Simpsons on America. Source: The Griffins.. I love The Griffins so much, it's really a great show.
x
Click to expand

Comments(107):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #34 to #19 - PArmageddon loaded ONLINE (10/18/2013) [-]
Heh i'm friends with the guy who made that, his name's george gant (geo for short) he has this small web comic. I'm happy to see its going around a lot.
User avatar #42 to #34 - istartedthewar (10/18/2013) [-]
Your friend has some proportion issues
User avatar #44 to #42 - PArmageddon loaded ONLINE (10/18/2013) [-]
Yeah a little but nothing's perfect.
#71 to #19 - doctorprofessornv ONLINE (10/18/2013) [-]
Either Homer sweats like a pig or he's worn that same shirt for a few years without washing it (there's a major problem if your pit stains are turning green)
#11 - baddinn (10/18/2013) [-]
"Pride is not the opposite of shame but its source, true humility is the only antidote to shame." -Iroh
User avatar #22 to #11 - sabcy (10/18/2013) [-]
and that kids, is why I don't wear pants.
#3 - eiramart (10/18/2013) [-]
I love The Griffins so much, it's really a great show.
#6 to #3 - anon (10/18/2013) [-]
that is the Simpsons you retarded faggot.
#9 to #6 - ninex (10/18/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #32 to #6 - vgmddg (10/18/2013) [-]
Naw man, it's gotta be full house!
User avatar #52 to #3 - guanyu (10/18/2013) [-]
I like that episode where the Chinese buy Star Wars.
User avatar #20 to #3 - catburglarpenis (10/18/2013) [-]
I dunno, Spongebob got too serious in the second season.
User avatar #36 to #3 - mrrkilla (10/18/2013) [-]
That's not right. You're thinking of Family Dad
User avatar #18 to #3 - thepyras (10/18/2013) [-]
Yeah King of the Hill is the best.
User avatar #5 to #3 - spermanentthreat (10/18/2013) [-]
Yeah like that one episode, where fry griffin becomes the king of the Liquid-people planet. Classy
#2 - angrylittleman (10/18/2013) [-]
... and yet we keep electing those worthless, inept, corrupt, unqualified bunch of rats
User avatar #13 to #2 - lordbyronxiv (10/18/2013) [-]
ie our fellow countrymen, unfortunately.
#25 to #13 - swagbot (10/18/2013) [-]
That excuse is wearing very thin.

Every tax dollar you pay, and with every stupid law and regulation you obey, YOU make YOURSELF part of the problem too!

You, LordByronXIV, don't like how thinks are being run. I, Swagbot, don't like it either. There are TONS of other people who agree with us too... so why are all of us still following the Rules and contributing to this corrupt system?
User avatar #27 to #25 - xxhadesflamesxx (10/18/2013) [-]
because people are lazy and the problem isn't big enough yet for people to actually get angry enough to do something about it
#37 to #27 - anon (10/18/2013) [-]
Well, if this government shutdown and healthcare bull crap doesn't wake people up, I don't know what will. I'm losing faith in my country now, and if these lazy 'muricans aren't gonna change my mind, I'm going to Canada.
User avatar #50 to #37 - xxhadesflamesxx (10/18/2013) [-]
I agree with everything except "lazy Muricans" and moving because unlike you I actually like this country even though it is flawed
******* anon
User avatar #40 to #25 - roflsaucer (10/18/2013) [-]
Uh... no, that's less of an excuse and more of the truth. A very large percentage of the American populace knows very little, if anything at all, about how our government works, and about the same percentage for those who vote.

You know, the thing about a democratic republic is that, surprisingly, WE get to choose who runs the Government. Not a single politician in America got their position without votes. This means that it isn't just the government that needs to change, it's the people. The government won't change unless the people do.
User avatar #14 to #2 - dovnborg (10/18/2013) [-]
well you are free to try doing it better yourself
#33 to #2 - iraoflaherty (10/18/2013) [-]
The issue is that people hate other people's representative, as their interests are conflicting. It is more so the issue today with the polarization of the political parties. The issue is most likely not corruption or ballet stuffing/ poll manipulation. Do you really think that people from rural America have the same interest and problems as those living in the inner city? It is a completely separate culture. The characters that want to enter politics are also the issue. Those who work hard and built businesses who know how to form working relationships and come to agreements are not the people that end up in politics. When we rate congress, we don't rate on what our congressman does for us usually, we look at the whole picture of what has been accomplished or left un-accomplished.

