3RU7AL

Of course many will argue that violence has a relationship with drugs.

I agree with all of that, except for perhaps the insinuation that police are overly biased and that the bias they have is a real issue. 

But the analogy fails because police officers are not blind to their policies

I have trouble understanding exactly how our positions differ.

Your missing a key detail here I BELIEVE there’s evidence

Unless you are arguing that there is evidence and prepared to present it this is a meaningless distinction. 

AXIOMS are the starting point of a logical system.

They are the statements which are presumed true without proof, from which all of a logical system is built.

[LINK]

You are maintaining a double standard and that is intellectually dishonest. 

Person (b) says, well, it's difficult to describe my table but it is waaaay better than yours, so yours is wrong. I saw a table like your once and it was so dangerous it fell over and killed a bunch of people and made babies cry. (false dichotomy, emotional appeal, bald assertion, strawman, affirming the consequent, and argumentum ad baculum).

Person (a) says, that's not really how this works. You have to show me your table.

How do you justify your beliefs without proof (AKA reward/punishment)?

This is the Table Metaphor for a Rational Conversation. (TMFRC)

Janet Reno didn’t send a SWAT team to Redmond in the middle of the night. But the bottom line is the same: She used the power of government to steal what the people at Microsoft created.

The antitrust laws are fatally flawed.

it’s time to repeal the antitrust laws and let firms compete in a free marketplace.

If the GOP would become a populist conservative workers party

No, because if it leads to reward and/or avoids punishment then that’s objective proof that it’s worthwhile making it a fact.

In the competitive market process, monopolies may sometimes emerge. They usually don’t last long, but if they do it’s not necessarily bad. By monopoly I mean a single seller of a product in a market. In a free market monopolies arise for two reasons: (a) a business drives competitors from the market by being more efficient or providing a better product, or (b) an entrepreneur is the first to offer a new product. In each case, if the monopoly persists it means that provider is more efficient or more innovative than its rivals. When government protects businesses from competition or subsidizes costs, efficiency and innovation suffer. But that, of course, is not the free market. [**]

If your theory that free markets create monopolies and that centrally planned economies eliminate them and foster competition we can look to history to see if that is true. 

So what you are saying is that you are a sociopath?

Yes, they literally paid politicians to bring in the national guard to prevent unionization at one point, and would have had a lot of competition if not for government intervention. You should read up on their history

Not really, because in the information age, monopolies require government intervention to become and maintain a monopoly.

That is too bad, since most people haven't been sold on the idea that they don't need an oligarchy to tell them how to be happy.

Adam Smith said intentions are both predictable and inconsequential.

I would judge success on a metric such as by measuring happiness levels of the population as a whole. 

Monopolies are nearly impossible in a capitalistic society.

By their results. Currently they are not improving the world. The world is proving but it is in spite of them not because of them

Wouldn't those business have monopolies in those 100km areas then? Just like a "company town". 

Washington D.C. is the larger and more immediate threat to me personally.

Yes because in the grand scheme of things, I don't care about global warming or the pollution of the Pacific Ocean more than I care about my immediate environment.

It's not much of an "election" when people don't even know what they're voting for.

Do you shop with your eyes closed?

Every corporate "king" was elected by consumers for producing things monumentally beneficial to society, not by divine right.

If my corporate mob kings were interested in improving society in some way, I'd be the first to offer up my worship.

Yeah... I very much doubt that the market will reveal what is best for the people. 

If it isn't inherently benevolent than is grey parrot justified in thinking we should be cautious about how much power we give to government? 

Also the opposite of themselves, since unrelenting freedom always becomes survival of the fittest which then becomes tyranny via brute force rule.

Yes, and its very bad, thats my point.

Then we have the Ancaps/Libartarians, who was almost as popular as position 2 and on official surveys often out-populate the nationalists because most nationalists tend to be 'in the closet' about their true agenda. The first problem is that Libertarians often deny they are Ancaps, since Ancaps are much more pragmatic and ruthlessly honest about their agenda, while Libertarians sugarcoat the 'dog eat dog' anti-harmony ethos they are trying to foster behind 'freedom for all' mantra. Libertarians tend to be very naive about what happens when you remove restrictions on the rich and/or normal to prey on the poor and/or minorities. Unrelenting Freedom is their top priority.

This 'attack first, defend later' media war-front is much more seen in the 'Western world' whereas Eastern cultures operate either via censorship or defensive media, celebrating achievements, speaking well of the intentions of politicians etc.

Um no. its a case of a system being unreasonable and training people systemically incorrectly.

The fact of the matter is that police officers are bad at deciding when this is and isn't the case. The court and police system allows this to be the case anyways.

The system cannot be blamed for individuals' actions, period.

As a private pilot, when I am making an instrument approach in zero visibility, my decision making is 100% logic and no emotion is involved at all. 

Nothing that I can think of. The "mind" is just the effects of a brain, electrical impulses and all that. I don't believe in any non-material thing, because material things are the only things that can exist neccessarily. 

I could see the argument there, but I wouldn't accept a grandstand there - I'd need to see more proof for specifically emotion.

Tradition + Authority + Free-Markets

You like what you see? 👀 

instinct, which has been developed over an evolutionary millennium is what primarily drives our subconscious mind.