President Donald Trump

total container-ship is UP over the Biden period.

“Number of Chinese container ships sailing to the US from China now higher than on May 10, 2024 and higher than on May 10, 2023.” -

All laws are ultimately supported by violence or the threat of violence. Violence is not some absolute wrong. Violence is ok sometimes. A little well-placed and violence here and there can go a long way towards reducing continual widespread and chaotic violence.

Ultimately what we want to do is make laws that govern our institutions which promote freedom by way of violence. So we want workers to have a say in any money making private institution. And if the "owner" tries to undermine that the government sends out officers to take him or her into custody, if "owner" resists then we thump their skull or maybe worse. In this way violence can be used to create freedom.

I would watch videos of this.

i should have known talking about a strawberry fight with your spouse would hit a little too close to home 😀

It's wise to check. You can chip your teeth if they're made of something non organic

Denmark sends weapons to Israel to be used to slaughter babies (and innocent adults).

Iceland I dunno. maybe they arent the worst!

people like viktor make normal people give fewer and fewer ****s about gaza everyday

Those Save The Whales bumper stickers actually end up hurting whales.

Uh

Ye because there is no unfairness possible if you act within the rules (definitionally).

It is expected normal healthy and moral for some people to be more talented than others at the game of life, or for their ancestors/families to have been and for them to legitimately inheriting advantages from that, and if you dislike that play the game of life within the rules to change that.

Without the help of the monopoly of violence which should never be used to help any side achieve their goals.

You think so advantage is "unfair" whatever the **** that means? You donate to fix that and convince people to donate to fix that.

At no point you should be allowed to sequester other people stuff to fix that no matter how many people agree with you

Same with any other goal.

You can't achieve what you desire without violence? Then it shouldn't be achieved.

You start using violence anyway to achieve it? Then everyone else is fully legitimated to use unlimited violence to guarantee you and everyone who agrees with you will never be able again to wage violence toward others to achieve your goals.

Which is why you should only write a law or agree with it if you are willing to have people being assassinated if they don't follow it.

Yes violence is ok sometimes. Being willing to kill people or to have people killed is ok sometimes.

When? When they threaten other people bodies or properties with violence, or use violence against that.

Not in other cases.

You as many other leftists want widespread uses of that violence to achieve goals other than protecting property and bodies from aggression.

We profoundly disagree and are willing to defend ourselves from your aggression attempts knowing it is fully moral to use unlimited violence to defend yourself against aggression.

I'm def taking advice on lessening mass murder from the guy who supports mass murder.

Kid steals a pack of gum. Assassinated on the spot. Sounds like a great society.

Bernie Madoff probably started off with packs of gum; best to catch them young.

oh I am not saying it's nice but it's the consequence.

and no j didn't mean breaking any law needs the death penalty.

I meant what I wrote.

if there is a law , any law, you need to accept law enforcement intervening when that's broken.

if they intervene and the subject disregards the intervention you need to be willing for law enforcement to use violence.

if the subject responds to law enforcement violence with violence they need to be allowed to shoot to kill.

that's true even if the punishment for the original rule breaking is just a fine. subject doesn't pay, at some point down the line you send real people taking his stuff. he refuses to give them his stuff, they need to use violence, he answers to the violence.

so unless you aren't willing down the line to go all the way through, IE being willing to assassinate the law breaker if he refuses to comply and gets violent against the enforcers of the law, don't write a law

????
I thought it was only the U.S. that was responsible to genocide in gaza by sending weapons there and u assured us the genocide would of stop if democrats stopped sending weapons ?

according to Viktor killing around 70 people per day requires the help of tens of countries worldwide

Sure. Including laws on how the police can act. And lawyers And on how the justice system works

I just watched a documentary on ISIS and you sound exactly like them. They interviewed one former fighter who proudly stated that he took part in the executions of drug users and dragged a gay guy up the top of a building and threw him off it. He stated they were "harsh but fair".

And before you gimme this disclaimer-

- you still sound like ISIS. And your disclaimer would just be the start.Then it would include anyone you deemed a Marxist. Such things always snowball.

If you are at the lawyer stage you have surpassed the risk of needing to kill the person.

I am talking about the fact that even if the penalty is originally low, if the person refuses to comply you need to allow for stepping up of violence up to and including shooting to kill, necessarily.

Otherwise you have no law. Or in other terms, an overarching "resisting arrest or law enforcement in general might require you to die" as a principle is needed. Otherwise you have no enforceability.

Ok i sound like ISIS because like the majority of americans in many states, i think it's proper and moral to be allowed to shoot trespassers of your property, or for police to shoot en flagrante violent criminals.

You know what i propose was the normal, supermajoritarian ethos in the american far west, or in the UK for centuries during the blood laws, or in italian renaissance cities and late medieval communes, or the roman empire, but for some reason you don't go to those succesful examples, you choose ISIS.

You may think that but it doesn't follow from "if there is a law , any law, you need to accept law enforcement intervening when that's broken."

Police killing people is almost never legal. Nor is a lot of police violence. very correctly in my view. We sttill have law.

You sound like them as you have the same pro totalitarian megalomaniac vibe as them.

There is no totalitarianism involved in a model like mine where I am fully willing to let people do literally what they want with their body and property that doesn't directly damages other bodies and properties.

It's actually quite psychotic to claim that there is totalitarianism involved in my model

Homeboy has defo been going full ****** lately.