The U.S. political election system has its issues, but those are not in corruption as flemsdfer wants to frame it. The issue is with how congressmen are proportioned. Third parties have no role in a non-proportionate electorate system or winner takes all system. Competition for these positions is not promoted, as running as a third party can end up splitting one major party's votes, leading to the election of the other major party. This is an issue, as those who don't vote for the winner see that politician as an illegitimate regime. This carries over into how they want their representatives to act, which creates this contention. So, it's not corruption, its a system that starts to cause issues when a great deal of contention exists, and that is the way it was designed. It needs that gridlock to ensure that really drastic measures are not just swept through. For a lesson on this look at FDR administration.
#17 to #2 - themapestree (10/18/2013) [-]
I would think that, in your job, you don't have ~48% of the country that disapproves of your every decision because of a little letter that shows up next to your name on election day
User avatar #23 to #2 - mutantpanda (10/18/2013) [-]
Though congress as a whole has a 9% approval rating, each congressman has over a 85% approval rating. Everybody hates congress, but loves their guy.
#29 to #23 - angrylittleman (10/18/2013) [-]
Got a reference? I want to read it. I am curious if thats really the case. If so, its going to mess with my mind
User avatar #31 to #29 - mutantpanda (10/18/2013) [-]
I haven't been able to find it, just that congress has a 90% reelection rate.
#4 to #2 - flemsdfer (10/18/2013) [-]
Problem being you can elect whoever you want. They will be flipped to play ball or ganged up on so they can't change **** . You get useless person, or corrupt person.

Then, the conspiracy option: How do we know that person won the vote? Did YOU count them all? Or do we just accept who we hear won on the news?
#24 to #4 - swagbot (10/18/2013) [-]
You're actually right about that second part:

With blind, electronic voting nowadays, there is NO accountability or transparency.

Back in the 2012 election, there were several reports of people selecting one option and having the machine select the opposite, and refuse to change it... then those people got stonewalled by officials when they tried to investigate.
thetruthwins.com/archives/eyewitness-accounts-of-voting-machines-turning-romney-votes-into-obama-votes

Also, check some of these out:
thetruthwins.com/?s=Election+Fraud

This article was the one that really hit it home for me, though:
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/election-fraud-obama-won-more-than-99-percent-of-the-vote-in-more-than-100-ohio-precincts

So the result is 1) Third-party candidates are marginalized by the Mainstream Media, 2) We get to vote for one of two plastic men, and 3) one of those plastic men are chosen for us anyways...

... And I'm sure the same goes for Congressmen.

What's the Solution? STOP OBEYING INSANE LAWS, Start talking with your neighbors to create solutions in your own community. These people can only affect our lives if we keep obeying their stupid rules.
User avatar #65 to #24 - jesusismysavior (10/18/2013) [-]
You should watch a documentary called "Hacking democracy". It was a real eye opener to me, and I found it really shocking.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVTXbARGXso
#30 to #24 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (10/18/2013) [-]
Didn't that happen on the Simpsons?
#51 to #24 - creepyunclebob (10/18/2013) [-]
I don't know about those sources, man... "The Truth Wins" and "End of the American Dream"? Both of which are trying to sell you emergency food, military surplus items, and Illuminati books. And link to Fox News.
#106 to #51 - swagbot (10/20/2013) [-]
Yes.. but the MSM is trustworty... (heavy sarcasm)

Google the subject matter, and plenty of other, 'more reputable' sources confirm these stories... they're just not carried by the MSM in everyday programming.
#107 to #106 - creepyunclebob (10/20/2013) [-]
I'm assuming you mean mainstream media by that? **** , I don't trust them either, but you can find sources that aren't mainstream and also don't cater to paranoid conspiracy theorists. I don't deny that the electrical voting booths screw up sometimes, but I seriously doubt it's because of a conspiracy to stack the votes. I don't think the government is unified or competent enough to conspire against the people.
#108 to #107 - swagbot (10/21/2013) [-]
Heh.. yah, because the sources that i gave you are 'paranoid conspiracy sources'.

Can you please provide me an example of one of those 'Not MSM but not Conspiracy Sites' places that you are referring to?
#109 to #108 - creepyunclebob (10/21/2013) [-]
Basically I just go by the types of sources they cite. A good website links to multiple scholarly sources and legitimate records, whereas a bad website links to a small number of websites that are biased towards a certain viewpoint, and spends the majority of its text making dramatic "deductions" from the small number of facts they use. Your articles link to the figures on votes in a few precincts and a Fox News article which basically says "electric voting bugs may or may not exist," and then they go on to claim that based on that, the government must be choosing the president for us and the whole democratic system is an illusion. If that's not a paranoid conspiracy, I don't know what is.
#110 to #109 - swagbot (10/22/2013) [-]
Okay, fine - those sources were a little weak - you check out the link about the voting in Ohio? Those are the figures straight from the campaign records themselves.

