Gang Talk

Gangs have existed since the dawn of man, here we debate which gang is the best. I think Tracksuit gangs are the best because they listen to good tunes and cause travel in big packs. Their monkey-like behavior makes them the biggest predators on the street. You'll only find them natively bred in Europe and Asia.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mdtfDaCUk_o
mises.org/library/children-and-rights
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Gangs in Victorian Britain/America.

I am not going to sugarcoat this. It's time someone stepped up to the plate and asked the question. What kind of historical lines of reasoning could explain why chavs literally NEVER squat? Every other tracksuit gang in Eurasia favors this posture above all or at least wouldn't let their ass touch the ground or railing. But chavs? Never.

Do neds squat?

crip 4 lyfe fuCC slobKs
c'z up bK'z down cuz


youtube.com/watch?v=mdtfDaCUk_o

European gangs are unions of psychopaths.

Negro gangs are literally niggers mindlessly forming tribes.

They're all the same. Gangs are gangs.

If the government effectively nullified the sicillian mafia why dont they just do the same thing to mexican/black gangs

Slav squatting evolved from the Russian prison system.

I guess prisons in England have benches where people can sit and talk.

Because narcotics is a way harder racket to shut down.

If you squeeze store owners for protection money, there's a witness, and a victim.

If you sell a nickel bag of heroin to some guy, there's no aggrieved party that wants to contact the cops and get revenge.

Realistically, the only thing you can do is crack down on specific organizations that kill more people than the other guys, so that drug dealers behave less violently in an effort to keep the police focused on some other gang.

How is this Veeky Forums related?

Because there were gangs in 1992.

what about legalizing the substance?

and 1892, too!

What about the American army

Darknet dealers are the least violent drug dealers imaginable, yet the government spends millions upon millions of dollars setting up international stings to take down websites that facilitate drug sales.

they can be used to finance militant groups without being traced though.
alternatively they damage the economy more? I donno

Unless you're buying drugs like heroin that require huge fields that couldn't be concealed from authorities, and heavy processing which can't be done in just someone's kitchen, there's a 99.9% chance the only thing you're financing is some aging hippy's hobby of collecting driftwood folk art.

What about legalizing child prostitution?

...

Football hooligans are funny, they may seem dumb but they are pretty tough to compensate for that.

Legalizing dueling would solve that. Or should it be a question mark?

Keep telling yourself that, mate.

When people start getting lots of money, like the owner of Silkroad, they start using that money to explore. You're already fucked for life if you get caught, so what do a few child sex slaves matter?

>You're already fucked for life if you get caught, so what do a few child sex slaves matter?
Because some crimes are riskier than others.

...

>England

Excellent analogy user. Absolutely spot on, especially with the part of a non-consenting victim in an illicit drug deal. Bet you did a bang on job on that verbal SAT section.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)
mises.org/library/children-and-rights

>someone consents to sex but law rules he couldn't consent because he didn't reach a legal age
>someone consents to buying something but law rules he commited a crime due to the substance being illegal
Not that user or a pedo/drug apologist, but now you realize why your argument is retarded.

>someone consents to sex but law rules he couldn't consent because he didn't reach a legal age

That entirely depends on if we're talking 8 year olds or 16 year olds. The later is murkier, but there are what I would call post-industrial cultures okay with it. Not aware of any with the former.

Yeah, like running the largest online drug market.

Was it anarcho-capitalism?

I said realistically, this is a kleptocratic shithole.

squatting is objectively good for you. Sitting down is one of the worst things human beings have done as a species.