Yes, I have comments, but you aren't going to like them. I carry in Tennessee, but only in my locale, and I don't flaunt it. I carry loaded, since I know everyone here... I would NEVER try to travel the length of my state that way!
Jason is a problem child. Tell me that he doesn't hate authority, and cops in general. Having been a cop, I know his type.
I think he is wrong, and just might pay the price for it.
And why did he pull the initial post??? Something in there that might make others wonder about his ability to be rational? I've searched him through Google...the boy ain't quite right.
Im not quite sure what you found on Google besides some useless stuff. The truth is, a lot of people despise or fear cops. Long gone is the day that the friendly police officer walked down the street happily chatting with children, when people welcomed the site of the men in blue. Of course many cops are now dressed in black, almost a paramilitary force. Now they call citizens of their own communities "civilians" like the miltary started doing a while back. There is currently a mentality of hatred of the police among many, deserved or not. Now I dont know Jason, but Im not gonna criticize because I dont know him.
Thanks, Jordan...
Input welcome. Being a former cop, I can tell you that 99% are fine people. Who else do you call when shit hits the fan? Who else would walk into the face of death to save your wimpy little ass when you don't have the balls?? Go ahead, have a good cry now...I understand.
Jason reacted in the wrong way to this, as he has other incidents in his life.
I have lots of guns, but I won't support an idiot.
Wayne, Jason is not a problem child. In fact, he has done everything possible to comply with the laws of the state of Washington.
See the fact that Jason unloaded his firearm per the instructions in state law while he was carrying openly in his vehicle in Spokane. Spokane basically decided that the bullets and the ammunition were too close and apparently arrested him on a 9.41.050 charge, even though the law (read RCW 9.41.050 and 9.41.010 for the definition of "loaded") is extraordinarily clear that if that if your firearm is not "loaded", you are not in violation of the law. Spokane apparently thinks that the laws of California are in effect here, which is ridiculous.
Who are the problem children here, the man who complies with the law, or the Spokane law enforcement who make up California style firearm laws on people they traffic stop on the spot?
This is why if I openly carry in a car, I'm going to have both laws highlighted. Then again, I have a CPL, so I can in
a car carry loaded.
The Ellensburg situation is a completely different issue. My read of the situation is that the law is preempted by 9.41.290 insofar as he is concerned. Ellensburg is on thin ice, and I will help Jason however I can to beat the Ellensburg charge.
Knock yourself out, Lonnie. I am not one of you guys that sits around and tries to interpret law. Jason is an idiot, and has asked for trouble before. Well, you little pansy asses, he finally found it.
I have LOTS of guns, fully support the 2nd...among the things I don't support are fools. I have noticed that none of the major gun organizations want to have anything to do with him. Tell you anything?
Jordan,
"A lot of people despise or fear cops." While this might be true for a significant percentage of people on the FRINGES of society, I haven't seen much of it in the general population, at least over the age of, say, 25.
Look, cops have a job to do, one that YOU -- the People -- insist must be done. So, we do it. And we try to get it done as quickly, efficiently, and painlessly as possible.
I know all about the 2nd Amendment. I support it. The day I'm told to go to a law-abiding citizen's home and take their guns is the day I resign on the spot, and plead with my (former) brother officers not to come to MY house for that purpose, for their own safety.
But MOST people do not routinely go armed with a pistol on their hip, and it tends to scare the horses (sheep?). Then they call us. So, we go and contact the individual to make sure they're not up to no good. With any luck, that'll be about a 2-minute conversation and then we'll both be getting on with
continued
our day.
.....unless, of course, you're AFTER a confrontation. In that case, you can count on your wish being granted, because we will not back down. You -- the People -- would never tolerate that.
Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.
Wayne, you are a smacktard, and a decidedly accurate representation of the majority of cops I have dealt and worked with. Arrogant, dismissive, and insulting. Cops walk into the face of death to save us? Kind of like those cops milling around outside of Columbine for over half an hour before trying to find the shooters? Yeah, they were hurrying to go face that danger. Or maybe you mean the big brave cops that push down old blind women, knock their glass eyes out and mace them for daring to touch the sleeve of a cop as he assists in the theft of her property? Or maybe you mean the cops that routinely enforce unconstitutional laws disarming the law abiding citizens? Yeah, I bet those are the cops you were talking about.
You ask who we call when the shit hits the fan? I can tell you who I wont call: You or your Jack Boot buddies. And not just because you are untrustworthy thugs that would be more inclined to throw charges at me for daring to defend myself than scoop up the body
Yep. I've noticed that. Cops will not back down. Unless forced. Soon...
Jason, you did good, brother. None of the cops who arrested you without cause and hassled you mercilessly deserve to draw another breath. THEY are the criminals in this case, and you are their victim.
This always happens when cops misbehave. A bunch of other cops appear and support them. Even some non-cops support them. Don't listen to them. He who defends evil is evil.
We do not need cops. Never did. Never will. We can defend ourselves or contract for our defense with people who will actually be on our side, or be fired.
The monopoly on force enjoyed by our governments and their minions behind the blue wall has done what absolute power always does, corrupted everyone involved, absolutely. The only cure is to take away their power. Soon...
of the dead criminal, or find him if he isn't dead. And not just because you would impound my guns and scratch your filthy initials on them so you could try and get them at a later time. I wouldn't call you because you would get there 20 minutes too late to do a damn thing anyway, and you would still most likely steal my guns.
Sgt. Mac, you simply aren't paying enough attention. There is a strong undercurrent of animosity towards the police, especially in the Black and Latino communities. And it is growing in the White communities. And you can look at dear old Wayne to see why. Self aggrandizing, self important,and antagonistic towards all non-cops. Ignore it if you want, but if the good cops do not eject the bad cops from their midst, it will only get worse, and in the end, everybody will suffer for it.
Now you say that if someone was packing openly, minding his own business, you would just go make sure he isn't up to no good. But would you? If I were packing somewher
somewhere that had an unConstututional law saying I couldn't carry openly, but I was threatening no one and being polite to everyone, in other words, not being up to no good, would you simply talk to me and wish me a good day, or would you blindly enforce a law against someone that was doing nothing morally wrong? I bet a box of high end 9mm that you would revert to stormtrooper mode, and probably draw your gun on me. If not, you would be a very rare cop indeed.
Thank you, Sergeant Mac. I got a bit carried away there. Reading what some people have to say about law enforcement makes me wonder why anyone would want the job. I did it from a desire to help, since there are those out there that either won't or can't help themselves.
These are the same people that would be screaming bloody murder if every cop in this country suddenly quit and went home. You and I would be quite safe, because we know how. Some here would strap a gun on, wander outside and become an instant target.
Let's just wait for the conclusion to this. All you have heard is Jason's side. Sure, there are bad cops, but if you think the rest of us form a protective wall around them, you are woefully ignorant. We police our own, much harsher than you would.
As to Columbine...dropping the 82nd Airborne in would not have made much difference in that situation. The cops were guided (hampered???) by "civilian" authority. 'Nuff said.
Wayne
Garrum...
An officer has more to fear from a traffic stop than you do. He will most likely approach you respectfully. If you return that respect, it might surprise you how smoothly things will flow. An officer has wide latitude in enforcing most laws, as he is the point man in deciding whether or not you are a threat. If you are perceived as no threat to society, he will probably wish you a good day and you can resume your trip.
In Jason's case, all the cop knew at the moment was that Jason had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. When the cop walked up to his car and noticed the pistol, he had a right to be apprehensive. From all I have read, Jason didn't help matters by having an attitude problem.
To Mr. St. Clair: Cops are proscribed by law from being proactive. What the cops usually have to deal with are the results of criminal activity, not the causes. It's people like you who call, because you are suddenly confronted with something you have no idea how to handle. Mo
I would finish the above, but it isn't worth the effort.
Sleep well, Mr. St. Clair, knowing there are those out there doing their dead-level best to keep you safe and secure, protecting your right to call us jack-booted stormtroopers. Sometimes they die trying to do that. To you it is a headline in the local paper, and forgotten tomorrow.
Merry Christmas.
Jason and Sierra,
It's nice to see a 'bright spot' in all this just in time for Christmas. I hope you two can enjoy some much needed rest and enjoy the holiday together. My thoughts and prayers are with you.
TO all the other readers of FISHorMAN:
It is always so very easy to read a few words someone types and form an opinion. I suppose it is natural for us to 'chime in' and give our 2 cents worth regardless of how it will impact the object of our opinion, after all that is what the blogs are all about. Jason may not have always acted as 'a model citizen', but who amoung us has. The underlying fact is, regardless of his motivation, he has lived his life in a 'good faith' effort that he was abiding by and practicing in perfectly lawful persuits. He has also been kind enough to allow us to follow his life vicariously through this blog. If, at times, he has seemed bitter or enraged at the Police officers who may/may not have been fair...who amoung us has not. I, for one, w
I, for one, will withhold my judgement of Jason because I have not walked that mile in his shoes.
It is odd, how we shun those who behave in ways that we would not, even if their actions are perfectly legal. Although it remains to be seen whether or not 'the state' determines his actions were 'perfectly legal'.
If you don't think this whole issue is importent, that Jason is just being 'an idiot'... Think about this: Just how much of an issue would this have been 20 years ago..or 50? Just where do you think we WILL BE in 20 or 50 years without the excersise of our legal rights routinely. If you don't think WE THE PEOPLE are incrementally allowing our freedoms and liberties to be replaced by PROTECTIONS and PROHIBITIONS, then you have been asleep at the wheel.
