SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
A gunman fired upon thousands of people attending a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip Sunday night, in a brutal attack that is blamed for at least 58 deaths, police say. In the mass shooting and panic that ensued, 515 people were injured. At least one of the dead is an off-duty police officer who was attending the concert.
Editorializing: Interesting how media always emphasize ISLAMIC terrorists, but downplay domestic terrorism as psychologically disturbed individual lone-wolfs.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Over 50 dead in mass shooting in Las Vegas
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 442 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
QOTD:
"I thought I saw a unicorn on the way over, but it was just a
horse with one of the horns broken off."
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:00PM (4 children)
Neither the state of absolute freedom, nor the state of absolute safety, is achievable. Civilisation always involves compromises. I lose the freedom to walk anywhere I want by a civilisation allowing private ownership of land. A driving license is a good example of such a compromise: the utility of private ownership of motor vehicles is clear, as is the danger of people who have no idea how to drive safely being in control of a ton or two of metal near other humans. The compromise is to allow anyone who has demonstrated basic competence and then not demonstrated dangerous incompetence to drive. The bar is a bit higher if you want a pilot's license, because the amount of damage that you can do crashing a plane is a lot higher than the damage from crashing a car. When someone commits a violent crime, we often take away their right to liberty to protect the safety of others.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @09:36PM (3 children)
You do not comprehend the meaning of "freedom". A free person is the sole and exclusive owner of his human body. He has 100% ownership of his body (and thus ALL property acquired by said body) and 0% ownership in any other person's body. Any interaction between two free humans must be mutually voluntary; if not, trying to force such interaction regardless is a trespass on the victim's right to life and therefore criminal.
I know of no government on Earth that tolerates freedom. "Government" does not civilization make. Freedom is civilization. Anything less is just slavery by a different name.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday October 04 2017, @12:57PM (2 children)
And all property required to maintain said body? Does he, purely by dint of existing, own the rights to enough land to grow crops to feed him? A supply of fresh water?
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 04 2017, @08:55PM (1 child)
Yup. A free man could choose to use his body and mind to learn a skill, trade the use of that skill in mutually-voluntary trade for resources (money, barter, etc.), and then use those saved resources to buy land, crop seed, access to water (or rain cisterns, etc.).
In the event of unclaimed resources, Lockean principles and logic also detail the reasoning that supports taking ownership of such wild resources by using one's own labor to improve and manage it. It holds true of acorns in a forest to an asteroid out in space.
You are ENTITLED to nothing from others. Assuming you to be a free person, you have 100% ownership in your own body and 0% over anyone else's.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday October 05 2017, @09:41AM
sudo mod me up