to think he poses any threat, let alone a threat to my life.

Likewise I believe if you are being mugged by an unarmed assailant, and despite not being in fear of your life, you pull out a pistol and shoot him, you are acting disproportionately. Yes he is a criminal, but unless you honestly argue that theft deserves a death sentence, killing him is not proportionate and you should just hand over your wallet (or, even better, scare him off with the gun or a warning shot, or hit him with it, or something more reasonable).

Obviously people, in the heat of the moment, may not be able to judge the severity of a threat and overreact, but this would be taken into account when applying the law - is your action in self defence within the range of actions that a reasonable person in the same situation would have taken.

[mikeinnaples]

There are no such things as Alpha Males anymore, they are an obsolete evolutionary cul de sac. Those men who believe they are Alpha male types are just confused adolescent minded fools who need to be educated. Those are generally the types who sit back in their chairs and vicariously live through UFC and MMA while doing nothing to enhance the society we live in. Again education is the answer.

There are still plenty of "alpha males" around, tho I agree they're immature. Immature, but can cause many needless sufferings like physically assaulting someone. They tend to take risks, including risking others' lives and their own. If physically confronted, we may need "alpha bodies" , but most of us have smarter ways of descalation.

Typical beta.

A lot of alphas are assholes, but so are a lot of betas, you just dont resent the betas because there is no reason to be jealous of them. Alpha in this day and age has nothing to do with physical strength or domination, but it entirely to do with attitude and (resulting) social hierarchical positioning.

The idea that being alpha is somehow linked to being thoughtless, aggressive or immature just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be alpha. Possibly also resentment.

Anyone with experience of the corporate, political or other high-octane and intelligence driven areas will know what I am talking about.

You are absolutely correct. I also think some people are confusing Alpha 'in nature' with what it means to be Alpha 'as a human'. This gross misunderstanding is where some of the posters are implying that alphas are knuckle dragging, confrontational, neanderthals that get all the women. I suppose the misconception could perhaps be resentment based, but I think it is most likely do to the inability of a few posters to understand the being alpha as a human is completely different as being an alpha, lets say, as a baboon. It is very easy to determine the alpha male in a pack of wolves for example, but determining who the alpha male are in a room full of men is not so easy. Quite honestly, the alpha in the room may not be the loud, obnoxious, ripped up Arnold guy and instead could be the small, quieter guy that doesn't speak much, but when he does, commands 'respect' ...not by position, but by demeanor and personality. Alpha 'human' males trend towards decisiveness ...this is not to imply reckless decision making either, as the recklessness and soundness of the decision is soley determined by intelligence, experience, and maturity just like it is for Betas/Omegas. Alpha 'human' males also trend towards 'acting' and being proactive rather than 'reacting'. Regardless, I do believe the lines are blurred between Alpha/Beta with Alphas becoming Betas and Betas becoming Alphas depending on circumstance and environment. Males that are Alpha in most circumstances, may defer to a Beta role in the presence of a superior Alpha (again, this has nothing to do with physical characteristics, immature behavior, or neanderthalic mindsets) and sometimes a Beta male is forced into an Alpha role.

So we need to avoid a couple of things here:

1. We need to avoid confusing Alpha/Beta in the animal world with Alpha/Beta in the adult human world

2. We need to avoid speaking from limited experience and maturity view points. As I mentioned before, behavior in highschool/college is grossly different than that as adults 'for the most part'

3. We need to avoid derailing this thread by debating something other than its topic

Edited by mikeinnaples, 21 April 2010 - 03:26 PM.

[rwac]

this has nothing to do with physical characteristics, ...

That's a little too strong.

Notice that the President of the US generally tends to be a tall person ?

Taller people make more money.
http://www.apa.org/m...4/standing.aspx

[mikeinnaples]

this has nothing to do with physical characteristics, ...

That's a little too strong.

Notice that the President of the US generally tends to be a tall person ?

Taller people make more money.
http://www.apa.org/m...4/standing.aspx

Perhaps a bit too strong

[rephore]

To those who are too scared to use deadly force, I recommend:

The World's First Less Than Lethal Handgun. Available Late 2010.


Or
The First Taser With Multiple Shots. Because bad guys come in packs.

Edited by rephore, 13 May 2010 - 10:33 AM.

[donjoe]

Typical beta.

A lot of alphas are assholes, but so are a lot of betas
[...]
Anyone with experience of the corporate, political or other high-octane and intelligence driven areas will know what I am talking about.