QUOTE:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games play
QUOTE:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
Unlike Wayne, my estimation of "good people" who are LEOs is closer to 40-60%. 99% is just not a serious estimation. And most of those 40-60%, if ordered to line folks up and shoot them, will either go along or only hesitate to ask if the civilians need to be shot by age, height, or just left to right.
Bottom line, IMHO and experience: percentage of refusal of an obvious illegal order or activity by police leadership: single digils.
I'll be the first to admit that there are some knuckleheads wearing badges. In my experience, in the places I've worked, they're sharply in the minority, and the good cops turn on them like you wouldn't believe. I'll acknowledge that your mileage may vary.
But I've noticed that there's a sector of folks like Jason and Mr. St. Clair who just espouse this open HATRED of everything government. News flash: cops aren't the biggest fans of everything government does. But those things that affect us, we're stuck with.
Garrum: you'd lose that bet, except for the drawing down part if your hand went close to the gun. I want to go home at the end of my shift. And IS there even such a thing as "high end" 9mm? 
Wayne wrote:
"Being a former cop, I can tell you that 99% are fine people."
Cops always say that. My experience indicates that about 25% may be fine people, but even some of them are suspect.
Then Wayne wrote:
"Who else would walk into the face of death to save your wimpy little ass when you don't have the balls?? Go ahead, have a good cry now...I understand."
and...
"Jason is an idiot, and has asked for trouble before. Well, you little pansy asses, he finally found it."
[emphasis added]
That attitude that he displays with disrespectful comments such as these put him firmly in the "bad cop" category that everyone has been discussing. I doubt very much that anyone here is a "pansy ass" but I'm quite certain that someday a "pansy ass" is going to show Wayne just what a fucktard he is.
Wayne, you are either woefully unobservant, or simply lying. Cops absolutely look away from other cop's wrongdoing, and they most certainly shield each other. I know because I was the victim of such BS.
Cops A and B that I worked with were considered friends. Cop A said,"Man you really ought to be carrying your Glock. It's not that hard to keep it hidden, you know." Cop B agrees with him. Seeing the wisdom in it, I follow Cop A's advice, even though it is against the company's policy. Three months later Cop A and B get their ass in a sling because they basically refuse to obey the contract they agree to to work there, and are off the property 70 percent of the time. My supervisor catches them, confronts them, and schedules a meeting with the Captain the next day. First words out of the Captains mouth: "Garrum carries a gun." He ignored any statements about his cops taking trips to the firing range while on our time, making trips to go shopping several miles up the road, goin
going to eat several miles away. Everything was centered on me, who the meeting was not about. He deflected everything away from the cops by repeatedly bringing me up.
Now, before you even try to, I am not complaining about losing my job. I knew when I started carrying that if I got caught, I would lose my job, and I was willing to risk that. I am pointing out that the cops sold me out to cover their own wrongdoing. Both of those cops were basically stealing our money, because they were on the clock but never there to help. But to keep their work free side jobs, they sacrificed me to save themselves.
There were a number of smaller incidents of wrongdoing by the cops, where they covered for each other, but that was the big one for me.
Garrum...I'm confused. Were you a real cop, or a rent-a-cop?? Were you a trained, bonded, licensed law enforcement officer? I think not.
I ask, simply because my department REQUIRED that I carry 24/7. There is no such thing as an off-duty cop. Remember that. If you ain't been there, don't pretend to know. It just makes you look foolish.
I draw on years of experience, and Jason's story smells to high heaven. There are things he isn't telling you...notice his initial post has been removed.
Sorry, Jason...too late to remove the post...it's archived out there in cyber-space. Want me to get a copy for you???
Wayne, you dont know me, I dont know you. But you display that snobbish attitude Ive become so familiar with. I didnt even comment about Jasons situation. You think you are so damn much better than I am. Some of you cops are just fine, some are a bunch of foul bastards. What pisses me off is the attitude and militarization of some cops. At the court house in a local small town, they got a guy who frisks and runs a metal detector over everyone like its some kind of big city. He wears his big combat boots and his "Multi-County Task Force" badge, he thinks hes hot stuff. I see that kind of thing with a lot of cops. Now I know there are good cops, I see them on a daily basis. But there are some dirty SOBs with a major feeling of superiority.
And about who I call when the SHTF, Ive made my own preparations for any possible SHTF situation. Im not gonna leech off the damn government for my safety, I call it personal responsibility.
Wayne wrote:
> Sorry, Jason...too late to remove the post...it's archived out there in cyber-space. Want me to get a copy for you???
If you honestly believe it proves your insinuations of Jason's irrationality/prevarication/whatever, then post a link to it, and we'll see for ourselves.
Cops are a scourage to society-- notice them chiming in here as if they are authorities on right and wrong--- their morality is based on "might makes right" and thus they back the criminals in spokane who committed crimes against Jason.
I often hear cops say that "%99 of them" are good people-- the fact is, you cannot be a cop without abiding criminal activity- whether its a drug arrest, an illegal search, or enforcing other unconstitutional laws, or just lying to back other cops-- you simply cannot be a cop in this country without being a criminal.
And since they have the immunity of government, and no review, the laws do not apply to them, and they have financial and other incentives to break them.
Thus its no wonder that most crimes committed in this country are committed by cops. Course they aren't recognized-- but that's because in the justice system the cops, the prosecutors and the judges all work for the government, and all have an incentive to protect each ot
-- to protect each other.
When you have such a system, you cannot have justice. The "justice" system will never prosecute one of its own, unless the crime is so spectacular that the public knows about it.
Every cop is a criminal. Look at this "second ammendment supporter" in wayne who endorses criminal activity against someone he PRESUMES is an idiot.
Notice that waynes positions is based on his assumptions-- about jason and about the cops involved.
This shows how much regard for facts (or the law, for that mater) cops have.
Wayne, I was talking about how corrupt cops are in that they will protect each other over wrongdoing, and in my example, they did not protect me. Do you think I was a cop?
My carrying was simply me excersizing my rights, though at the time, I didn't fully grasp that. I just saw the truth in the cop's advice, and figured that if he said breaking company policy was worth the ability to defend myself, it was worth it. At that time, before the sell out, I was actually a blind supporter of Jack Boots and their thuggish tactics. I made what I considered to be pretty good friends with a number of the cops that worked there, and loved listening to their stories of what amounted to them jacking people up and stealing from them. I thought that was the coolest thing in the world. Beat people up, steal their money and drugs, point guns at people, be rude as fuck to everyone you meet, lord your power over everyone. That was the life.
Until they pointed their attitudes and tactics at
Until they pointed their attitudes and tactics at me. Then I got to really see what they were doing to people. It wasn't nearly so cool anymore. The stories, on reflection, didn't seem entertaining so much as bone chilling. The cop who showed me the .25 Lorcin he kept strapped to his ankle "for emergencies, but not for backup" suddenly didn't seem like a big funny guy anymore. He seemed more like someone ready to murder someone and play it off as defense.
Wayne,
After you've posted your link to the full original post, by all means feel free to critique it sentence by sentence, telling us exactly what you think are the "things he isn't telling" in his version of events, based on your vaunted "years of experience".
I've already found a source for the full original post; but since you made the insinuations of prevarication:
> And why did he pull the initial post??? Something in there that might make others wonder about his ability to be rational?
....you would bear the burden of proof.
Real American --
How is a drug arrest a criminal act?
Just because YOU don't agree with laws enacted by your elected representatives?
Do the MAJORITY of the viewers of this blog agree with Real American's assessment of American law enforcement? Because, if so, I'll just back on out of here. No sense in trying to reason with fruit loops.
Garrum --
If your stories are true, that's REALLY messed up.
On the one hand, I'm very skeptical of stories like that, because they bear absolutely no resemblance to my own experiences.
On the other hand, I consider the possibility that they might actually be true, and thank the Lord above that I've been so fortunate as to not ever have had to work beside the sorts of miscreants you've described.
If that cop is carrying a gun as a throw-down, he's a moron. 30 years ago, that might have worked. But not now, with forensics being the way they are....
No Sergent Mac, I can't say that I share the assessment of Law Enforcement that 'Real American' has. I mean, if he wants to 'gag-at-a-gnat' and say "we are all criminals" because we all (including police) exceed the speed limit, or something like that... but that is a moot point. I believe he is infering that all cops are 'dirty'. I don't believe that. I am sure there is a percentage that are, and it is probably different in different areas of the country. I have no way to know, that's completly a guess. I do NOT presume a police officer to be 'dirty' no matter where he is from. I would presume him to be VERY CAUTIOUS however, and probably quite suspicious of me if I were 'open carrying'. WHY? because it's just not PRACTICED very much anymore. I like what Jason was/is doing. It will help highten the awareness of everyone, including Law Enforcement, of just what IS lawful for Joe Public to do with his gun. I fully intend to 'do the research' and find out what State/Loc
law on 'open carry' apply to me where I live, and then determine what/when the appropriate place/time is, and DO IT. I know the potiential exists for a confrontation with Law Enforcement, but I hope that I can keep my cool and come out alright. This is not to be 'looking for a fight' but again, to heighten the awareness of everyone on what can legally be done where gun ownership and carry are concerned.
BTW, to Sarg. Mac and the rest of you PD's that are reading this blog. Thanks for your service. Regardless of the various opinions expressed here, there is one thing I know. You guys DO face real dangers as part of your job DAILY, and I appreciate your sacrifice.
If we (meaning citizens of these United States, INCLUDING "jackbooted thugs" like me...) want to get the point across about the 2nd Amendment, it'd be best to do it en masse, and be willing to take it all the way through the courts.
That's the whole point of civil disobedience -- to stress the system to the point where those running the show seriously question whether the issue is worth the bother.
