What Ive heard is that usually when riot pigs do something like this its cause one of the brutalized rioters is under arrest for some dumbass law that honestly even the piggie doesnt know if the protestor broke the law. So they block them off from other rioters like they did here. NBut I dont know the situation so for all we know it may be a case of mistakened identity or maybe the prptestor didnt break any laws at all and t th epiggies just wanted to beat up something that isnt their wives tonight.

But also another unreasonable justification for this could be the fact that there is indeed as you said nobody around....so there is nobody to hold these pigs accountable for their nonsensical violence.

As if some megacorporation doesn't have the money to pay for it themselves and instead has to rely on corporate welfare from the local municipality.

Certainly only AI could interpret your hegemonic idiocy as stupid and institutionalist nonsense. Obviously. It’s not that your ideas are flawed to the point of deserving ridicule, that could never be, because you’re just so smart.

Look up synderesis, that’s what you claim to advocate. It’s church shit.

Also, get some fucking culture.

What the hell is a javert? You're capitalizing it, so are you referring to the character in Les Misérables? Let's assume you are. Who does that?

Firstly, I am not a cop. Second, I do not believe that morality is black and white, I believe there is a subjective morality and an objective one. Subjective morals are things like, I don't think you should be promiscuous because it can lead to problems for you and others, while objective morals are things like, you shouldn't murder because actually and objectively, not a single human being since the dawn of time has ever wanted to be murdered and thus, it applies universally to all.

I am anti-government, meaning I am against any utilization of force of which is used to violate the will of others in a logical order of operations. A prime example of this is I am against taxation.

Is this AI? This post must be AI. I'm reply to AI, aren't I? lol...

TL;DR: he loves the boot and savors the flavor every chance he gets.

You’re just a capitalist dog of the state, Javert, doesn’t matter how many feathers you shove up in there.

How does your lack of socio political comprehension equate to me having depression? We already know you’re stupid, you don’t need to keep hammering in those nails with ad hominem nonsense, Javert.

You have depression, don't you?

And exterminating the whole human race just to be on the safe side would prevent 100% of bad outcomes. Your argument is poor.

Read a bit here and there. You’re fucking delusional or you have a tenuous grasp on politics and society in general.

Not only are you a capitalist, you’re also a blind idealist. You are just the worst. You’re getting your politics from the dictionary, that’s not how that works. Read up on political history.

You really just don’t fucking get it, like, at all.

You’re a capitalist boot licker, plain and simple. Your feathers are showing, Javert.

Where did I outline my own personal, subjective scale of what immoral acts were more or less heignous, exactly?

There is a right way to live and a wrong way to live. Murdering, stealing, raping and committing fraud is wrong. Everything else is some semblance of "right". You and I might not agree on who you should be kind to and when, or who you should help and shouldn't, or even how much an assailant should be punished, but that's not the same thing as a fundamental understanding that theft is wrong.

Theft is always objectively wrong because you would never want to be robbed, ever. It is not logically possible for you to **WILL **to be robbed, because the second you hope someone will take something from you, the act of doing so no longer manifests as theft. If you **HAND **me $10, I did not steal it from you, but if you don't WANT me to take that $10 from you and I do, that is theft.

This is higher level thinking (level 5), in psychology. Fundamentally, it is the concept of understanding that what's ***subjectively ***right or wrong differs for different people, and in understanding that, we do not demand that you live the way I command or I live the way you command, instead, we both accept that you simply do not steal because IF either of us did not want to be assailed in that way, then we shouldn't opt to wish it upon another.

Most people in the world exist at a lower level of thinking, usually around level 3. The first stages typically being pure selfishness, then an understanding that there are other people with wants and needs, then an awakened understanding that you can exert control over the wants and needs of others, and thinking that everyone is only self-interested and thus, you must be self-interested as well. This is why most third world countries exist in dictatorships, usually around the third or fourth level of thinking. The fourth level is when a general community all agrees on some set of rules. Think of a strictly religious state where the government created rules meant to prevent the bad, selfish behavior of people who only think at levels 2 and 3. This is level 4 thinking. Stealing is wrong and you won't steal or else, and by the way, we get to decide what stealing is.

Level 5 starts to become more "enlightened" in a manner of speaking, where you begin understanding that your way of looking at the world isn't the "only" way. Thinking continues evolving past this, mind you, and can still be dangerous at these upper levels, such as when you hit level 6, which is where wokeism/social justice tends to land. It's the idea that since everyone has their own views, no views can be wrong, so for example, a woman could say that **men **are dangerous to woman, but because this level of thinking isn't high enough yet to prevent conflict, will flat out refuse to say that illegal immigrants - who are often majority men - are dangerous to woman. If you point out the cognitive dissonance in that reasoning, it will usually lead directly to anger because it strikes a conflict within that individual's ego that they cannot resolve. Usually they will just divert by making up some other nonsense claim that may not even be related to the original declarative.

