Well here's the thing cubicle boy..... No one gives a fuck what you think. There's UA reality. Then there's the reality that everyone else on the fucking planet lives in. Now which reality do you think everyone is going to deal with?
Crowd Control. Simple. Most stores make you line up outside. Most stores do not allow people to gather at the doors like a mob. It can be done, is being done, and has been done. It's the exact opposite. Everyone is waiting for the day you realize that every man is not an island unto himself.
For the most part, they'll favor the option that absolves them of the most responsibility for themselves and makes a life of instant-gratification indulgence without regard for consequences easiest to attain. That most people want to be treated like children doesn't make it the more righteous or logical option.
True, but what I've noticed is that the minute the doors open...what was, just a short while ago, an orderly single file line....quickly becomes a mob out in pursuit.
I do, because I made that mistake ONE time in my life. Of course, it is a small town Wal Mart and the "crowd" there at 5 am was only maybe 30 or 40 people. But I was one of the first 10 or so in the door (no line, we just walked up when we saw them coming to open the door) and I proceeded directly and with haste to the electronics department for the $40 digital video camera and was told that all 4 of them had already been sold. My wife wanted to look at some other stuff but I told her that, on principle, I would not spend a nickle at their manipulative bullshit sale even if I had to come back later and pay more for the same item. We left, with me loudly bitching the entire way how I'd never be fool enough to believe the bullshit again.
So...you object to the use of authority to forcibly deprive these people of their free will choice to trample someone? In point of fact, having authority on hand to prevent an occurrence like this is EXACTLY what you just said: Enforcing the RESPONSIBLE use of free will. When you argue that free will and only free will should be in play here, then you are basically saying that if it is my free will choice to shove granny aside in order to beat her to the laptop then so be it - I have exercised mty free will choice. Sure, if granny get's hurt I am libel but if she survives, good for me. Right? Let me repeat it: That, sir, is EXACTLY the same thing those you are arguing with here are saying.
Again, an individual choice does not mitigate poor choices by others. If, for instance, I'm a greenie and i'm worried about the environment and I buy a Prius And every other asshole in the country drives an SUV - have I solved the problem I set out to solve? No. I enjoy the empty satisfaction of knowing I personally did not contribute to the problem - but the problem I see still exists. You, personally, can exercise self control that make poets weep and small children sing - but if the crowd doesn't do so, it's still going to be your ass with the metaphorical bootprints in your face. Because your self control only controls..yourself.
Yes. Just as I object to being deprived of the right to own a firearm for fear that I might shoot someone, or told what I can ingest/smoke/shoot/snort for fear of what I might do under the influence. Respecting individual rights in your society means accepting that the individual will have a chance to bloody your collective noses before he/she is caught and punished. That is the price of freedom. The only legitimate preventative measure enforcement should offer is that of deterrance, not the preemptive deprivation of freedom. Absolutely. It's not even a question for me. Innocent until proven guilty, not before. The law should land with both feet on the asshole who assaulted granny, but it should not interfere with free will in any attempt to forcibly prevent the assault from happening. Absolute personal freedom, with absolute personal responsibility. Find the people who did the trampling, and throw the fucking book at them. Do it enough times, in a sufficiently high-profile manner, and it will begin to deter people.
Indeed, we do punish the drunken asshole....and we CATCH that drunken asshole by ASSUMING he's going to be out there and we are waiting for him with appropriate measures to control he fuck-up-titude.
Nor is it the individual's responsibility to do so. You have done your part, taken responsibility for yourself, and that's all anyone has any business asking of you. Collective expedience does not trump individual rights. That others may refuse to see it your way is the cost of living in the company of others. I should know. If I only control myself, then I'm only responsible for my own actions, and I should not be held accountable for that of anyone else.
Even the most strident libertarian would say that personal freedom does not extend to the freedom to hurt someone else for your own gain.
I don't believe anyone here is claiming otherwise. I certainly am not. I'm simply arguing that my choice to hurt someone, as well as any resulting consequences, are mine alone to face. Wal Mart didn't choose to hurt anyone. They chose to have a sale, and foolishly relied on individual customers to conduct themselves with some civility. Choosing to give people the benefit of the doubt is not tacit acceptance of responsibility for their actions.
Nobody has the right to stop a crime in progress, only to punish after the fact. Got it. You're a wacko.
No, dipshit. Nobody can be deprived of the freedoms that might allow them to commit a crime until they've proven themselves unable to exercise those freedoms responsibly. Don't tell me I can't walk or run. Throw me in jail after I trample someone to death. Me, not the owner of the venue.
No, it isn't. You said "no right to stop a crime in progess," which isn't remotely the same thing. It's not even the same subject as preemption vs. punishment, collective vs. individual.
I don't care about your abstractions of "preemption vs punishment," and what. You said, "don't tell me not to walk or run," which in this event was the crime in progress--people running on other people!
I'm curious.....what would happen if some whackjob brought a gun to Wal-mart and started shooting randomly at people? Would the store be equally responsible? Would the employees have been expected to take down the guy, and because they didn't, the store is now to be held responsible?
I think it's reasonable for Walmart to have armed security that could stop the gunman. But there's three key differences here: 1. We're talking about an individual, not a mob. 2. Walmart didn't incite a visit from a gunman, whereas an eager mob piling outside the front doors is a direct result of Walmart's advertising. 3. Walmart could reasonably anticipate the mob at the certain time and place; the gunman appeared randomly.
The only way I would recognize that "partial responsibility" is if a representative of the store actually put a gun to someone's head and forced them to trample another shopper to death. Otherwise, free will was intact, no matter how difficult it was to exercise, and free will means you are unequivocally responsible for your actions.
You have got to be fucking with me with this shit. Nobody is that thick. The crime was trampling. Stopping the crime in progress would mean stopping the individual doing the trampling. In no way does this justify telling anyone else they can't walk. Before, during, or after. I'm saying not to tell me not to walk or run until you catch me in the act of harming someone in the process.
An imaginary distinction, concocted to absolve individuals of responsiblity. Mobs are composed of individual people, responsbile for their actions as individuals, no matter how weak they are when confronted with the overwhelming influence of the mob. Inviting a mob is not inciting them to stomp each other. Anticipate the mob? Yes. Anticipate violence? No.
"Fundamental differences." Right. The difference is that I understand what the fuck I'm saying, and you are reacting to straw men and your own lack of reading comprehension.