Instead of ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered pistol, how about a HUNDRED? And all of them passively submitting to arrest if it goes that far, and relishing their day in court.....
See what I mean?
Look, folks, I am NOT your enemy.....unless you choose that by trying to hurt me.
And I'm not your enemy, unless YOU choose so by trying to hurt ME. Attempting to arrest me for behavior that is not criminal is an attack, initiated by you. I have the right and duty to defend myself, with extreme prejudice.
And why should those hundred submit to arrest and go through the courts? Arresting someone for lawful activity is kidnapping. The arresting cops are the ones who should go through the courts. Kidnapping is a capital offense...
I happen to believe that the so-called "laws" forbidding drug sale or possession by adults have no authority to be. I do not recognize the authority of the legislatures to criminalize everything they please, no matter how large the majority. Gun ownership and possession is obvious, since that right is specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution. Drug use is not specifically stated, but our Republican system gives the government enumerated powers. They may not legally pass any "laws" about anything for which the federal or state co
constitution does not explicitly grant them authority. That makes federal drug "laws" all illegal. I haven't studied it, but I'd wager that very few states have the authority to criminalize drug possession.
Given that I believe these "laws" are illegal, I also believe that arresting an adult for possessing drugs or selling them to another adult is also kidnapping, still a capital offense.
I actually go further than this. I don't recognize the authority of the various constitutions over people who have not explicitly sworn to follow them. That means they apply only to sworn public servants, not to me or to any natural citizen. So the legislatures have no authority to criminalize ANYTHING, though I still believe the common law definition of crime, behavior that directly harms another person or their property, still holds.
But I would be happy to settle for the various constitutions, if they were narrowly interpreted and rabidly enforced, meaning that 90% of the current U
U.S. Congress, and likely a similar percentage of every state legislature, should be rotting in jail, assuming they aren't hanged for treason.
So, Mr. St. Clair, you're saying that YOU, and you alone, get to decide whether or not your own behavior is criminal, and whether or not others' behavior is criminal as well?
That the only authority you recognize is YOURSELF? And that you expect others to also recognize your "authority"? But you don't recognize theirs, no matter what MAJORITY of your fellow citizens have chosen to give them that authority (which you don't recognize)?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't common law the normal order of business in pre-colonial England? Wasn't it highly subjective and therefore ripe for abuse? Wasn't that corruption the reason we (the USA) opted for CODIFIED laws?
Tell me, Mr. St. Clair, other than the U.S. Constitution itself, are there ANY laws you believe to be valid? I'm just wondering which laws you'll allow me to enforce without the expectation that you'll try to kill me.....
> Look, cops have a job to do,
Does the phrase "Nuremberg Defense" convey any meaning to you?
> one that YOU -- the People -- insist must be done.
I don't recall ever insisting that malum prohibitum laws--which are 99+% of all laws--be enforced.
To be more accurate: your government masters insist that it must be done.
> So, we do it. And we try to get it done as quickly, efficiently, and painlessly as possible.
Painlessly for your masters, that is.
> I know all about the 2nd Amendment. I support it.
Let's test that claim, shall we?
> The day I'm told to go to a law-abiding citizen's home and take their guns is the day I resign on the spot,
With your police pension safely vested, secured, and guaranteed, or without it?
> and plead with my (former) brother officers not to come to MY house for that purpose, for their own safety.
If your friendly neighborhood SWAT team can be deployed to anyone else's house for that purpose, then why
Real crimes: assault, murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery, all the common law crimes recognized by everybody. Intentional behavior that harms another person or their property.
Non-crimes: ingesting anything, gambling, prostitution, any interation of consenting adults. Vice. Accident. Non-payment of taxes. Refusal to register.
(I'm not talking about tort law here, only criminal law).
These are NOT subjective. Real crimes cause direct physical harm. Non-crimes hurt somebody's feelings or cause some unspecified harm to "society".
The big difference is that after a REAL crime, there's either a dead body or a victim screaming for justice. After a legislated crime, somebody's moral sense is harmed, or some legislator's flow of plunder (tax or fee) is threatened.
The big difference from your perspective is that if you find a dead body or somebody calls you complaining about real harm done to them or their property, then I will have no problem with you seeking the perpetrat
(continued...)
then why do you assume it can't be deployed to yours, and with a similar "cover story" for the viewing public?
Now, overall, you seem to have grasped the meaning of the word "keep" . . .
> But MOST people do not routinely go armed with a pistol on their hip, and it tends to scare the horses (sheep?). Then they call us. So, we go and contact the individual to make sure they're not up to no good. With any luck, that'll be about a 2-minute conversation and then we'll both be getting on with our day.
. . . but you appear to have a reading-comprehension problem with the words "and bear". Does this help at all to clarify their meaning for you?
> .....unless, of course, you're AFTER a confrontation.
On the evidence, the confrontation you describe above is initiated by you, seemingly because you want to enforce what you think the laws should say.
> In that case, you can count
perpetrator (except that your job is funded with stolen, aka tax, money). If you walk down the street looking for law-breakers, especially if you do what drug warriors and BATF troops do, entrap people into breaking one of those illegal "laws", then you're a criminal, not a peace officer. If I am your target, though it is usually not practical for me to defend myself, since cops are well armed, well trained, and travel in gangs, it is my absolute right to do so.
Constitutions are supposed to establish a tiny domain in which law-making is allowed. Anything outside of that domain is off-limits, no matter how many people want it. They no longer work that way. It turns out that one tyrant 3000 miles away is prefereable to 3000 tyrants one mile away.
But these kind of discussions never go anywhere. I have yet to meet a cop who realized that 90% of what he does blatantly violates his oath. People who realize that stop being cops.
It helps to realize that taxation is theft, and th
It helps to realize that taxation is theft, and that initiation of force is crime, no matter how many people vote for it, and no matter which fancy uniform, funny hat, or shiny badge the perp is wearing.
And I never said I thought the Constitution was valid. Only that I would be willing to give you that, if the penalty for government agents were severe for stepping even a millimeter outside of that Constitutional cage.
I finally have some energy back, so I feel up to stepping into this debate.
Sgt. Mac, you said,
=============
"Instead of ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered pistol, how about a HUNDRED? And all of them passively submitting to arrest if it goes that far, and relishing their day in court..."
=============
I like this line of political action. It has made worlds of difference in other movements. The problem I see is that, here in washington state there is no law saying open carrying is anything that should be subject to arrest. Therefore, any Washington officer that decides to go that far is only usurping power that was never given to him. Making him a tyrant not only to the constitution but to the codified laws he also gave an oath to uphold.
(continued...)
> In that case, you can count on your wish being granted, because we will not back down. You -- the People -- would never tolerate that.
Nice try at shifting the blame for your actions onto somebody else, but no sale.
> But I've noticed that there's a sector of folks like Jason and Mr. St. Clair who just espouse this open HATRED of everything government.
You might ponder the true origin of this "hatred" (it didn't just spring forth fully-formed out of nowhere, and it's not what you may have been told), and on that basis also consider lobbying your masters to take fewer actions (and take fewer yourselves: "wide latitude in enforcing most laws", remember?) to provoke &/or reinforce it.
> News flash: cops aren't the biggest fans of everything government does. But those things that affect us, we're stuck with.
To be more accurate: those things that affect you, you
(continued...)
To be more accurate: those things that affect you, you choose to tolerate. Fine; then take responsibility for your choice, and for your actions that result. "I was just doing my job/following orders" didn't wash as an excuse at the Nuremberg trials, and it won't wash today.
> Garrum: you'd lose that bet, except for the drawing down part if your hand went close to the gun.
You didn't answer Garrum's question; instead you tried (and trying is it) once again to shift the blame for your actions onto somebody else.
On second thought, perhaps you did answer it.
Sergeant Mac wrote:
> Real American --
>
> How is a drug arrest a criminal act?
>
> Just because YOU don't agree with laws enacted by your elected representatives?
How is what Jason did a criminal act?
Just because the arresting officer(s)--and apparently YOU--don't agree with open-carry laws enacted by Jason's elected representatives?
To answer your question: The drug possession doesn't have a victim, whereas the drug arrest does.
Are these alleged "representatives" from me to the government, or to me from the government? Are you sure?
Does the mere fact of "election" automatically sanctify any and all laws they may enact? If so, how? Does it confer some omniscient power of justice on them? If so, what is it? What evidence do you adduce for the existence of such magic powers of virtue? How do you explain any contradictions between the real-world results of the
How do you explain any contradictions between the real-world results of their laws on one hand, and justice OTOH?
My disagreement with them is not the issue; the reasons--facts, logic, and principle--for my disagreement are the issue. (Nice try at a red herring, though.)
> Do the MAJORITY of the viewers of this blog agree with Real American's assessment of American law enforcement?
Viewers of this blog, or posters to it? If the former, then how do you propose to find out?
> Because, if so, I'll just back on out of here. No sense in trying to reason with fruit loops.
Or superior debaters. Perceptions vary.
Way to refute your opponents' arguments with an ad hominem, too.
> If we (meaning citizens of these United States, INCLUDING "jackbooted thugs" like me...) want to get the point across about the 2nd Amendmen
(continued...)
> If we (meaning citizens of these United States, INCLUDING "jackbooted thugs" like me...) want to get the point across about the 2nd Amendment, it'd be best to do it en masse, and be willing to take it all the way through the courts.
If "jackbooted thugs" like you want to get the point across about the 2nd Amendment which you personally claim to support, it'd be best for you to start to read the law and then follow that, instead of enforcing inferior laws repugnant to the Constitution, and thereby set an example of principled law enforcement. That way, there'd be nothing to involve the courts ("don't borrow trouble").