But the highest tiers of thinking realize that while different subjects hold different values, that there is one fundamental cardinal attribute we all share: We do not want our wills violated. But conflict IS will violation. Maybe you and I both want the same thing but only one of us can have it. One of us has to get what they want and the other cannot. So the fundamental here is that the only "fair" way to discern conflicts of will is to do so logically. For example:

You already own that $10 and do not want me to take it so I should not take it.

Now if you take $10 from me and I take it back, you may not have wanted me to take it BUT logically, you originally violated my will to obtain that $10, so in already violating that logical enterprise of justice, I am entitled to right that wrong and recreate justice.

This is what self defense is, or when you imprison a murderer, rapist, robber, or fraudster.

Murder is wrong, KILLING, on its own, may not be. Understanding that if you try to kill my child and I try to stop you from doing so and in that attempt I kill you, I was just in killing you, even though your will was not aligned in that happening. But if your will is aligned in trying to kill my daughter, who did not want to be killed (a state set long before your desire to kill her), you are not just in committing the act.

This is actually fundamentally already how all societies on earth behave. In no culture ever has murder, rape, theft, or fraud been OK, but the "elite" (usually politicians) often still do these things - this is what we usually tie the word "corruption" to.

Corruption is a good word to use too, because it is the idea of "corrupting" the core principles of justice. You cannot murder. That is a core principle. If you find a loophole where you kill and are not punished, you are corrupting that system.

I hope some of this makes sense and is relative to your perspective of the conversation.

You understand first and foremost that you cannot steal that in which you already own, correct? Just like you cannot own that in which is stolen. Are we talking about semantics here, or ideas?

If your argument is that Walmart stole from you and thus, you are entitled to what they've stolen back, that would be true, so long as you could prove that this occured.

Can you prove without some kind of ethereal ideological viewpoint that this occurred? I could use mental gymnastics to argue that you've stolen from me too, so why don't you go ahead and Venmo me $10,000?

I'm more than happy to reply to everything you've said here so we can have a discussion.

So you first made the claim that capitalism is a top-down tyrannical system. We need to define our terms here otherwise all we're doing is arguing semantics.

I don't know what you mean by capitalism, but what I mean is how it is typically defined by most major dictionaries. For example, Merriam-Webster defines capitalism as follows:

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

So let's break that down. Of course it's a system, I don't think we need to elaborate on that, but it also details the specific characteristics of what make it a system, including private or corporate ownership - which is a key. It specifies what kinds of goods, but "capital goods" isn't well defined even by the dictionary. Merriam-Webster again for example defines capital (within this context) as accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods, but it also defines it as a stock, or as the underlying value of accumulated goods. For the sake of my argument, I am going to just say that capital means, "stuff". It's an X variable. I can place anything I want into it.

And I don't think we need to define a good because a good in this context is just something you can trade that isn't a service. Mowing your lawn is a service, selling you a lawn mower is a situation where the lawn mower itself is a "good".

So by capital goods I just mean any goods or services, which can be literally anything. I can sell you an idea, I can sell you a poem I've saved to a computer file, I can sell you the service of mowing your lawn for you, I can sell you a lawn mower, I could mow your lawn for the trade where you shovel my driveway, etc.

So then capitalism is defined as a system characterized by private or corporate ownership of goods and services (X variable). But this is a silly definition because there is no other form of ownership other than private ownership. So let's define what ownership is. If we don't understand what ownership is, we cannot continue our conversation.

Ownership can only be one thing. It is a state of human will in which a person desires exclusive authority over something but did not engage in any actions of which violates the will of another as it pertained to that something within a logical order of operations. It is logically impossible to own that in which you've stolen and it is also just as impossible to steal something you already own.

You can explain ownership like this: If you are walking through the woods and find a diamond on the ground that nobody in the world even knows exists and you suddenly manifest a desire to have exclusive authority over that diamond, you own it. It is that simple. This is because logically you fulfill both of the two requirements that do not create a logical contradiction. You do not own the ugly looking rock lying next to it because you simply do not care what happens to that, just like you do not own the dirt, the sticks, or the leaves you've been walking past that you care nothing about. If someone else came by later and took that ugly rock, you wouldn't bat an eyelash.