I guess this is what I'm getting at: not the MSM, nor your much-lauded 'Scholarly Articles' will dare post things that endanger their survival as a Writer/Editor/Company/Newspaper. Therefore, they can scarcely be trusted, especially when combined with the fact that they bungle news stories all the time.

When I got into all this 'Conspiracy' stuff ~2 years ago I realized that there is a Web of Trust in information - WE only really see few things that are close-around us, that we can be certain of - we need to take the sum of our own observations and inquisitions correlated against 'Information' from third-party sources, all the while balancing the trustworthiness of those sources, in order to form our opinions of things we were not there to see first-hand.

For me, this is very simple:
> Economy is a wreck (seen it first hand).
> Laws destroying economy (seen, read, etc. etc.)
> Re-electing leaders who continue to make a damned mess.
> I know how the Electoral College works: Even as a third-grader, i asked my parents "What would stop somebody from just Paying Off the Electors?"

That already set the stage of extreme suspicion in my mind about our voting being 'bought off'. Combine that with the bizarreness in the Ohio Voting article, for example, and I think i have a pretty clear handle on reality.

That's how I'm looking at things. I don't KNOW, but all my observations point to that conclusion more than any alternate conclusion.
#111 to #110 - creepyunclebob (10/22/2013) [-]
That vision of reality is more moderate than what you seemed to be implying before. I agree that elections are pretty much bought off -- not by directly purchasing votes, but by corporations providing funding for campaigns of misinformation and smear campaigns against their sponsors' opponents. I'm almost certain that's true, but I don't think it's a well kept secret.
User avatar #15 to #10 - spyisspy (10/18/2013) [-]
where will you be when diarrhea strikes?
#26 to #15 - xxhadesflamesxx (10/18/2013) [-]
here have this
#43 to #26 - greedtheavaricious ONLINE (10/18/2013) [-]
Space. Spaaaaaaaaace.
#49 to #47 - darkbringer (10/18/2013) [-]
Here, have a beer.
#46 to #43 - jamieswhiteshirt (10/18/2013) [-]
john madden
john madden
john madden
john madden
john madden
#48 to #46 - creepyunclebob (10/18/2013) [-]
GOD DAMMIT I CAN'T STOP HEARING IT
User avatar #45 - sadisticsalmon (10/18/2013) [-]
I can't be the only one that read Government Reopened with a robot voice because of the text change.
#38 - hauntzor (10/18/2013) [-]
I don't follow politics too often, but a lot of the problems I see with our current officials seem to be brought on by a majority of voters who vote strictly with their own party, regardless of who is representing them or what causes they fight for. (Republicans voting for a candidate solely because they're in the same party, and so on)

Seriously, **** the party system. It's a horrible *********** .
User avatar #39 to #38 - mitchr (10/18/2013) [-]
It is a good system, but it was corrupted by loyalty.

Nowadays, people are loyal to their party, not their country. In the Civil War era, people were loyal to their state and not their country. If things continue as they have been... I fear for the future.
User avatar #55 to #39 - sketchE ONLINE (10/18/2013) [-]
i dont think political parties are a good thing. sure its an easy way to identify what you support but in the end everyone just votes for the party and what the party wants as oppossed to what the country wants
User avatar #57 to #55 - mitchr (10/18/2013) [-]
And that's where it fails, yeah. But that's on the education system, because they aren't taught to think for themselves.

The party system is designed so that the majority of Americans are represented, as opposed to 5% or 20% or however many voted for the guy who actually won.
User avatar #60 to #57 - sketchE ONLINE (10/18/2013) [-]
i disagree because not every american falls perfectly into one or the other. i identify with libertarian and support republicans for the most part because the two are similar to an extent. i want the government to take its hands off of everything. minimal regulations on business, minimal welfare and minimal government interference on how i live my life.