> That's the whole point of civil disobedience -- to stress the system to the point where those running the show seriously question whether the issue is worth the bother.
Except that in Jason's case, apparently no law exists to which he was civilly-disobedient.
> Instead of ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered p
(continued...)
> Instead of ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered pistol, how about a HUNDRED?
Instead of SEVERAL COPS accosting ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered pistol, how about ALL COPS reading what the laws actually say, instead of what cops think the laws should say?
> And all of them passively submitting to arrest if it goes that far,
On what charge? What law are they violating? What law did Jason violate during his traffic stop? ("Contempt of cop" is not law that's written down anywhere AFAIK.)
> and relishing their day in court.....
Why, so that the arresting officer(s) can "testilie" before a corrupted &/or easily-deceived government court, which also doesn't care what the laws actually say? Why do you assume that there remains any necessary correlation between the soundness of a legal argument and its acceptance by a magistrate?
See what I m
(continued...)
See what I mean?
> Look, folks, I am NOT your enemy.....unless you choose that by trying to hurt me.
You are not my enemy.....unless you choose to self-appoint by trying to enforce on me inferior laws repugnant to the Constitution (in violation of your oath, please note). You CAN choose not to do that, you know.
Sargent Mac said "Instead of ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered pistol, how about a HUNDRED? And all of them passively submitting to arrest if it goes that far, and relishing their day in court....."
I believe this is what Jason has inspired to begin. Any thing like what you describe usually starts with a couple of individuals. Then others are inspired to do the same.
BTW, Mark..Bill..Jason..others: I must agree with the Sarge. YES IT SUCKS, but if it takes arrest, and then VINDICATION through the courts (which, um...is what Jason is going through) then all the better. Then the precedent is established...the LAW UPHELD. Sure we would all hope for a lovely walk through town, toting our weapon of choice with no crowds running scared calling 911. But, carry long enough to enough locations, and by law of averages you WILL be confronted by a PO at some point.
When THAT happens, you also would hope that the PO will be very aware of the current laws for open carry (as you should be) and give you a fair shake. Surely you MUST agree the PO is more likely to do that with a cooperative individual. I'm not saying be 'sheep', just know your rights...stay within your rights...and be a good scout (polite, kind, thoughtful). If the PD are dead set on a 'takedown', and it is found to be a bad arrest...all the better that you were a gentleman. THIS IS HOW WE WILL RAISE AWARENESS OF EVERYONE ON WHAT IS LEGAL.
Good to hear from you again Jason. Real nice to see ya post and 'jump in' to this discussion.
What I find most interesting is that "Wayne" and "Sergeant Mac", by the fact that they're commenting here, are very likely among the closest that their kind gets to being in favor of human freedom.
Mr. Lopez, thank you for that....I think.
Mr. Odell, I'm just not sure how to go about debating you. Now, I'm quite sure that you would see that as definitive proof that you're right and I'm wrong, but I'm merely suggesting that no amount of reason would nudge you from your cherished (though rare) beliefs.
Which is more likely: that American government is wholly, 100% corrupt, in every branch, at every level, and has been since before the Civil War?
Or that the specific form of government you imagine has never existed outside the minds of you and your ilk?
The Constitution may be amended. Were that not so, the Bill of Rights would not even exist.
As for the notion that "real" crimes involve provable physical or fiscal injury, but "legislated" crimes merely hurt someone's feelings, consider this:
If I were to, absent probable cause or warrant, search your car (finding no contraband and departing thereafter), you would say that I violated my oath and th
(continued)
therefore deserve to be hung like the Nuremberg Nazi war criminals. And don't tell me you wouldn't, because you and/or others here already have.
Now, tell me: where is the physical or fiscal harm?
Why would you seek the DEATH PENALTY for something which, by your own logic, is not even a "real" crime?
Please understand that I do NOT knowingly or intentionally act outside the law as it is understood in our courts.
And, if the incident Jason was arrested for transpired as he described in his now-redacted narrative, I would agree that he committed no actual crime. But, as I understand it, the offenses he was charged with ARE crimes under state law. And it may surprise some of you to know that (on EXTREMELY rare occasions, of course....) people OTHER THAN police officers have been known to lie, even on such a reliable media as (gasp!) the INTERNET.....
Here's a bit of irony: I consider myself to be a libertarian. I happen to believe that drugs shoul
(continued)
should be decriminalized. I don't believe that government should EVER take money from one citizen and give it to another, for any reason OTHER than as payment for goods or services. I believe that people should be legally and practically able to purchase, possess and carry any non-crew-served firearm, unless they have proved themselves to be criminally irresponsible with firearms.
But I also believe that, if we are to change laws, we must do so WITHIN THE SYSTEM. And if there are not enough of us to accomplish that, that fact alone should tell us something. Yes, yes, I know: the "tyranny of the majority".... but how would you beat that, even were it so?
As I stated before: I (and, believe it or not, at least half of my co-workers) are NOT your enemy. But your constant talk of killing us doesn't particularly endear you to us.....
You... consider yourself to be a libertarian. How rich.
A few reasons why cops aren't so well liked these days:
Whack 'Em & Stack 'Em
Fuck cops, right out loud. There is not a single cop in this country that I trust, and there is nothing they can do about it. Understand: I say it's a rotten idea to start shooting them, and anyone who thinks differently is no more a friend of mine than any of these ignorant presumptive shitbags in blue. The fact is that there is a far better way of dealing with them.
The far more principal fact, however, is that no decent person would want to be a cop in this political culture. That "job" is positively attracting exactly the wrong sort of person, and they can all go to hell with my earnest compliments.
"Sergeant Mac":
Understand that what I said was no compliment at all to you, you can click on my "Homepage" link and see a little more. Maybe I can clear things up for you:
This... "As I stated before: I (and, believe it or not, at least half of my co-workers) are NOT your enemy."... is such utter and complete bullshit that I don't even know where to begin with it, except to point out the simple fact that the final penalty is death for stepping outside the arbitrary boundaries that you and your cohorts enforce.
You wouldn't hesitate for a millisecond to kick down my door and shoot me dead over any one of ten-thousand matters that anyone who calls himself a "libertarian" ought to be ashamed to give even verbal support to, and you have the audacity to sit there and say that you aren't my enemy?
You're either lying or delusional, and whichever the case is, there's no
(cont):
You're either lying or delusional, and whichever the case is, there's no way that you ought to be trusted with the amount of power you that this government has seen fit to give you.
And just so there's no misunderstanding: I'm not going to go shooting at you and your ilk any time soon, it's a bad idea. But don't think that I don't hate and fear every last one of you.
Seargent Mac,
Responding to your hypothetical car search. In so doing, you would have violated your oath, since the fourth amendment prohibits search without a proper warrant (yes, the courts have ruled otherwise, but they're badly wrong). I would be within my rights to demand that you cease trespassing on my property.
But no Nuremberg trial should ensue if you left it at that, since you have committed no capital crime. If you found a roach in my car, and arrested me for it, however, then you would be guilty of kidnapping. False arrest is kidnapping. As far as I know, I am the originator of this meme, and I am attempting to spread it far and wide.
I am glad to hear that you think that currently illegal drugs should be decriminalized. I wish you luck in getting those laws changed.
I wouldn't say that 100% of all government on every level has been corrupt since before the civil war. Probably more like 90%. This is why I don't attempt to change things from within the system
Don't think that I have the idea that the USA is a perfect place. But I do think it's workable, even as is.
There's the way things ARE, and the way I think things SHOULD be.
I recognize the difference, and, having no viable alternative, accept the way things are.
If you wish to bluster and rage on, working yourself and others into a frenzy, then by all means knock yourself out.
But don't think for a minute that most rational people don't see right through you. You talk about injustices, some real but most imagined, and talk about the extreme, lethal measures you would employ to right these "wrongs". And about how that's your right, and even your DUTY. And you have these rants in your own little echo chambers, where you're shocked and amazed when someone disagrees.
If you're really SERIOUS about all of this, and have the courage of your convictions, why aren't "thugs" and "patriots" dying by the droves in daily confrontations?
Answer: because, while
(continued)
Answer: because, while you TALK a good game, that's all you've got. You CAN'T make your case in court, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on, and you lack both the moral and the physical courage to fight your battle on the streets, a la your little "hang 'em high" fantasies.
I come in here and try to reveal some common ground, and moonbats come out of the woodwork to abuse me.....
I appreciate those of you who are willing to engage in civil discourse. As for the frothing lunatics, since there's certainly no love lost between us anyhow, kiss my rosy red, Royal Irish ass!
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't common law the normal order of business in pre-colonial England? Wasn't it highly subjective and therefore ripe for abuse? Wasn't that corruption the reason we (the USA) opted for CODIFIED laws?"
Consider yourself corrected.
"Codification is the process where a statute is passed with the intention of restating the common law position in a single document rather than creating new offences, so the common law remains relevant to their interpretation."
United States law is based in common law, as are all but a few of the states (Louisiana uses civil law;New York and California use a mixture of both).
Codification is an refinement to common law, not a replacement. As such, corruption occurs when common law is codified into things it was never meant to address.
One more thing:
You know, if you'd slide just a little bit toward the center, I think you'd find yourself amongst sufficient company that WE could actually WIN at the polls, in the legislature, and in the courts.
I believe that there are more so-called "moderates" leaning slightly to the right than to the left. (And, yes, I know that a lot of you are on a different political plane entirely....)
And I believe that, for many of those middle-of-the-roaders, the only thing keeping them from taking the plunge in one direction or another is the lunatic fringe at either end....
Hmmm...