Now since you own that diamond, if I come along later and see you with it and suddenly I also covet exclusive authority over it, I have fulfilled one logical requirement of ownership, but not both. In order for me to hold exclusive authority over that diamond which you already own, I would need to engage in some form of action of which violates your will as it pertains to your property. I.E: I would have to rob you - and if I do, I may possess exclusive authority over that diamond, but I do not own it because I stole it and I cannot own that in which I've stolen.

If you can own something you stole then theft and ownership are meaningless as ideas and become synonyms for one another, and any non-logical definition of ownership is wholly arbitrary, which means it has no cardinal essence. Aristotle coined the idea of every idea possessing an "essence", which isn't some spiritual concept but one explained by every idea needs fundamental attributes of which manifest that idea as independent of other ideas.

Annnnyway, so now we understand ownership. That said as we understand the underlying principles of what ownership has to be to not "not be", we realize that the idea of a public, private, or "corporate" ownership is nonsense. Public property for example is nonsense. The notion of public property is simply ruling class propaganda. If I trade someone my labor for money then I take that money and buy a lawn mower, it is my lawn mower. If we are neighbors and you come to my house asking if I would like to go 50/50 on a lawn mower that we both agree to work together to set boundaries for use and maintenance and the like, that isn't "public property", it's private property. It just means you and I shared - consensually - exclusive authority over that lawn mower apart from anyone else.

Now if I come to you and demand you give me $500 to buy a lawn mower telling you it will be our public property even though you didn't consent, that isn't public property, it's just me stealing $500 from you to buy something you didn't ask for and letting you have some level of (maybe) authority over it, maybe. If I feel like it. "Public property" is just a political way of describing property obtained through stolen means.

The same goes for corporate property. Unless there is a hierarchy of consent involved where there was an agreement between all parties that they all owned something, then there's no such thing, and in such a case that would still just be private property, or better yet, just remove the middle man there because there's only one form of property, which is just, "property".

So now we can actually define capitalism.

Capitalism then is a system characterized by ownership of goods and services. Everything else past that is just reiteration of the definition. Why continue on by noting concepts of pricing and distribution? If I have ownership, I have exclusive authority. With that authority I can choose to make trades with others. These trades can be investments, for favors, for other goods and services, as gifts, or I can even destroy that property.

"Free market" at the end there is also another key facet of capitalism, and in order to have a free market you must be allowed to hold exclusive authority over your property. This means if you and I want to trade a lawn mower between the two of us and Joe from down the street shows up and uses coercion against us to stop us, we do not truly hold exclusive authority over our own property. Joe there is using violence to exhibit control over our property much like the state would in the instance where they impose certain regulations and laws.

At the end of the day I simply thus define capitalism as a state in which people own their property. I would argue that most of the time anti-capitalists are defining capitalism in a sense of say, crony capitalism, which I, as a self-proclaimed capitalist, would outright deny is capitalism at all. Crony capitalism is generally defined as a system where you can give money to people who can make victimless laws, and if you are in a system of victimless laws that restrict you from holding exclusive authority over your property, you do not exist within the confines of a free market, a requirement for the manifestation of the idea of capitalism itself.

Crony capitalism as an idea is extremely silly. That's like if I took an idea like driving a car and said, driving is bad, but what I really mean is, crony driving is bad, with crony meaning others can pay people to drive me off the road against my will, rendering driving dangerous. Well sure, but that isn't JUST driving. DRIVING isn't bad. The aspect that there's corruption leading to people trying to harm others who drive is bad. The "crony" is bad, not the capitalism.

Now granted, you can define capitalism any way you like. Words are simply methods of which we communicate. A word doesn't really mean anything if we don't want it to. I hope you understand that too. If you want to define capitalism in a different way that's fine, but then you're no longer talking about the system I'm talking about.

I have never met a self-proclaimed capitalist by the way who was in favor of any semblance of crony capitalism. All of the capitalists I know are in favor of the free market, where you and everyone else simply holds exclusive authority over your property.

US is the worst place to live in. After Israel and some other dictatorships, sure. But on par with many. And worst than some.

The crazy part is that Hollywood and some other propaganda machines make us believe the opposite.

Oh you fell on the floor after I charged you and you are harmless? Now let me Ungh beat you ungh with that ungh giant police baton ungh!

Capitalism is a top down tyranical system. You get that, right? There is no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist, you’re literally Just a capitalist.

There is ZERO reasonable justification for this. There's like, zero people around.

the best propaganda

And yet you are arguing that it is never acceptable to steal from a walmart.

