• 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Where are you getting this nonsense from?

    The law. Yes, abduction and kidnapping are only possible when they are done illegally. Illegality is a crucial part of what those terms mean.

    You’re essentially making the libertarian “tax is theft” argument: it would be criminal if I did it to you, so it must be criminal when the government does it to you.

    • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Illegality is a crucial part of what those terms mean.

      No dude, it isn’t. At all. You literally have it backwards. The law uses these terms because they are English terms with meanings. The law doesn’t give them their meanings.

        • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          There is no legal way to kidnap someone.

          There are a wide variety of legal ways to kidnap someone. Such as the one I described which happened to me.

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            How is this logic different from the article’s? You’re both calling a legal arrest you don’t like “kidnapping.”

            See also: a libertarian saying “of course you can legally steal, it’s called taxes!”

            • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Why are you bootlicking? The US government doesn’t define common English words and their usage, and it’s very weird that you seem to think that the fact that they have control over the land means that they are incapable of committing violence against people. What the government goons I am describing did to me were acts of state-sanctioned violence in which I was taken under threat of physical harm to a location I did not want to go to and held against my will despite having done absolutely nothing to deserve violence being inflicted upon me. People with fucking souls call that abduction/kidnapping, where is your soul?

                • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Consistency is when you can’t call an act of violence what it is if it’s cops committing the act of violence

                  • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Are you an anarchist? I’m not. Like every AES state, I think it’s possible to have justifiable government actions. Governments have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, so yeah, a cop making a legal arrest is not the same as me hitting a stranger over the head and stuffing them in a van.