My link went to the wrong place.
Feel free to cut and paste it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Sergeant Mac wrote:
> Mr. Odell, I'm just not sure how to go about debating you.
I recommend you try:
- reading what I actually wrote, instead of what you think I wrote;
- quoting accurately what I wrote;
- answering my on-point questions (FYI it's called "Socratic inquiry");
- asking for clarifications of anything unclear or possibly-misunderstood;
- responding directly to my specific remarks and suggestions;
- preparing (at least) to support your assertions with facts and logic.
> Now, I'm quite sure that you would see that as definitive proof that you're right and I'm wrong,
About which surety you would be wrong. (Add to the above list "not reasoning ahead of the facts".)
> but I'm merely suggesting that no amount of reason would nudge you from your cherished (though rare) beliefs.
Since you haven't yet tried it, how do you know? (See recommendation above.)
Did you mean to imply that a belief which (you think) is "rare" is thereby invalidated, o
(continued)
or am I misunderstanding what you wrote?
> Which is more likely: that American government is wholly, 100% corrupt, in every branch, at every level, and has been since before the Civil War?
>
> Or that the specific form of government you imagine has never existed outside the minds of you and your ilk?
I honestly have no idea which one of your two false alternatives is "more likely". What then?
Why do you couch your question in terms of likelihood? How is that relevant?
("Ilk"? I have an "ilk" now?
> The Constitution may be amended. Were that not so, the Bill of Rights would not even exist.
What's your point?
> As for the notion that "real" crimes involve provable physical or fiscal injury, but "legislated" crimes merely hurt someone's feelings,
I've never heard the latter part of that "notion" put that way. Who has ever put it that way? Are you sure it's
not a straw man?
> If I were to, absent probable cause or warrant, search your car (finding no contraband and departing thereafter), you would say that I violated my oath
I would -- because you did (what part of your oath to uphold this fundamental law don't you understand?).
> and therefore deserve to be hung like the Nuremberg Nazi war criminals.
I don't know how you arrived at "therefore".
My purpose in referring to the Nuremberg trials was not to advocate convening latter-day such trials, but rather to reinforce (using a cultural reference with which most people are familiar) the idea that personal responsibility for action is paramount; and that, since then, the excuse that individual agents of the state get a free pass because they were "just following order
(continued)
orders" won't wash with thinking people. I intended it as a wake-up call to moral men and women out there (you know who you are). FWIW.
> And don't tell me you wouldn't, because you and/or others here already have.
I do tell you I wouldn't, because I just explained my meaning.
"you and/or others here"? You didn't read what I wrote. QED.
> Please understand that I do NOT knowingly or intentionally act outside the law as it is understood in our courts.
What about the law as it is understood in your own mind (once again, I suggest reading it for yourself and learning what it actually says)? Or are you in the habit of giving over your ability to reason as soon as "our courts" profess to purport to "understand" something?
> And, if the incident Jason was arrested for transpired as he described in his now-redacted narrative, I would agree that he committed no actual crime.
And, if you had simply admitted this at the outset of your comments
(continued)
, I'm morally certain you would have scored major points with this blog's viewers, and spared yourself most of the excoriation you received.
> But, as I understand it, the offenses he was charged with ARE crimes under state law.
Are they indeed? (Better your understanding.)
> And it may surprise some of you to know that (on EXTREMELY rare occasions, of course....) people OTHER THAN police officers have been known to lie, even on such a reliable media as (gasp!) the INTERNET.....
I presume that this remark is intended to insinuate the possibility that Jason is lying, by either commission or omission. Point granted: the possibility exists. However, thus far, Jason's version of events is consistent, plausible, and rings true. So what's your point?
> Here's a bit of irony: I consider myself to be a libertarian.
Irony, or self-deception?
> I happen to believe that drug
(continued)
drugs should be decriminalized.
The word "decriminalized" presupposes that the status quo (their "criminal" status) was ever legitimate.
> I don't believe that government should EVER take money from one citizen and give it to another, for any reason OTHER than as payment for goods or services.
Are you referring to e.g. enforcement of contracts?
> I believe that people should be legally and practically able to purchase, possess and carry any non-crew-served firearm,
Why the qualifying adjective?
> unless they have proved themselves to be criminally irresponsible with firearms.
That criterion alone excludes every government in the world (see: "democide").
> But I also believe that, if we are to change laws, we must do so WITHIN THE SYSTEM.
Since on the evidence "the system" is the problem, and treating with it grants it validity (see: "jurisdiction") which it
(continued)
doesn't necessarily merit (by temperament or training), I might still be willing to try; but I strongly doubt that.
> And if there are not enough of us to accomplish that, that fact alone should tell us something.
It tells us nothing we don't already know: that the state believes (erroneously) that might makes right, regardless of what the laws actually say.
How about you? Do you believe that might makes right? If so, why?
> Yes, yes, I know: the "tyranny of the majority".... but how would you beat that, even were it so?
What "majority" ever voted for this (so-far-hypothetical) law? I submit that "tyranny of the majority" is less the problem here than "tyranny of the state".
> As I stated before: I (and, believe it or not, at least half of my co-workers) are NOT your enemy. But your constant talk of killing us doesn't particularly endear you to us.....
If by "your" you mean me, then you didn't read what I wrote. Try again.
(continued)
> Don't think that I have the idea that the USA is a perfect place. But I do think it's workable, even as is.
I've never denied that "the system" works very well -- for those in power.
> There's the way things ARE, and the way I think things SHOULD be.
>
> I recognize the difference, and, having no viable alternative, accept the way things are.
"no viable alternative"? Do you consider upholding your oath of office not to be "viable"? If so, why?
The old saying applies: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
[snippage of addressed-to-others potkettleblack rant]
>
> If you're really SERIOUS about all of this, and have the courage of your convictions, why aren't "thugs" and "patriots" dying by the droves in daily confrontations?
>
> Answer: because, while you TALK a good game, that's all you've got.
Answer: because, unlike "thugs", we "patriots" are not perfect idiots.
> You CAN'T make your case
(continued)
in court, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on,
I ask you again: Why do you assume that there remains any necessary correlation between the soundness of a legal argument and its acceptance by a magistrate?
> I come in here and try to reveal some common ground,
I fear there is not as much "common ground" between us as you seemingly would wish there to be.
> and moonbats come out of the woodwork to abuse me.....
We are perfectly capable of evaluating for ourselves whether or not those whom you deem "moonbats" really are, without your help. If you honestly think they're such "moonbats", then I suggest you ignore them, and concentrate your efforts on making the case for your position . . . if you can.
> You know, if you'd slide just a little bit toward the center,
What exactly does that mean? Is that anything like getting "just a little bit" pregnant?
(continued)
> I think you'd find yourself amongst sufficient company that WE could actually WIN at the polls, in the legislature, and in the courts.
Who is "WE"? Of what exactly does "WE" consist?
"WIN" what?
The ballot box and the legislature I could perhaps see; but exactly how do you think this will help us "WIN" in the courts (which are supposedly "above" the "vagaries" of popular sentiment)?
> I believe that there are more so-called "moderates" leaning slightly to the right than to the left.
Yes, "leaning slightly" is the problem.
> And I believe that, for many of those middle-of-the-roaders, the only thing keeping them from taking the plunge in one direction or another is the lunatic fringe at either end....
The middle of the road is where you get run over. Their loss.
(Damn and blast frickin' cheapjack Haloscan's 1000-character limit!!!)
>>Why do you couch your question in terms of likelihood? How is that relevant?
As it is impossible to ever prove which OPINION is more valid than the other, I fall back upon which is more likely, and therefore more realistic.
> The Constitution may be amended. Were that not so, the Bill of Rights would not even exist.
>>What's your point?
That point was about taxation, and the amendment which instituted the income tax. (If you don't consider that to be valid, how can you consider any OTHER amendments, such as the BOR, to be valid?)
> As for the notion that "real" crimes involve provable physical or fiscal injury, but "legislated" crimes merely hurt someone's feelings,
>>I've never heard the latter part of that "notion" put that way. Who has ever put it that way?
Bill St. Clair, above.
>>the excuse that individual agents of the state get a free pass because they were "just following orders" won't wash with thinking people.
Not just "following
Not just "following orders", but acting within guidelines established, upheld, and continually monitored by the courts. Why do you believe that your viewpoint is superior to that of the United States Supreme Court when it comes to Constitutional law?
>>What about the law as it is understood in your own mind (once again, I suggest reading it for yourself and learning what it actually says)? Or are you in the habit of giving over your ability to reason as soon as "our courts" profess to purport to "understand" something?
No, but it is in "our courts" that I will be judged if I run afoul of their "understanding". It therefore behooves me to lend a little credence to the opinions of those officials who, under certain circumstances, can order my imprisonment or the confiscation of my property.
For instance, if I have a complaint from a citizen regarding the actions of another citizen, who violated a state statute, and despite having established probable cause to believe
that citizen B did commit the offense, I REFUSE to arrest or cite citizen B because I don't agree with that particular law, then *I* have violated yet another state statute, a misdemeanor, and may even be imprisoned upon conviction. Will you then pay my bills? I think not.
>the offenses he was charged with ARE crimes under state law.
>>Are they indeed?
I was referring to the Spokane incident. And I'm passing judgment on neither Jason's actions nor the law, just pointing out that the two were believed to be in conflict.
>>Are you referring to e.g. enforcement of contracts?
No, I'm saying that I disagree with Welfare, Social Security, college grants, etc., etc., ....every instance in which Uncle Sam spends tax money on INDIVIDUALS without obtaining any goods or services in return.