Have fun with those feathers, Javert.

Yeah man you stick it to those immoral shoplifters. Better snitch to the pigs even though you oppose government but it's fine cause of what? Boosting diapers from walmart is worse than state violence?

Oh for sure. When I say I am anti-government I'm referring to current-age governments. The only just government would be one where violence is only utilized to protect people from things like murder, rape, theft, and fraud. Government wouldn't take any taxes at all, as all funding would be consensual. Government would fundamentally function as any other business and would need to provide quality enough goods and services to warrant people paying them for them.

At this state, "government" would be kind of a silly idea. It would be like if in this neighborhood you paid Amazon for Amazon Protective Services at $19.99 a month and over there, Microsoft Safeguard, for $22.99/month.

And you would send your kids to a "private" school (the notion of public property is a misnomer), and more or less nothing would be RUN by a single overarching government. There would still be costs and if you refused to partake you wouldn't receive those services.

Take roads, for example. In the future one option would be for homeowner groups to band together and buy up stretches of roads. Then those groups could further get together and make large-scale arrangements. Say 100 different such groups all created a Road of Virginia Association where 90% of the roads in the state of Virginia are owned by that organization. Now that group sets their own rules and governances. Maybe what they do is say, to drive on our roads you have to pass tollways where your car is scanned and you pay online per scan - maybe something as trivial as like, $0.10 a toll or something. Then other groups could follow suit.

If some billionaire bought up a stretch of road and said you have to pay me $1,000 a month to drive on it, nobody is going to drive on it, or other people could get together and just build a parallel road and drive on that, or more people/businesses will just blacklist that asshole from things (because now we have TRUE freedom of association), or maybe more people utilize drones so roads become more and more unneccesary.

There's an infinite number of potential solutions but a tyrannical top-down government was never a good one. The answer across time has always been less government. We're moving in that direction, for the most part it seems anyway. There are fewer dictatorships today than ever before. Fewer atrocities committed to a nation's own peoples than in past times. Fewer entire nations wiped clean from the planet than ever before. More people climbing out of poverty than any time prior.

I'm not stupid. I don't anticipate any semblance of utopia. Life is messy, and it always will be.

Life is messy and would always continue to be so. If someone breaks into your home you have a lot of choices to make and suddenly, and you might not have enough time to make them. If the person who breaks in has a gun and intent to murder you and your family, you could be the only thing that could stop that, so do you try to take them out in a non-lethal manner, potentially understanding that if they kill you your whole family is going to die next? If you're armed, do you hesitate and ask questions? Are you confident enough that this person isn't a legal threat to you and your family? How can you know, after all? And if you do hesitate, for how long? What do you do and say, exactly? Remember, you might only have 3 seconds left before you're murdered and then your entire family is subsequently murdered, so take all the time you need.

Here's the thing though. You broke into my home and I don't know you. You broke into my home. All I know about you thus far is that you - for one reason or another - are willing to disregard a very pivotal aspect of the overarching trusting society. This is my castle in my own kingdom and I the ruler of that kingdom. It is my responsibility to first and foremost, protect those under my care. I MUST protect my family first and you, a distant second. I don't necessarily have time to ask questions, or try alternative methods of detainment that may not work. I own firearms and have gone shooting many times. There is a reason why both military and police are trained to shoot in the torso - leg/arm shots are to difficult even on a non-moving target, and even if you DO succeed with such a shot, it guarantees nothing. I could shoot an assailant in the leg and they could still have full mobility in that leg, or they now shoot me with the gun they were holding, then move on to murder 4 other people, 3 being children.

The notion that you bring up shooting to disable tells me you don't own a firearm and have possibly never even fired one. This is a children's fairytale. With lives on the line with someone who broke into your home you can't rely on a sentiment so childish. Tasers don't even work on everyone, nor does pepper spray. People have been murdered after being tased. Here is a excerpt from the New Haven Register:

Several high-profile cases involve violent suspects or murderers who were completely unaffected by police Tasers. According to data and law enforcement field reviews, Tasers fail to incapacitate a target roughly 40% of the time.

With respect, homosapien, you seem super naive to the world. How old are you and where are you from? I ask that ironically understanding you are not likely to tell the truth to those questions.

Completely agree. A cop should not instantly shoot. I never said they should anywhere in any one of my posts.

Rehabilitation of rapists prevents 35% of reoccurring events. Incarceration/death prevents 100%.

If you want the cops to come deal with the alleged theft you’re not anti-government. You are explicitly describing how you want the government to function.