In other news

You’re a degenerate moron talking about needing the army while you literally witnessed police on the scene doing their job, no army needed. Jesus christ how do you even remember to breathe with such a low IQ?

I witnessed the County Sheriff hopefully doing their job. I was gone before the resolution occurred. The freeways are not patrolled by the police, and MPD is utterly useless.

The same guy has been plugging his phone into the outlet on our covered entryway on weekend and jerking off for 18 hours straight off and on going on 2 years now.

Edit: He needs to be in an institution.

Edit2 Removed face

Both of those things seem like boycotting to me which i think is a good thing for people to be able to do.

If cities in Texas decided to jump in and ban Cracker Barrel from operating in their state to virtue signal nonsense for w/e bullshit reason, that would seem like the modern definition of cancel culture and those people can go **** themselves.

wait a sec. a problem is solved if the problem is no more.

a problem isn't solved by paying salaries to people going where the problem is only for the problem to happen again when those people go away.

now the same could be true for the army btw.

keep in mind that

1) what you call "unwise laws" are actually a pretty straightforward reading of the constitution. the first amendment gives you unrestricted rights to donate for causes you care about, and that doesn't stop if you use a corporate conduit to do that. if you want freedom of speech you can't ban people from spending to push their preferred narrative

2) I don't think you can call things like massively different opinions about how much immigration to have, or tariffs, "small differences". immigration, especially in a country with constitutional birthright citizenship, literally determines the demography of your country down the line and demography is destiny. not too many things are more important than that for a society

Amazing a true libertarian like luciom, “pro constitutionalist “ , see no problem having a US military force from the federal intervene in states affairs ….for not much and against states will .

Can’t wait when democrats will do it , how luciom will react.

Less federal government they say….

Why don't you guys just put a locked cover on the outlet? Does it get used a lot? Or flip the breaker on weekends. At least until he moves on. I don't know it seems like you have some options to solve it yourself instead of needing help.

In the sense that the problem is the immediate action that the person is taking and not the possible future actions that person might take, then the problem is solved. If the problem is that persons that commit a crime might commit another crime, well I don’t see how policing powers would solve that. Recidivism seems to be out of the scope of what police are meant to do.

If you want to argue that the legal system in general is failing, having different people enforce the laws absent a change in what the prescription for punishment/rehabilitation is doesn’t seem like it would change much.

Now that’s not to say there aren’t other examples of things happening in Milwaukee or Chicago or something that would benefit from more police enforcement, but it’s not clear to me how the army would help that. I could see how an FBI organized crime task force or DEA task force might help that, because they could take organized crime off the street, but then now it either seems like a failure on the Trump admin’s part to understand what their actual role in solving the problem is or the point is not at all to solve the problem but rather to test the bounds of their emergency powers authority, flex to their base, or some other non-helpful motivation.

Now when you plug in what we actually know about Trump’s personality and what the admin’s goals are, seems like the latter motivations fit more nicely with all that information such that we have at least some reason to believe that’s what the goal is rather than solving the problem inso and you are gesturing vaguely towards.

i literally wrote "now the same could be true for the army".

the army can fix the problem of "police isn't sent to do the absolute maximum they could do under the law for political reasons", which is very often the case though.

what's the absolute maximum level of violence police is allowed to use to fix crime? is it always doing that at max speed? if it can go and remove tents for example, why don't they do it all the times every time? because politics (or resource scarcity).

Also is police doing it's absolute maximum to find out if any of the people it interacts with are illegals, and then give them all to ICE for deportation? if the answer is no because of politics, the army can fix that as well.

But yes there is the overarching problem that the army can't fix of "society should accept to get rid of bad domestic elements permanently".

Keep in mind though that the army isn't being used for policing anywhere in state jurisdictions right now

Well said.

A boycott is quite different than 'cancel culture'.

Small problem here: Luciom is NOT a libertarian, nor has he ever claimed to be one.

addendum:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/newre...

Maybe Luciom is 'Libertarian Lite'(?)

incredibly naive u are or bad faith.
now trump aiming at chicago and new york...

checkraise obviously right .

but for you luciom, to praise an implementation of a gestapo/stasi police force style isnt surprising at all.
its totally against what u are suppose to stand for as a libertarian and yet it fits nicely on what a fascist would like which we all know you in reality are.

what ????

luciom always claim he was a libertarian to the core which as u acknowledge as well, he clearly is not.

I agree he is not a libertarian. Don't recall him claiming to be one. I stand (sit?) corrected.

I know you said that, which is why there are considerations other than policing that could be at play here. And so your point only seeks to reinforce mine, which is that the military probably doesn’t solve the problem.

As far as removing “bad domestic elements” as you so put it, well first of all again, we have to compare it to the situation insoo gave where a police officer was already in the process of arresting the offender. In that case, nothing will be added by swapping the police for the military, as the authority to prosecute and the authority to sentence are not given to the police. So yes, that’s a political matter to get in different prosecutors or judges or legislators that will pass different laws.