> I believe that people should be legally and practically able to purchase, possess and carry any non-crew-served firearm,
>>Why the qualifying adjective?
Because without it, we
Because without it, we invariably bump into the "family nuke" question...
> Yes, yes, I know: the "tyranny of the majority".... but how would you beat that, even were it so?
>>What "majority" ever voted for this (so-far-hypothetical) law? I submit that "tyranny of the majority" is less the problem here than "tyranny of the state".
Again, Sir: how would you beat that?
Or are we just pondering theories here, pure science as opposed to applied?
>>Who is "WE"? Of what exactly does "WE" consist?
In this instance, I'm talking about YOU and your friends, and I and my friends, and the right-leaning moderates, if we can just focus for the time being upon those things about which we are in agreement, and try to CIVILLY work out the differences that remain.
>>The middle of the road is where you get run over. Their loss.
And on the shoulder, you get pelted with McDonald's bags, and eventually mowed down....
I'm suggesting neither the yellow line in
I'm suggesting neither the yellow line in the middle of the road nor the ditch on the far right, but rather that we band together and drive in the RIGHT LANE.
Wayne: An officer has wide latitude in enforcing most laws, as he is the point man in deciding whether or not you are a threat.
A threat to whom? There's the rub. A threat to other &ldquot;civilians&rdquot;? No. A threat to the power of the cop, as an agent of government, to wield power? You got it.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any
government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When
there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares
so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to
live without breaking laws. …"
—Ayn Rand,
Atlas Shrugged
Wayne, you're so full of shit it's coming out your pores. My dad was a police chief and he looked with disdain upon people like you--people he called supercops. The only thing more morally despicable than a cop on a power trip is a prison guard. Are you sure you're not a warder?
Wayne,
As for cops policing themselves, I'm wondering how terms like “rat squad” became a part of the lexicon of cop shows and movies. The sick part is that reality is far worse than these dramas.
>As for cops policing themselves, I'm wondering how terms like “rat squad” became a part of the lexicon of cop shows and movies. The sick part is that reality is far worse than these dramas.
The REAL (proven, and thus undeniably real) stories I've heard have indeed tended to be very, very bad. Worse, even, than what the entertainment industry feeds us constantly.
But nowhere near as prevalent....
All cops are Thieves, of which there are two sub-sets: Bullies and Dumbasses.
All cops are thieves because they are paid by taxes; taxes being defined as assets stolen by government under threat of duress. THE OVERRIDING PRIORITY of ALL police-officers, everywhere, is protection of the source of their paycheck, and, more importantly, the *means* by which that paycheck is collected.
Moral hypocrisy is thus a *requirement* for engagement of the profession -- the cop is hired (with your stolen property) to "defend" you. Either a given cop possesses the rudimentary intelligence to understand the ethical incongruity of this and doesn't care (which makes him *evil*), or he doesn't (in which case he's a moron).
The bullies are, simply put, Baathist Nazi scum; they are cops expressly for the reason that the avocation enables them to legally steal other peoples' property and boss them around. Dumbass cops are the typical jocks, cops' sons, and Army one-hitchers who make up the b
....the bulk of every country's police forces; distinguishing characteristic is exceptionally marginal intelligence -- barely more sentient than a parrot; they receive orders from their superiors and carry them out without the briefest contemplation of ethics.
Every single cop is the sworn enemy of every single free man, and any particular cop accomplishes good only via irony, happenstance, and that fact that a legitimate market exists for "protection" regardless of the government nationalizing the industry.
I note that Wayne is, for some as-yet-unexplained reason, conspicuous by his absence from this discussion ever since I challenged him to post the link to Jason's full original post, and then support his insinuations about it with facts and logic.
Coincidentally, I also note that, when one mounts an effective challenge to what they believe (erroneously) is their unquestioned authority, bullies tend to pull in their horns.
Mr. Schneider, how do you sleep at night, knowing that you drive on "stolen" roads every day?
Are soldiers also thieves?
Sergeant Mac: "...and try to CIVILLY work out the differences that remain."
Given that the "differences" consist largely of what Mike Schneider pointed out above, how on God's green earth can anyone expect you and your fellow bandits to ever "civilly work things out"?
How, Mac?
Sergeant Mac wrote:
> Mr. Schneider, how do you sleep at night, knowing that you drive on "stolen" roads every day?
Perhaps it's because he knows full well that he is not the thief, but rather your masters are? Perhaps it's because the realities of government coercion leave him no other choice, but (unlike you) he does not approve and he is not resigned?
> Are soldiers also thieves?
'Fraid so.
Thieves respect property.
OK, then, since this is obviously an intolerable situation to you.....
What are you going to do about it?
Just keep bitching and whining, and ridiculing people for voting?
You talk about "having no other choice." Well, it seems to me that the circumstances were no more dire in the days just before the American Revolution......
Seriously, folks, I've heard all of you complain about what you see as the PROBLEM. I've explored your websites, and related ones, and have found no dearth of complaints about the PROBLEM.
I have yet to see any proposed long-term SOLUTION. Oh, sure, you have the knee-jerk instant gratification "abolish all government and hang every government official" plan, but WHAT THEN?
On several sites I read, the authors even admitted to not having any solution in mind, pointing out that solutions were not their specialty.....basically, that it was all about the bitching.
Has anyone here either contrived or even HEARD OF a workable solution for
societies thriving without government?
Seriously, how could you make that work?
I'm looking for some hope for the future in your outlook. Show me some.
....or, if it makes you feel better, I suppose you can just go on calling me a bandit, traitor, thief, etc....
But the fact is, I spend my working hours pursuing those who would steal your belongings, intentionally do you physical harm, or behave in such a reckless manner as to harm you or your property. When you call, I'm there in three minutes or less. Sometimes, I've been able to catch the thief digging through cars a few blocks down, before he ever GOT to yours, without ANYBODY calling to report a crime, because I'm out there patrolling.
And, yes, when I arrest that little shit, I'm going to search him, and if he's got some dope on him, I'll tag him for that, too. Obviously, if there were no law against it, it wouldn't be an issue for me.
It's not like I go out of my way to catch anyone who's NOT HARM
It's not like I go out of my way to catch anyone who's NOT HARMING anyone. But if they're dumb enough to do it right in front of me, or while they're doing something else that IS harmful, I'll be more than happy to enforce those laws.
Police officers just man the GATE to the criminal justice system, and provide a portion of the input to the process. We DON'T decide the final outcome, and honestly, most of the time, I really don't care what happens. The only exceptions are when people HAVE been harmed, and I see great potential for future harm. Then, I want that bastard sent away for a long time.
Mr. Lopez, I would sincerely like to have a dialogue about those differences. But that's never going to happen if everyone on your side insists on labeling everyone on my side thieves, thugs, or criminals. Just like it'll never happen if everyone on my side insists on labeling everyone on your side wackos, nutjobs and conspiracy theorist.
I'm pretty sure you're famil
I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the "How To Boil A Frog" concept. That can work both ways, you know. It's only bad if you cast yourself in the role of the frog.
Perhaps you can apply that to this debate, and turn that knob down to "Low". Okay? You might even get to cook something that way.....
"Mr. Lopez, I would sincerely like to have a dialogue about those differences. But that's never going to happen if everyone on your side insists on labeling everyone on my side thieves, thugs, or criminals."
You can call me all sorts of names, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you couldn't come up with a precise, workable definition for any of them.
Can you define "moonbat", or is it just a meaningless smear term?
But a criminal is what you are: you attack people. You wouldn't hesitate for a splt-second to use force, or the threat of same, against a peaceful person who you noticed outside "the law". Fact is, if they resisted your attack, you'd willingly kill them. That's criminal behavior. That's what thugs and thieves do.
The path to a "dialog" ought to be obvious, but I'll spell it out anyway: Stop attacking peaceful people.
>>But a criminal is what you are: you attack people. You wouldn't hesitate for a splt-second to use force, or the threat of same, against a peaceful person who you noticed outside "the law".
I DO hesitate. I hesitate so much, in fact, that I only have to use or threaten any force about 1% of the time. See below.
>>Fact is, if they resisted your attack, you'd willingly kill them.
If their resistance escalated to an imminently lethal level, you're damn right. Keep reading.
>>That's criminal behavior. That's what thugs and thieves do.
I disagree with you about this. You insist upon viewing an ARREST by a police officer as an ATTACK, because it is the "initiation of force".
My viewpoint (and that of the courts, whether you recognize it or not) is that the person who violates established, codified, published law by so doing incurs the risk that a police officer, charged with the responsibility of enforcing those laws on behalf of the public, will seek to intr
introduce the violator to the court system. If the violator then physically resists, the officer is authorized to use only that force which is reasonable and necessary to overcome the resistance.
>>The path to a "dialog" ought to be obvious, but I'll spell it out anyway: Stop attacking peaceful people.
You're asking me to stop arresting criminals?
How would crime be dealt with in your ideal society?
Mike Schneider, do you agree with Mark Odell that soldiers are thieves? Did you follow his link to Smedley D. Butler's article? Just wondering if you are going to follow your principles to their logical conclusion on, say, the invasion of Iraq.
Mac: "You're asking me to stop arresting criminals?"
I'm asking you to stop attacking peaceful people, whether they're criminals or not.
PS: "Criminals" in the above post means "violating the law", not "acting unjustly".
Then, it's acceptable to you if I arrest only those people who are "acting unjustly"?
How does that work? Whose definition do we go by? What if, for instance, we come across someone doing something which Odell and Beck consider to be unjust, but you do not?
Shall we put it to a vote? Oh, wait, we can't do that.....
I ask again, HOW do we make this work?