the two party system doesnt represent me in any way.
User avatar #63 to #60 - mitchr (10/18/2013) [-]
No, it doesn't. But it helps narrow down the choice, because otherwise, it'd be a lot more people running in the end election than there are now. Narrowing it down to two helps represent more Americans.
And of course it doesn't represent everyone; that'd be impossible. But it helps, as I said, narrow it down. Who did you, if you don't mind me asking, and if of course you can/did vote, last vote for?
User avatar #68 to #63 - sketchE ONLINE (10/18/2013) [-]
libertarian. garry johnson. he was on the ballot meaning there is always a third if not more option that most people dont seem to know about and will vote democrat or republican because they believe lesser of two evils or that their vote matters more if they choose one of the two
User avatar #70 to #68 - mitchr (10/18/2013) [-]
The idea of the party system is lesser of two evils, in a way. It isn't who you would vote for, it's who you think will be the better leader, regardless of what may come.
User avatar #82 to #70 - sketchE ONLINE (10/19/2013) [-]
but the two parties have completely monopolized the government. there is no room for anyone who has an idea outside of those two extremes
User avatar #89 to #82 - mitchr (10/19/2013) [-]
And that's where it has gone wrong.

See, the basic idea behind the party system is sound. So is the implementation of such. What is not sound is people's perceptions of it. They perceive it now as "You must be this" or "You must be this." If you differ from the stereotype, you are either radical or soft, and nobody likes people who are soft, and not too many people like people who are radical. We need to fix the education system, and make it teach that there is difference, and difference is what the US is founded on, and it is what makes our country great. We need it to teach that difference is necessary, and we need it to teach people to cooperate in politics so that we don't get ******** like the government shutdown again.
User avatar #91 to #89 - sketchE ONLINE (10/19/2013) [-]
other than the 300,00 people affected by it the government shutdown was a good thing. it took them two additional weeks to decide on a budget. if they had not done a partial shutdown of the government then the US would have defaulted on its loans throwing the world economy into chaos.

the political parties are not good. people voting for senators is not the problem. every senator voting on party lines regardless of the subject is. thats why it needs to be done away with. obamacare is a bad bill and if anyone had actually read it and not been tied to the democratic president it would not have passed. there is the fault in the party system. the government shutdown would have been avoided entirely if the democrat controlled senate would have even looked at the budget that had already passed through the republican controlled house. the system is broken because two children are sitting on either side of a room yelling at each other about who gets to play with the ball when they both should play together
User avatar #92 to #91 - mitchr (10/19/2013) [-]
But they had already had months to decide in the first place, and instead acted like spoiled children and had to have their way. They argued and bickered more than doing what they were hired to do.
User avatar #93 to #92 - sketchE ONLINE (10/19/2013) [-]
my point exactly and it was all over one issue obamacare. if you read the proposed budgets up till the shutdown the republicans constantly gave ground while the democrats refused to budge. thats a slightly different argument but the point stands. instead of a group of people deciding whats best for the country theres basicly two people making all the decisions
User avatar #94 to #93 - mitchr (10/19/2013) [-]
The reason there are parties are to narrow down elections.
Instead of twenty people running, and one with 6% of the votes being elected to represent all Americans, it's two, with one winning with, say, 52% of the vote. It allows more people to be heard. The issue is education; people don't want to think for themselves. That's the issue.
User avatar #95 to #94 - sketchE ONLINE (10/19/2013) [-]
thats the purpose of primary elections. think of it like any tournament system. theres 12 people who want it and we weed out the less desirable ones till we come down to two. its already done but right now its the two parties making the decision and not the people
User avatar #96 to #95 - mitchr (10/19/2013) [-]
But without political parties, what'd happen is it'd be narrowed down to, say, only the top two candidates, in which case you might as well make it the actual election, they already have the top percentages of the votes.
User avatar #97 to #96 - sketchE ONLINE (10/19/2013) [-]
because popularity polls arent an election. thats what the two parties use to decide who will run. if there was no parties and we decided the candidates based on popularity, because most drop out on their own if they arent doing well in polls, then we would have had ron paul running for president
User avatar #98 to #97 - mitchr (10/19/2013) [-]
But the primary election is for the purpose of narrowing down the number to two. But if there were no parties, then narrowing it down to two would itself constitute the election, more or less. The actual thing would just be formality.
Moreover, abolishing the party system would never happen, nor would it ever work. All the mindless drones would follow their leaders, same as they had before, only now it would be an unofficial arrangement and not official.
User avatar #99 to #98 - sketchE ONLINE (10/19/2013) [-]
thats the thing the [arty system isnt something in government itself there isnta law or anything saying you must choose a side. its just what people say they are so their easier to identify with
User avatar #100 to #99 - mitchr (10/19/2013) [-]
Yes, and the issue is that they do not think for themselves. That''s what we need to fix. We don't need to fix the party system. That'd be curing the symptoms and not the disease. We need to get people to think for themselves; that's the only way we can fix it. Creating independent thought. That's why I say we need to fix the education system.