Also I suspect a great many homeless are on drugs. It seems like going after the drug dealers would be far more effective, and potentially non-policing actions (like “bring back asylums” which is also not changed by exercising policing powers, or if you’re socially progressive maybe having programs to get people off the street and into housing) could also play a role.

Regardless, it’s not an idle thought experiment as we have the president saying it and someone on this forum agreeing with it. That in itself could be enough for Trump’s purpose, if the purpose is actually testing the waters to see what he could get away with.

the USA and many other countries tried to go after the drug dealers for what, 50 years? the USA spent more than it would have costed to buy all cocaine fields in south america, possibly an order of magnitude more (including all the costs of trials, prison and so on), over those 50 years.

Hard to find a more provenly wasteful use of public resources than the war on drugs.

What needs to be allowed, legalized and normalized is the use of lethal violence (both by private individuals and law enforcement) at the first sign of violence. Wouldn't necessarily apply to inso specific described case, but the point is we need to shoot down like rabid dogs people who mess with other people. We don't need to waste resources on them, we need to get rid of them for good.

And that can be achieved within liberal democracy and within the american constitution. With legalization of shooting in self defense of property and the elimination of any concept of "excess defense" from the law book.

And that was actually more or less how life was in the west in the USA (or in territories even before annexation) so it's consistent with american tradition and core values. You try to steal my cattle i kill you and it's perfectly legal and expected to happen.

You try to steal my car , same thing should apply. You illegally occupy land that isn't yours and don't leave for good when told, same thing.

And ofc those vagrants shouldn't get taxpayers paid healthcare nor ER access if the shooting isn't lethal. Let them actually bleed to death in the streets. It's cheaper to remove the body afterwards and be done with it.

That has to be legalized as well and clarified in law and a few scotus decisions have to be reversed for that to happen (for ER).

There is no other working approach with the magnitude of the problem in the USA. "empathic" approaches can work if the problem is extremely small like say in switzerland (if they don't open up to low level immigration).

But the USA by it's nature is a country of excesses necessarily. And that can be good. Just don't waste resources on the bottom of the pile.

Totally didn't expect a post by Lucio advocating lethal violence at the first hint of violence. The let vagrants bleed to death thingy is an admitted new one from you.
Just a heads up- Benito's long gone and never coming back. Sorry to break it to you. Oh and stop watching the likes of Yellowstone it's clearly angrying up your blood.

Benito and associates cared a lot more than i do about lower rung citizens. They were actually one of his main political power sources; he started hiw power base with disaffected WW1 veterans, often homeless or the equivalent of the day.

I cite the american west in the 19th century as the example, and you know i am right (people there did regularly murder all people who attempted violence against their property), and your answer is fascism not coming back lol.

It's like you can't even comprehend societies that normalized and legalized violence against the bottom 1-5% of the population (when they became violent against normal people ofc) existed well before fascism and they worked pretty well.

The uk had the death penalty for very petty crimes, and then also deported a huge amount of citizens to penal colonies. And yet you don't use that historical example which is much closer to the model i propose (with the addition of allowing private individuals to defend themselves) , you can only think about fascism.

Which didn't do what i am proposing lol. Fascism didn't even use the death penalty much. 120 executions in 20 years lol. I am proposing orders of magnitude more than that per year.

Btw corpus i lived in Brazil, in Rio, several years. What the movie "tropa de elite" depicts actually happened for a long while, and it actually worked very well for decent citizens.

Ofc a liberal democracy with a strong constitution can achieve similar outcomes while respecting the text of the legal documents much more.

It's not like i am asking for something that is impossible or only remotely understandable on paper with no real life applications. I am asking to fix problems with known solutions, that are compatible with the values of the american constitution.

"Just leave your car doors open so the thieves don't have to smash the glass first to rummage around in your glovebox."

OR we could start holding law enforcement officials to account and clean up the streets.

I've got no patience for people who expect everyone else to compensate for the shitty behavior of a small subset of society. You're free to let this guy live in your spare bedroom. PM me your address and I'll buy him the bus ticket.

Or as CDN cops advise you

And of course do not defend yourself if attacked in your own home by a burglar

https://globalnews.ca/news/11345655/onta...

Says the guy who thinks a convicted felon should be in charge of everything.

if the message the left wants to convince everyone of is that you cannot fix problems within liberal democracy, people will vote to fix the problem anyway and to get rid of liberal democracy.

This is how you get actual fascism (which isn't the legitimate use of las much aw enforcement violence as necessary to protect the citizens from domestic nuisances)

You'll get much further in your arguments with MAGA on the internet if you don't point to Trump's "convicted felon" status as a major character flaw.

Only the most deranged anti-Trumpers think expense account misclassification is a something-burger.

Pick literally anything else about the guy, but not that farce of a SDNY conviction.