WE don't make this work. The free market makes it work. In the world that many of us envision, nobody would be responsible for general peace-keeping, and there would be no crimes against the state, since there would be no state. If you were in the security business, and you witnessed somebody attempting to harm one of your clients or to steal his property, you would stop that person. There would be no other valid reason to use force.
After the fact, you would look for the perpetrator and force him to provide resitution, to restore what was stolen. In the case of murder or irreversable bodily harm, no restitution is possible, so the perpetrator loses his liberty forever and becomes the property of his victim or his victim's survivors. They can do with him what they please.
It takes quite a bit of unlearning for most people to grasp this, which is precisely how we get there from here. Simply eliminating the actors in the current government will not do it, since that leaves the me
It takes quite a bit of unlearning for most people to grasp this, which is precisely how we get there from here. Simply eliminating the actors in the current government will not do it, since that leaves the meme that government is necessary, that it has a valid purpose for existence. Once we rid enough people of this broken concept, however, the government will collapse under its own weight. Actually, it will probably collapse under its own weight no matter what we do. Proper teaching is necessary in order to make it more likely that liberty will be established afterwards.
"But that's ANARCHY," say you. Precisely.
Mac,
I'm unsure of what your objection is. Are you saying that you can't tell if your current behavior as a cop is right or wrong?
>>so the perpetrator loses his liberty forever and becomes the property of his victim or his victim's survivors.
First and foremost, wouldn't you find SLAVERY to be repugnant to your understanding of freedom and/or liberty?
What if he won't go willingly? Will you then "kidnap" him? Who decides that this is to be done, and who may do it?
What if a few dozen of his closest friends band around him to "protect" him? How would you justify any application of force against THEM? Wouldn't THEY then be allowed to defend themselves, "with extreme prejudice?"
What of the people who POSSESS no meaningful property? Say a man who lives in your "unclaimed wilderness" steals one of your chickens, cleans it, roasts it, and eats it? He has nothing of value. How will he pay restitution? Or....does it go back to slavery?
Unless I'm missing something, you're simply replacing restitution, probation, fines and incarceration with restitution and slavery.
>I'm unsure of what your objection is. Are you saying that you can't tell if your current behavior as a cop is right or wrong?
I'm well aware of MY understanding of right and wrong, and I'm well aware of what the law specifies, and I'm well aware of what the majority of the decent people (my customers) expect of me.
What I'm looking for is a clear picture of what YOU think.
And you appear to be either unwilling or unable to provide that.
Are you saying you don't know what you think?
>>I have yet to see any proposed long-term SOLUTION. Oh, sure, you have the knee-jerk instant gratification "abolish all government and hang every government official" plan, but WHAT THEN?
No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?
Since the thread has turned to anarchy I will give a few useful links for Sergeant Mac to look at:
http://www.mises.org/Media/?acti...=showname&
ID=81
http://www.jonathangullible.com/
...glish_music.swf
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/...s/Olympus/7695/
(I suggest chapter 5, "Rights and Freedom")
Now on to the comments:
>What I'm looking for is a clear picture of what YOU think.
I am happy to provide one Sergeant Mac; the philosophical principle that the "moonbats" you've been conversing advocate is known as the "Non-aggression Principle", and you can find more information about it in the links I gave. Simply put, it says that initiating coercion or aggression against a person or their property is unjust and unethical. I can summarize it for you even more starkly: Other people are not your property.
Now think about that for a moment. Is John Lopez your property Mac? If he is, how could you possibly acquire such ownership? If not, why do yo
If not, why do you have ANY legitimate claim over his life and property?
>I disagree with you about this. You insist upon viewing an ARREST by a police officer as an ATTACK, because it is the "initiation of force".
That's because that's what it often is, whether you like it or no. If Beck is smoking a joint in his car and you come up and arrest him for violating drug laws, how is this *morally* any different than a criminal coming up to Beck and kidnapping him? How are you not treating him as your property, as the criminal is doing?
>My viewpoint (and that of the courts, whether you recognize it or not) is that the person who violates established, codified, published law by so doing incurs the risk that a police officer, charged with the responsibility of enforcing those laws on behalf of the public,
Wouldn't this same argument apply to a Nazi police officer in 1935 Germany? Why or why not? After all, he has been "charged with the responsibility" of ensuring the Jew
(con't) After all, he has been "charged with the responsibility" of ensuring the Jews wear the funny symbols and keep their place. Or will you admit that legality and morality have no necessary correlation?
>will seek to introduce the violator to the court system. If the violator then physically resists, the officer is authorized to use only that force which is reasonable and necessary to overcome the resistance.
Authorized--by whom? I heard the phrase "government masters" bandied about somewhere.
Mac, as I understand it you concieve of your role as one of helping people: You right wrongs, stop thieves, and make sure Lopez, Odell, and the rest of us can sleep soundly in our beds at night. Part of this is true, police as a rule do go after crooks, murderers, and thieves. But as Schneider points out with his characteristic crudity this is not the WHOLE story, because just as often police like yourself will attack peaceful, nonviolent citizens because some law somewhere tre
But as Schneider points out with his characteristic crudity this is not the WHOLE story, because just as often police like yourself will attack peaceful, nonviolent citizens because some law somewhere treats them as the property of the state. Until you recognize this basic contradiction in your views Mac, e.g. that you swear to uphold the law, whatever that "law" may be, whether moral or no, whether it treats people as individuals or as property, I don't think much progress in our "dialogue" will take place.
Bill St. Clair said: "In the case of murder or irreversable bodily harm, no restitution is possible, so the perpetrator loses his liberty forever and becomes the property of his victim or his victim's survivors. "
Stefan said: "I can summarize it for you even more starkly: Other people are not your property. Now think about that for a moment. Is John Lopez your property Mac? If he is, how could you possibly acquire such ownership? If not, why do you have ANY legitimate claim over his life and property? "
This just gets more and more confusing.....
Which is it?
Okay, let's try something different.
What societies/communities now exist or ever did exist in which these principles are or have been successfully applied?
I recall the concept that any legitimate government gains its legitimacy only by the consent of the governed.
I've also gathered that you most certainly DO NOT CONSENT, and that you consider no government to be legitimate. Yes, I get that.
You believe in a free market, and that there are automatically checks and balances in a free market, provided by the power of competition.
Is there such a thing as a free market among nations/regions/parts of this planet?
Is there any nation which operates by your principles, or any unclaimed or ungoverned land upon which you might live as you envision?
Does the United States government prevent you from leaving its geographic borders, or from emphatically renouncing your citizenship?
John! You're evangelizing again!
I'll go point by point:
>This just gets more and more confusing.....
>Which is it?
For the record I don't know where St. Clair gets the idea that murder or bodily harm justify slavery, and I will hazard a guess that most of the readers here will disagree with St. Clair on this point at least.
>What societies/communities now exist or ever did exist in which these principles are or have been successfully applied?
Historically the best example of anarchy I've encountered is the medieval Icelandic system (see the link at the bottom of this page for discussion: http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/...long-arch.html)
. For a period of about 300 years from 930-1262 medieval Iceland didn't have what we would call a government. That is, there were no taxes, bureaucrats, police, army, etc. Justice and law were enforced by the "chieftains", who as I understand it acted somewhat like private police, protecting their clients in exchange for payment. The above link discusses it a bit mo
The above link discusses it a bit more (by the way Sergeant Mac Dr. Long is an excellent writer, I ought to have included him in that list of stuff I posted for you).
>Is there such a thing as a free market among nations/regions/parts of this planet?
Depends on which people of those nations you're talking about. The government of the US and the government of Mexico can trade with each other with relative ease, but the citizens of the US and the citizens of Mexico have some trouble if, say, they'd like to trade something illegal, or perhaps if Mr. Jones in America wants to hire Pedro from Matamoros to come mow his lawn.
>Does the United States government prevent you from leaving its geographic borders, or from emphatically renouncing your citizenship?
Those are different questions. To the first one, the answer is yes, we are allowed to leave, but this isn't relevant; if you just moved into a neighborhood and the local Mafia guys came to your door for "protection money"
beech trees said: "When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"
Bitter, life-threatening cold, without any heat source?
To the first one, the answer is yes, we are allowed to leave, but this isn't relevant; if you just moved into a neighborhood and the local Mafia guys came to your door for "protection money" or whatever, then yeah you could leave to avoid the Mafia, but it would also be moral to try and resist the Mafia's agents.
>or from emphatically renouncing your citizenship?
As far as I know (and I don't pretend to be a legal expert) the answer is no, if you, say, were born in the US and live here then you MUST pay taxes to local, state, and federal authorities or, as you so eloquently pointed out, be "brought to trial".
I was talking about the possibility of doing both -- leaving AND renouncing. I somehow doubt the US government could or would hunt you down.
Thanks for the links. I will explore them when I have more time. Right now, though, I have to go and earn my stolen wages...
Now, where DID I put those jackboots???
1) I like cops because they work to keep us safe.
2) I fear cops because they are dangerous.
Number 2 makes number one possible, so I'm happy to live with the seeming paradox. Thank you, Wayne and Sergeant Mac for your service to the community.
Sergeant Mac, I somewhat like your protest idea. It would still work to educate the community, and maybe even the cops, in Spokane. It might also, however, cause the hoplophobes to make open-carry without a permit illegal, as it did in California when the Black Panthers tried it.
Scaring the bejesus out of the majority is not a good idea. So far, the majority is not scared by signs, but guns, well, maybe we should do the education via other means.
