Maurice Hill, Philidelphia Shooter- Why Was He On The Street?

[Valjean]

Nope it's you. Britain and the Catholic church were the oppressors.
The protestants were the freedom fight g rebels.

John Calvin was a freedom fighting rebel?

Yes a radical group of liberal under the name of Christian Abolitionism - Wikipedia!

Well of course! Haven't you been listening? Religion is always used to justify whatever position you take. God is always on both sides.
Didn't the southern slaveholders turn to Christianity to support the southern cause? Wasn't the biblical propriety of slavery preached from every southern pulpit?

Incorrect, only a very small number of folks in the south owned slaves 3-5%. So for you today say they represent all of Christianity is false. Let alone the majority of Christian's opposed slaver

I'm not saying the slaveholders were the only ones defending slavery. What percentage of Lee's army do you think owned slaves?
Slavery and a repressive, hierarchical society were the status quo. It's the status quo that conservatives defend. It's change they fear and oppose. To put it in a modern context, the southern working class was opposing their own interests.

Not all Libertarians are anarchist. (We don't really talk to them if we don't have too, bunch of whack-O's).

An anarchist p00phole indeed though.

No true libertarians, eh?
You're either for co-operation or competition; family values or exploitation; democracy or aristocracy.
Was America founded to protect the privileged and let the "undeserving poor" starve?
Aren't we all supposed to be working for the common good?

 

[Enoch07]

Wasn't the biblical propriety of slavery preached from every southern pulpit?

I never heard that sermon.

What percentage of Lee's army do you think owned slaves?

Very few.

It's the status quo that conservatives defend.

Nope they succeeded over high taxation, not slavery abolition.

To put it in a modern context, the southern working class was opposing their own interests.

Being upset at being taxed unfairly is in their own interest.

No true libertarians, eh?

You need to look up the no true scotsman fallacy.

I didn't say they weren't libertarian.

I said not all Libertarians are anarchist.

Nuance sweety, nuance!

Aren't we all supposed to be working for the common good?

Funny you should type it, but I don't think you believe that.

 

[Valjean]

I never heard that sermon.

I thought you were something of a historian.

Very few.

Exactly my point. They were willing to lay down their lives for a status quo in which they had no stake; a status quo that exploited them and gave potential jobs to an unpaid workforce.

Nope they succeeded over high taxation, not slavery abolition.

They seceded over slavery and preservation of the oligarchy.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...d/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html?noredirect=on
Why Do Neoconfederates Rewrite History To Justify Secession?

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Being upset at being taxed unfairly is in their own interest.

You need to look up the no true scotsman fallacy.

I didn't say they weren't libertarian.

I said not all Libertarians are anarchist.[/quote]Please explain the difference.

Funny you should type it, but I don't think you believe that.

So you think Im no true liberal, then?

 

[Shad]

How so? Weren't all these denounced by conservatives as radical socialism?

Probably. I would expect it. Standard US politics.

 

[Enoch07]

Exactly my point. They were willing to lay down their lives for a status quo in which they had no stake; a status quo that exploited them and gave potential jobs to an unpaid workforce.

Nah it was the taxes.

They seceded over slavery and preservation of the oligarchy.

The state govts listed slavery as one reason yes.

But most men went to war to defend their homeland. The North invade the South after all.

Please explain the difference

Easy

Libertarians are diverse.

You can be a Libertarian and be many other things at once. For instance you can lean liberal or conservative. Anarchist is the looney ones.

So you think Im no true liberal, then?

No you are very much a liberal.

I just think they have lost their way.

 

[HonestJoe]

That is you opinion, myself I say people are responsible for their own actions and if they can't handle their freedom then they lose it for a while.

To what end though? Short periods of imprisonment alone only serve to increase reoffending rates. Are you just interested in feeling like we’re doing something or do you want to address the actual problems?

I they continually show themselves as incapable of living in society then they should removed from it to protect the rest.

That simply isn’t practical though. You’d be talking about thousands of people being added to an ever growing population of life-long prisoners, leaving the state responsible for millions of motiveless, aging people. You might as well go all out and call for executing all repeat offenders, at least that’d be viable and you’d only have to address the moral and effectiveness questions.

It seems you want to give this career criminal a pass as if he bears no responsibility for his actions, I guess you can visit him in prison or be a pen pal. I imagine he will get life as he should.

I don’t want to give him a pass, I want to prevent more of him being created in the future. You didn’t ask what should be done with him now, you asked how we got to this situation in the first place. You just don’t like the real answers because they don’t fit your simplistic “solutions”. If it was easy to fix, we’d have fixed it a long time ago.