Typical alpha.

"Intelligence-driven" my ass. That may be what the alphas imagine themselves to be in their wet dreams where they're justified in wielding all the power that they wield and making all the judgements that they make, but it's far from reality.

The truth of our monkey-like existence is that there's a higher probability for people to become leaders if they:
- have bigger bodies (nothing to do with intelligence)
- have deeper voices (nothing to do with intelligence)
- have symmetrical features (beauty) or non-repulsive signs of aging (subconsciously misinterpreted as wisdom)
- are extraverted (nothing to do with analytical intelligence, a personality type mostly associated with _social_ intelligence)
- etc.

Wake the fuck up, most geniuses are introverted and at a clear disadvantage in this distorted society that's run and shaped by extraverts, who generally don't know or care about the intellectual values of introversion.

Edited by donjoe, 13 May 2010 - 11:48 AM.

[Lallante]

Typical beta.

A lot of alphas are assholes, but so are a lot of betas
[...]
Anyone with experience of the corporate, political or other high-octane and intelligence driven areas will know what I am talking about.

Typical alpha.

"Intelligence-driven" my ass. That may be what the alphas imagine themselves to be in their wet dreams where they're justified in wielding all the power that they wield and making all the judgements that they make, but it's far from reality.

The truth of our monkey-like existence is that there's a higher probability for people to become leaders if they:
- have bigger bodies (nothing to do with intelligence)
- have deeper voices (nothing to do with intelligence)
- have symmetrical features (beauty) or non-repulsive signs of aging (subconsciously misinterpreted as wisdom)
- are extraverted (nothing to do with analytical intelligence, a personality type mostly associated with _social_ intelligence)
- etc.

Wake the fuck up, most geniuses are introverted and at a clear disadvantage in this distorted society that's run and shaped by extraverts, who generally don't know or care about the intellectual values of introversion.

This diatribe would be funny if it weren't so tragic and bitter.

As I've said, try working in a high-end financial services or in the top echelon of management of a commercial company and see what defines Alpha for yourself.

[donjoe]

As I've said, try working in a high-end financial services or in the top echelon of management of a commercial company and see what defines Alpha for yourself.

Sorry, but to me that's like saying "Try working among the biggest assholes in the world to find out what defines the biggest assholes in the world.".

[Lallante]

As I've said, try working in a high-end financial services or in the top echelon of management of a commercial company and see what defines Alpha for yourself.

Sorry, but to me that's like saying "Try working among the biggest assholes in the world to find out what defines the biggest assholes in the world.".

You are so bitter! Who would want an intellectually stimulating job with huge pay and tonnes of perks with likeminded and similarly gifted colleagues anyway.

[donjoe]

Who would want an intellectually stimulating job with huge pay and tonnes of perks with likeminded and similarly gifted colleagues anyway.

... all the while knowing that the huge pay is almost completely undeserved, as it's not possible to prove in any rational way that such immense discrepancies in "value" can really exist between any two Homo sapiens individuals and what they produce? (Such immense discrepancies as those between a financial/corporate asshole and an electrician or a nurse, for instance.)

Who indeed. Probably a sad excuse for a human being. Or someone philosophically retarded.
(That corporate bosses are philosophically retarded is an obvious fact. We're reminded of it every time we see the stupid PowerPoint slides they pride themselves in at "all hands" meetings, emanating the only simulacrum of a philosophy they have: "Growth! Growth! Growth! Profit! Profit! Profit!".)

Edited by donjoe, 13 May 2010 - 01:15 PM.

[Lallante]

Who would want an intellectually stimulating job with huge pay and tonnes of perks with likeminded and similarly gifted colleagues anyway.

... all the while knowing that the huge pay is almost completely undeserved, as it's not possible to prove in any rational way that such immense discrepancies in "value" can really exist between any two Homo sapiens individuals and what they produce? (Such immense discrepancies as those between a financial/corporate asshole and an electrician or a nurse, for instance.)

This is complete nonsense. What on earth can "undeserved" mean in this context?

If its the value you provide - I generate more than my salary for my firm (to be precise, last year I generated 9 times my salary for my firm). I assure you no financial services firm will give salaries of less than the 'value' of the employee to the business - if nothing else, its the nature of a business.

