.agree

@Fitzydog I especially liked Ghosts That We Knew from Mumford and Sons.

@Deleted User So you are basically asking Sargon to deal with fanatics?

Turks are mostly Caucasians and have massive amounts of Hellenic ansectry so its no wonder they'll be white af.

Okay why not just convince him to hop in?

Ah.

But he'd be fun to talk if he had talked at all.

@Deleted User My apologies, then.

I see.

Yep.

Just like the Facebook group I'm in.

Holy shit why are you here even?

Oh I see. He is a classical Liberal if that means anything to you.

I had been a fan of him for like 2 and half years.

Tommy Robinson is a respectable guy but I ain't sure what his views are other than on Islam.

He's right wing, perhaps center right since he said I ain't a far right.

@DanielKO In his interview with Imam Tawhidi he clearly mentioned his stance as far as I remembdd

Yeah but he's a nice guy.

And perhaps like 70% of the Shias would agree that Ayesha was fucking 19 or something.

True that but there are Muslims who are of the same opinion as Tawhidi. Minority, yes but a sizeable one.

The fucking happened when she was bathing though

Lol such immoral men.

Always need to be kept in check like animals

But not in that disgusting fashion.

Exactly

Lol.

Islam is shitty

Sure but that does not mean he will not get ridiculed.

I do not think marrying cousins is a problem with mutual consent.

@Deleted User That wife beating part was so understated.

It is not done just by miswak before marriage as a cultural thing only

If my wife goes out of line I am allowed to beat her.

In Islam.

@Deleted User Holy shit no you are just missing the point.

@Fulcrum010 But certainly the government can protect another individual's right not to get assaulted

Exactly

Ensuring citizen safety

So that may mean infringing on your property for valid reasons

safety of liberty and rights.

Which are there to cater safety of citizens to some degree

How so?

But how shall that protect my natural rights?

My natural right needs to be protected as well. How then should the government protect your right to your property in case of a foreign invasion?

Mhm well. I get your point but it sounds very anarchist to me.

I am not willing to cede the sole responsiblity of protecting myself to myself without any government intervention.

Such a course is not pragmatic at all.

@Fitzydog Okay so you understand that Hobbes argued that the role of the government is to protect one individual from another and classical liberals have time and time accepted that notion.

I am genuinely open to suggestions, go ahead and make me understand how wanting a classical liberal notion is a communism. @Fitzydog

@Deleted User Who is not? It is instrumental to serve the state to validate its protection.

It may be premised in such but it is a humanist premise as well which I despite being an anti theist can thoroughly agree with.

@Deleted User I am an Indian.

Yep.

Lol.

I am not much fan of cricket though.

Ah nice to meet you

@Fitzydog Okay so you are arguing that without the police a government can function legally by protecting citizen rights in courts, right?

Well I would agree to an extent but how about a state militia in place of police intervenes?

They need not to be paid by the government.

Hmm, but there may be some problem there. What shall regulate the state militia to observe the laws?

If not their paycheck.

It may soon erupt in chaos over trivial issues without an institution of power

It can operate well with small governments, yes

For example in case of a property dispute one civilian recruits an army of 40 men from his own money and mounts an assault on a single guy who has not yet recruited his own army.

Yeah

What if they choose to be neutral?

Then the natural right of that guy has been forfeited by default.

These things actually happen a lot in my land.

In villages semi feudal men often can do that to one man

We are not talking about the west alone are we?

I am totally with that but the government or an organization needs to regulate the militia

Through payment and make it their job.

The public through legislations and a perfectly working democratic system.

The public can regulate the regulators by deposing them through elections.

@Deleted User It was meant to be sarcastic lol

very true but so can one militiaman

The point of paying off a shit ton of people is very hard

Which is why an organization of such men is needed.

So such infiltrations are hard

Of course it can be possible but it is raising stakes

It can either be controlled by a public institution which we call the government or it can be private as well as long as that private institution is trusted

People will have guns to protect themselves from such organized militia in case they feel their intervention is unjustified.

I love it.

Not all certainly

Other than being a militia there would be people who will not be militia and would prefer doing other jobs

It would be a volunteer militia

So only the willing shall join.

All I am saying is without a formed organization to pay these folks what's stopping a band of these men to unite and kill other bands

Feuds, that's why

Individuals are inert and selfish mostly.

@Fitzydog But yup payment is dangerous as well I agree.

I was talking about communal and ideological feuds

Not tribal feuds at all.

Although such feuds are pretty common in a nation.

Individuals will form institutions of power within themselves secretly

A national identity shall not stop me from hating a man who hurls insults at me day and night when I get outta home.

You are very wrong to say Indians are tribal. Mostly they are nationalistic jingoes who would kill anyone on feeling they do not have enough national loyalty

That's mainly in rural areas where property conflicts and age old family feuds are common.

And it shall be common among people with history

Good heavens, these people are proud of their family heritage and had some neighbours ever killed or made slights to one family in the past, a century long feud may ensue.