Currently most store owners just let the riots happen.
Why?
What I think we need is an active security/insurance company combo hybrid.
When riots occur, the insurance company is authorized by the owners to take all necessary precaution to ensure that damage to stores are minimal.
This works well.
The one that pays the lost is the insurance company. So the insurance company has the biggest incentive to minimize lost.
The insurance company can specialize in training soldiers to "solve" the problem as efficiently as possible.
Now, imagine if you are the CEO of such company. Would you slaughter the looters? This is the fun part. Is it okay to just aim and spray AK 47 to looters without warning shots or anything?
First you will ask your conscience. Well, the looters are assholes. They had it coming. They ask for it. They're the one that initiate violent.
Killing those looters are not only okay, it's actually an obligation. You are responsible to your customer, and your stock holders, to exterminate problems as efficiently as possible.
It's just and fair. Those looters do not wait till you loot their house before they initiate violent.
Looters are like invading mongol horde. Mass murdering the horde would indeed solve the problem.
If I have a conscience, it would scream YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
The next would be legal. Is it legal to kill those looters? I am not sure. I am not an expert on this.
I know that it's legal to stand your ground. I know that if you are at home and you see a burglar you have a right to kill the burglar without warning. What about if there are many burglars doing things even more obviously criminal, like looting?
But what about if you don't start up at home. What about if you're outside the home and you come seeing the burglar? Is it okay to kill the burglar? Do you have to give warning shots first? Giving warning shots will endanger your troops. That's humans' life there.
And finally there is logistic. You got an army, you got guns, then yea you shoot.
Problem solved.
How would this work on more libertarian society?
Just an idea.
These are some of my experience that made me wrote this.
By the way, I once attended a funeral of my friend's brother that was killed by a robber. The victim was playing his cellphone. The victim was a math champion that went to Singaporean school. The robber asked for it and the victim defended his cellphone.
I am sick at hearing how everyone tend to blame the victim for not giving his cellphone. It's his cellphone. It's his right not to give it. In a sense, it's indeed the victims fault. It's societies' fault too for letting robbers live.
I would gladly choose death of millions of robbers if that means my friends' bro live.
I also heard about a martial artist that got robbed. Being a good tae kwon do student, he beat up the robber. Yet, he didn't kill the robber. Perhaps out of compassion. Guess what happened? He's the one that's death.
It's very easy for everyone to say that we can and should pick less violent solution. When a victim shot a robber to death, some libtard will say you could have learned martial arts and disable the robbers harmlessly.
Playing nice is extremely risky. I do not think innocent people should risk their life to safe robbers' life. If trying to keep robbers and looters alive would increase your risk by just 1%, I would say, just kill the robbers.
There is a reason that US army doesn't try to arrest, read miranda right, and handcuffs the taliban, vietcong or nazi. You shoot them. That seems to be the basic solution most libertarians are not aware of. The best solution is to just kill. I see no reason why looters deserve more humane treatments than enemies' soldiers that may have fought more honorably. You do not wait to ensure that every taliban soldiers you killed have murdered someone.
You just kill them before they cause damage. What about if the taliban soldiers are busy damaging your fences? What? Is it okay to kill someone to protect a property. Hell yes. Then why stores, which are more important properties, are in anyway less important to justify killing to protect, than mere army's fence?
If the cop that shot the black guy didn't kill the black guy, the cop could have been the one that's death. If we tried to be humane to looters, we'll be the one that's death.
If we tried to act humanely toward looters by say giving warning shot first, the looters, that could be armed, will just get out peacefully, and slaughter us when they had the chance.
So yea, killing the looters by private specialized company is really the way to go.
What do you think?
Why?
- They got insured anyway?
- They're expert at making more delicious donuts, not killing rioters.
- They do not have the capability to protect their stores. They don't have paramilitary groups that can exterminate vermin. They're fucking store owners.
- They don't even know if protecting their stores can be legal. The law effectively says that you are obligated to watch your stores burn because killing the looters may be considered murder. The distinction behind murder and self defense may be vague when it comes to protecting properties.
What I think we need is an active security/insurance company combo hybrid.
When riots occur, the insurance company is authorized by the owners to take all necessary precaution to ensure that damage to stores are minimal.
This works well.
The one that pays the lost is the insurance company. So the insurance company has the biggest incentive to minimize lost.
The insurance company can specialize in training soldiers to "solve" the problem as efficiently as possible.
Now, imagine if you are the CEO of such company. Would you slaughter the looters? This is the fun part. Is it okay to just aim and spray AK 47 to looters without warning shots or anything?
First you will ask your conscience. Well, the looters are assholes. They had it coming. They ask for it. They're the one that initiate violent.
Killing those looters are not only okay, it's actually an obligation. You are responsible to your customer, and your stock holders, to exterminate problems as efficiently as possible.
It's just and fair. Those looters do not wait till you loot their house before they initiate violent.
Looters are like invading mongol horde. Mass murdering the horde would indeed solve the problem.
If I have a conscience, it would scream YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
The next would be legal. Is it legal to kill those looters? I am not sure. I am not an expert on this.
I know that it's legal to stand your ground. I know that if you are at home and you see a burglar you have a right to kill the burglar without warning. What about if there are many burglars doing things even more obviously criminal, like looting?
But what about if you don't start up at home. What about if you're outside the home and you come seeing the burglar? Is it okay to kill the burglar? Do you have to give warning shots first? Giving warning shots will endanger your troops. That's humans' life there.
And finally there is logistic. You got an army, you got guns, then yea you shoot.
Problem solved.
How would this work on more libertarian society?
Just an idea.
These are some of my experience that made me wrote this.
By the way, I once attended a funeral of my friend's brother that was killed by a robber. The victim was playing his cellphone. The victim was a math champion that went to Singaporean school. The robber asked for it and the victim defended his cellphone.
I am sick at hearing how everyone tend to blame the victim for not giving his cellphone. It's his cellphone. It's his right not to give it. In a sense, it's indeed the victims fault. It's societies' fault too for letting robbers live.
I would gladly choose death of millions of robbers if that means my friends' bro live.
I also heard about a martial artist that got robbed. Being a good tae kwon do student, he beat up the robber. Yet, he didn't kill the robber. Perhaps out of compassion. Guess what happened? He's the one that's death.
It's very easy for everyone to say that we can and should pick less violent solution. When a victim shot a robber to death, some libtard will say you could have learned martial arts and disable the robbers harmlessly.
Playing nice is extremely risky. I do not think innocent people should risk their life to safe robbers' life. If trying to keep robbers and looters alive would increase your risk by just 1%, I would say, just kill the robbers.
There is a reason that US army doesn't try to arrest, read miranda right, and handcuffs the taliban, vietcong or nazi. You shoot them. That seems to be the basic solution most libertarians are not aware of. The best solution is to just kill. I see no reason why looters deserve more humane treatments than enemies' soldiers that may have fought more honorably. You do not wait to ensure that every taliban soldiers you killed have murdered someone.
You just kill them before they cause damage. What about if the taliban soldiers are busy damaging your fences? What? Is it okay to kill someone to protect a property. Hell yes. Then why stores, which are more important properties, are in anyway less important to justify killing to protect, than mere army's fence?
If the cop that shot the black guy didn't kill the black guy, the cop could have been the one that's death. If we tried to be humane to looters, we'll be the one that's death.
If we tried to act humanely toward looters by say giving warning shot first, the looters, that could be armed, will just get out peacefully, and slaughter us when they had the chance.
So yea, killing the looters by private specialized company is really the way to go.
What do you think?