Perhaps you think all salaries should be judged based on the base effort exerted. In which case, the less intelligent (or physically able) you are, the more you would be paid for the same job as it would take much more effort to do it, and really intelligent or skilled people would be paid very little! Nonsense indeed.

Perhaps you think instead that 'deserving' is a reflection of training - well hate to break it to you but it takes 7 years to get the post-school qualifications needed to do what I do. Nursing takes 2.

Perhaps its the value given to society? I pay enough in income tax alone to pay the salary of several nurses - so any benefit they provide can be attributed to me.

Or perhaps you are just making broad, completely unsupported sweeping statements based on a feeling you have in your gut like a true unthinking simpleton. I'll be charitable and assumed you aren't in this last category and instead are just confused.

Who indeed. Probably a sad excuse for a human being. Or someone philosophically retarded.
(That corporate bosses are philosophically retarded is an obvious fact. We're reminded of it every time we see the stupid PowerPoint slides they pride themselves in at "all hands" meetings, emanating the only simulacrum of a philosophy they have: "Growth! Growth! Growth! Profit! Profit! Profit!".)

Except this is a complete straw man and business meetings aren't like this in any way. Profit is a goal, not a method; your example is the equivilent of a darts coach shouting "bullseye bullseye bullseye" at a coaching session...

Either you are incredibly ignorant of the business world, or just too lacking in ability to ever be part of it.

You must feel terrible that "philosophically retarded sad excuses for human beings" are valued so much more highly than you by society.

Edited by Lallante, 13 May 2010 - 01:37 PM.

[donjoe]

What on earth can "undeserved" mean in this context?

Unequivalent to the real value produced by said individual directly (i.e. not as a result of external inputs, such as may be provided independently of any individual merit).

If its the value you provide - I generate more than my salary

Don't be silly, you're not "generating" anything, that's just something you tell yourself to maintain your sense of self-worth. What's really happening is that the current socioeconomic paradigm features a distorted concept of "value" which leads people to give you much more money than you deserve in exchange for what you do.

Perhaps you think all salaries should be judged based on the base effort exerted.

No.

Perhaps you think instead that 'deserving' is a reflection of training

No.

Perhaps its the value given to society?

Yes, but only the value given by you as a consequence of your intrinsic abilities and not as a consequence of any helpful interactions you may have had with others. If you become more productive after interacting with someone else, you owe them a part of your remuneration for everything you will ever create using the ability that they helped you gain or improve.

Or perhaps you are just making broad, completely unsupported sweeping statements

Again, no.

business meetings aren't like this in any way

Yes, they are, in subtext. Did you see the word "emanating" I put in there? It should've told you something you seem to have missed.

Profit is a goal, not a method

That's exactly what I was suggesting - in their pathetic philosophical retardation, corporate bosses put the Holy Profits in the place of what should be the true goal of any enlightened human being, i.e. to increase everyone's quality of life, to "make the world a better place" etc. (there are many ways it can be expressed). The former is a distinctly sociopathic philosophy, I'll have you know. (For support of this assertion, check the list of symptoms used by psychiatrists to diagnose someone with sociopathy or Antisocial Personality Disorder.)

your example is the equivilent of a darts coach shouting "bullseye bullseye bullseye" at a coaching session...

See above - I said "emanating". If you still don't get it after re-reading, go back to school and update your English.

You must feel terrible that "philosophically retarded sad excuses for human beings" are valued so much more highly than you by society.

Only thing you've gotten right so far. Society has been taught an utterly distorted concept of "value" and it is a terrible thing indeed.

Edited by donjoe, 13 May 2010 - 03:41 PM.

[ken_akiba]

To OP,
Some years ago in Japan, a monk sued an inn, "Your room had many mosquitoes and I suffered terrible bites owing to my religion's belief that we should not kill life even that of mosquito." I have no idea the verdict came out in favor of who, but if I have a chance to talk to the monk, I'd like to ask.
"Unbeknownst to you, right at this moment, your body is killing millions of single and multi cell organisms that threten your life. How would you think about that?"

[Ben]

How could it be? Am I the only person who thinks this question is stupidly illogical and any discussion on it completely pointless?

[drus]

to really answer this question, we first need to define exactly what constitutes a 'civilized society'.

[donjoe]

Am I the only person who thinks this question is stupidly illogical and any discussion on it completely pointless?

Can't be completely pointless - after all, it has at least served as bait for a troll to bite on and prove yet again that they are in fact a troll.