But I understand where you're coming from. If you understand my side as well, perhaps we can shake hands, trade friend requests, and agree to differ? It's always fun having a political discussion, after all, isn't it?
0
#59 to #38 - isbeb has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #41 to #38 - roflsaucer (10/18/2013) [-]
We should've listened to George Washington.
#12 - bigwhitehound (10/18/2013) [-]
IMHO The biggest problem is most people who do vote, don't really follow the election, don't really know the issues and just vote anyway.
#21 to #12 - notyaoming (10/18/2013) [-]
They vote along party lines, and don't vote on the important issues at hand. Thats why you have Senators that have been around for 40+ years. And thats what leads to stalemates in Congress, where the Government shuts down because people don't want to admit their wrong.

The folly of politics.
#35 to #21 - bigwhitehound (10/18/2013) [-]
YES exactly. Maybe if things were changed we would have a better government. Lets start with NO ONE can have permanent seat in congress, if you are forced to resign or are fired then you are out O.U.T. no "advising" or anything, just out. Next you can't vote unless you can pass a test showing you know what the vote is about.
I know I'll get yelled at for this, so go ahead.
User avatar #56 to #35 - sketchE ONLINE (10/18/2013) [-]
if that was the case obamacare would have never passed
#79 to #56 - bigwhitehound (10/19/2013) [-]
maybe but I still think people should be required to know more about what or who they are voting for before they are allowed to vote.
User avatar #84 to #79 - sketchE ONLINE (10/19/2013) [-]
oh no i completely agree but at the same time we already have ridiculously low turnouts for elections at least on that level. in the government itself yes you should be able to correctly demonstrate knowledge of the bill before voting on it
#102 to #84 - bigwhitehound (10/19/2013) [-]
Maybe the UK has the right idea, you MUST vote by law. Spoil the baled if you want to but you still MUST show up and cast a vote.
AS for the members of the government knowing more before they can vote I COMPLETELY AGREE.
#7 - porqupineking ONLINE (10/18/2013) [-]
i love how Homer's expression in the last panel is like " Bart my kid I am so moved that we think likewise..."
User avatar #85 - edzero (10/19/2013) [-]
So, how many mudkips have you ****** by now?
#86 to #85 - mudkipfucker (10/19/2013) [-]
Its over 9!!!!
User avatar #88 to #86 - edzero (10/19/2013) [-]
Well, I guess you are trying hard to keep that username...
#62 - Uranium (10/18/2013) [-]
Creddit?
0
#61 - mytwocents has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #54 - kinginyellow (10/18/2013) [-]
Upside for Canada I guess. Found out in class that our Prime Minister has more power than the US President and we wouldn't have to deal with a shutdown
User avatar #67 to #54 - noblexfenrir (10/18/2013) [-]
Well the entire point that the entire government has to agree on things before action can be taken, and the president can't simply make demands as he pleases, is more of an upside of a democratic process.
User avatar #69 to #67 - kinginyellow (10/18/2013) [-]
But good luck getting everyone to agree without having to make more and more compromises,. I just said it's good because if one party (usually NDP in our country) wanna be assholes about a new bill/law/ect and won't budge, and our PM as majority, he doesn't have to deal with them.
Needing everyone's approval can be good, but have fun if a minute amount of people wanna stop you out of selfishness
User avatar #74 to #69 - doctorprofessornv ONLINE (10/18/2013) [-]
Very true, but on the flip side having a 'weak' executive also prevents tyranny, as the president just can't do whatever the hell he wants, he has to abide by the will of the people (typically represented by congress). Our current problem is that our congress no longer represents the people and instead is just divided along party lines. Even if our president had that kind of power, he is currently heavily vested in the democratic party, and regardless of whether he his right or not he is still promoting the kind of political divisiveness that got us in this mess in the first place
User avatar #75 to #74 - kinginyellow (10/18/2013) [-]
Oh ya believe me, Harper is hell lately. He wants to drives us into the ground, go from peacekeeping to a country for military action, and just wants to kiss Obama's ass (no offense) and he's so ridiculous. He could care less about the people, but rips on Trudeau for wanting to legalize marijuana
User avatar #72 to #69 - noblexfenrir (10/18/2013) [-]
"But good luck getting everyone to agree without having to make more and more compromises"

This is usually the goal, ideally this would lead to getting ideas that benefit society from both groups. Such as in the US, I would (Usually, not always) prefer a tradeoff of democratic economic policies for conservative ones, and vice versa concerning social policies.

The shutdown did show us one thing though, this process isn't being allowed to happen. We're gaining liberal policies that sound good but in actuality are bad, and declining conservative ones because we don't like the way they sound when in reality it's what we need.
User avatar #73 to #72 - kinginyellow (10/18/2013) [-]
In Canada it is different then. Like I said, we have greed in some parties, and people trying for some downright idiotic ideas.

One vote was over fracking, a process for getting oil that has been causing our water to be polluted, which is a shame considering we have the biggest fresh water supply and shouldn't have that. There are groups who look at the facts and the water pollution and still want it to happen and refuse any kind of compromise or alternative, it sucks

Our government can be stubborn, so I guess that's why we have majority rule.

And quick question, would a basic outline of how US government works be too much to ask? I'm pretty cloudy on it and it'd help.
User avatar #76 to #73 - noblexfenrir (10/18/2013) [-]
Well there is something I would use to show why the US method would be an improvement, because fracking is a good thing, it's a job creator, energy provider, etc. but it does have negative effects...when disposal is how it's been done in recent years. In this case we could bring up the positive points of fracking and then realize the negatives are relative purely to this one aspect of the process, and then look to see how we can improve that specific process.

Anything in particular? That's a very broad question.
User avatar #77 to #76 - kinginyellow (10/18/2013) [-]
Mostly how laws or bills are passed, or positions are acquired

We run on the whole "seats" system where certain votes for a party get certain seats from each part of Canada, and if you have more than 156 seats you might as well make every decision because you have majority, the one big downside.
And also the PM is the leader of the winning party, and the leader is voted for only by the party
User avatar #8 - douthit (10/18/2013) [-]
If government can truly be representative to everyone, then there's no need for government.
User avatar #58 to #8 - sketchE ONLINE (10/18/2013) [-]
thats true and false at the same time. a representative government if it works like its supposed to is far simpler than asking all 300 million of us how we feel about every bill and theirs a lot
User avatar #78 to #58 - douthit (10/18/2013) [-]
Not anymore. Using today's technology, a direct democracy is more feasible than ever before.

But if you don't have a government, then there aren't bills to vote on anyway.
User avatar #83 to #78 - sketchE ONLINE (10/19/2013) [-]
there is also nothing but the morallity of man to control your actions and we all know how flimsy morality is
User avatar #87 to #83 - douthit (10/19/2013) [-]
If most people are moral, no government is necessary. If most people are immoral, then the last thing you want is a government.
User avatar #90 to #87 - sketchE ONLINE (10/19/2013) [-]
unfortunately the world isnt black and white meaning a government is needed to control those bordering on moral and punish those who have become immoral
User avatar #101 to #90 - douthit (10/19/2013) [-]
But the very system that punishes people who do bad things itself commits immoral acts inherently. We say we need to protect ourselves from people who kill, kidnap, and steal--so we give a group of people the right and duty to do the same things. And social problems can be taken care of by social means, so that I don't think we even need a formal corporal punishment system anyway. Someone steals? Put their face up in every store and don't let them in.
User avatar #103 to #101 - sketchE ONLINE (10/19/2013) [-]
and whats going to stop them? in your world there are no police to call for trespassing
User avatar #105 to #103 - douthit (10/20/2013) [-]
To argue the billion "what ifs" of the idea of a free society is to skip over the moral issue. That issue is what police have the authority to do under government, and how they are paid. Governments employ groups called police which have the legal mandate to initiate force against people in a way that nobody does in a free world. I believe the only moral use of violence is when it's agreed upon (surgery, boxing, etc) or when it's in self defense or defense of another. And 99% of what the police do falls well outside those requirements--at least police as we know them today. Not to mention that they are paid with tax dollars, which I see as nothing but extortion, to which most people have simply acquiesced. I think most argue that point, because many see it as pointless to focus your conscious mind on something bad that's really out of your control.

But to argue the practical side, it is not true that just because government now subsidizes police services (which have questionable response times and deterrence effects, at best), that protective, deterrent, judicial, and investigative services would not and could not exist in a free market. There certainly would be these things. Anything that people want, the market will provide. While I am sure neighborhoods and like-minded persons would come together to pay for blanket or like services, no individual would be required to subsidize the wants or perceived needs of others at the figurative end of a police baton, or at threat of a jail cell.
 Friends (0)