We seem to have gloomed onto some major big-l Libertartianism and Anrchism here. Big-l Libertartians and Anarchists are fighting the rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me attitude common among humans. Well, we can all agree that's bad. The usual compromise hereabouts is rules-for-thee-a
We seem to have gloomed onto some major big-l Libertartianism and Anrchism here. Big-l Libertartians and Anarchists are fighting the rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me attitude common among humans. Well, we can all agree that's bad. The usual compromise hereabouts is rules-for-thee-and-grudgingly-for-me, because tradition and culture (which is what rules are all ultimately based on, including here, where legislatures are not just Constitutional, but traditional, after all, they predate it) are far more respected and trusted than anarchy.
People usually describe places where anarchy is practiced as cesspools of crime and depravity. This is actually a big problem for Libertarians and Anarchists, like the Godless tag on Communism. Why? Because the usual response to cesspools of crime and depravity is to form a government and start making rules. The typical method is not to write a Constitution, however, but to find a strong man and do what he says. Anarchy ususally leads straight t
People usually describe places where anarchy is practiced as cesspools of crime and depravity. This is actually a big problem for Libertarians and Anarchists, like the Godless tag on Communism. Why? Because the usual response to cesspools of crime and depravity is to form a government and start making rules. The typical method is not to write a Constitution, however, but to find a strong man and do what he says. Anarchy ususally leads straight to tyranny, and if you poke John Lopez hard enough, you'll find that he believes we can find a solution to that problem, but he haven't found it the last time we corresponded.
Any progress since then, John?
Yours,
Wince
Kyle Grant wrote:
> do you agree with Mark Odell that soldiers are thieves?
Just to clarify: My take on Butler's article is that, with the rise of the modern state, all soldiers do not necessarily commit overt acts of theft, except in that they follow the orders of bigger thieves.
Stefan wrote:
> Authorized--by whom? I heard the phrase "government masters" bandied about somewhere.
> you concieve of your role as one of helping people: You right wrongs, stop thieves, and make sure Lopez, Odell, and the rest of us can sleep soundly in our beds at night.
And if he would please just stop there, I'd do handstands.
Sergeant Mac wrote:
>>Why do you couch your question in terms of likelihood? How is that relevant?
>
> As it is impossible to ever prove which OPINION is more valid than the other, I fall back upon which is more likely, and therefore more realistic.
In a word: guesswork.
I submit that it is equally impossible to ever prove which of two alternatives--false or otherwise--is "more likely", in the absence of hard data, or indeed any. (Besides, "an argument which proceeds by a series of hard-headed likelihoods may be as wrong as the wildest guesswork.")
Let's stick to the subject.
> That point was about taxation, and the amendment which instituted the income tax.
It was? I saw nothing about taxation in the context of your comment; in fact, I don't find the word "tax" or "taxation" anywhere in any of your comments on this thread. It came out of the blue, unrelated to anything appar
(continued)
apparent.
Let's stick to the subject.
>> I've never heard the latter part of that "notion" put that way. Who has ever put it that way?
>
> Bill St. Clair, above.
Then be so kind as to quote his actual words, like this:
>>Non-crimes hurt somebody's feelings or cause some unspecified harm to "society".
Then he explained what he meant by that:
>>After a legislated crime, somebody's moral sense is harmed, or some legislator's flow of plunder (tax or fee) is threatened.
Then you gave a hypothetical example of an illegal search, and asked:
>>Now, tell me: where is the physical or fiscal harm?
The physical harm is known as "trespass to chattels" (at the very least). The fiscal harm might involve having to clean up after you, take countermeasures against your future trespasse
(continued)
trespasses, suing you for damages in civil court, the opportunity costs of all of the above, etc.
And then your forging ahead under two false premises . . .
> Why would you seek the DEATH PENALTY for something which, by your own logic, is not even a "real" crime?
. . . takes you beyond the logical pale.
>>the excuse that individual agents of the state get a free pass because they were "just following orders" won't wash with thinking people.
>
> Not just "following orders", but acting within guidelines established, upheld, and continually monitored by the courts.
I'm sure on some planet that's quite impressive-sounding; but it still doesn't excuse you from personal responsibility for your actions, nor does it excuse "the courts" from their errors.
> Why do you believe that your viewpoint is superior to that of the United States Supreme Court when it comes to Constitutional law?
Do I? What did I write, other than to
(continued)
link to the founding document itself, to lead you to that conclusion? This? Or this? (By all means feel free to go back and read what I wrote, in order to support the premise of your question with some facts.)
Did you mean to imply with this question that you believe my viewpoint is automatically inferior to that of SCOTUS? (That was what you were driving at, wasn't it?) If so, in what way, and for what cogent reasons?
Why do you assume I must necessarily believe that my viewpoint is superior to that of SCOTUS? Why must mine be required to be "superior" in order to read and explain what the Constitution says in an understandable way consistent with maximum liberty and minimum government? Why am I necessarily precluded from accomp
(continued)
accomplishing the same thing with just an equal, or even inferior, viewpoint?
Why do you appear to believe that SCOTUS is always right? (More "might makes right"? Or a form of "papal infallibility"?)
Why do you appear to believe that your viewpoint is inferior to SCOTUS' viewpoint when it comes to the Constitution? It may be, but why? Is there something too-difficult about reading and understanding the plain language of the Constitution? Do you think you'd be at risk of cognitive dissonance--resulting from seeing for yourself the flagrant disconnect between what SCOTUS says and what the Constitution says--if you did so? (Remember: all I've asked you to do is read the Constitution and read the law so you know what it actually says -- after all, state agents are presumed to know the law.)
BTW I for one do not consider the label "Constitutionalist" to be an insult.
>>What about the law
(continued)
>>as it is understood in your own mind (once again, I suggest reading it for yourself and learning what it actually says)? Or are you in the habit of giving over your ability to reason as soon as "our courts" profess to purport to "understand" something?
>
> No, but it is in "our courts" that I will be judged if I run afoul of their "understanding". It therefore behooves me to lend a little credence
"Credence", or merely subservience? Is the sky really green by reason of authority, in your world, or do you just pretend to agree?
> to the opinions of those officials who, under certain circumstances, can order my imprisonment or the confiscation of my property.
I do believe you've just put your finger on the fundamental problem here.
(Somebody can push you around the same way you can push others around, and you don't like it. My sympathy for the consequences of yo
(continued)
your voluntary servitude is all that it should be.)
"There's always a bigger fish."
> For instance, if I have a complaint from a citizen regarding the actions of another citizen, who violated a state statute,
I reiterate: Are you sure a statute exists to violate? Is verifying that your first step? If not, why not? (I ask because, if not, then you're right back to enforcing what you think the law says--or even worse, what you think the law should say--instead of what the law actually says!)
> and despite having established probable cause to believe that citizen B did commit the offense, I REFUSE to arrest or cite citizen B because I don't agree with that particular law,
Or rather, because you take seriously the oath you swore to become a police officer . . .
(Your disagreement with the inferior law is an irrelevant
(continued)
red herring. You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution's disagreement with the inferior law is the relevant fact.)
> then *I* have violated yet another state statute, a misdemeanor, and may even be imprisoned upon conviction.
Let's think this through, and ask some more questions:
If you enforce the superior law (as you swore to do), and the inferior law is thereby rendered without force, null and void; and then your masters punish you for not enforcing the inferior law (due to your upholding your oath of office): what does that tell you about your masters' integrity (both moral and intellectual)?
If OTOH you enforce the inferior law in contravention of the superior law, what does that tell us about the seriousness of your commitment to the oath you swore?
If OT3H you eagerly and abjectly embrace your subservience to your masters' lack of inte
(continued)
integrity, what does that tell us about your moral integrity?
If OT4H you either see no contradiction whatsoever between the superior and inferior laws, or resolve your cognitive dissonance by rationalizing it away ("it's somebody else's problem/responsibility"), or otherwise give over your ability to reason, what does that tell us about your intellectual integrity?
And so, despite your denial, you evidently have given over your ability to reason as soon as "our courts" profess to purport to "understand" something, and you let others decide for you what the Constitution means -- even (or especially) when its plain language contradicts their decision and is obviously "as any fool can plainly see" in error.
And to cap the climax, nobody except you has put you in this position.
> Will you then pay my bills? I think not.
You're correct; but in that case,
(continued)
"find another line of work that doesn't involve a self-perpetuating chain of pushing other people around for absurd, nonsensical reasons" is my advice to you.
And, you're still more responsible for your actions, than for your inactions.
> I was referring to the Spokane incident.
Very well; but you didn't specify that. That's more than I know about.
> And I'm passing judgment on neither Jason's actions nor the law, just pointing out that the two were believed to be in conflict.
"Believed" by whom? Would it be impertinence to suggest--again--that cops should know what the laws actually say, and also should be held more strongly to that presumption?
>>Are you referring to e.g. enforcement of contracts?
>
> No, I'm saying that I disagree with Welfare, Social Security, college grants, etc., etc., ....every instance in which Uncle Sam spends tax money on INDI
(continued)
> INDIVIDUALS without obtaining any goods or services in return.
Very well; but that wasn't what you wrote. Maybe your qualifier clause "for any reason OTHER than as payment for goods or services" misled me.
>>Why the qualifying adjective?
>
> Because without it, we invariably bump into the "family nuke" question...
It isn't the "family nuke" question, it's the "state nuke" question.
Let's stick to the subject.
>>What "majority" ever voted for this (so-far-hypothetical) law? I submit that "tyranny of the majority" is less the problem here than "tyranny of the state".
>
> Again, Sir: how would you beat that?
>
> Or are we just pondering theories here, pure science as opposed to applied?
Again, Sir: you haven't yet made the case for "tyranny of the majority" being the relevant problem in Jason'
(continued)
Jason's case. Or were you just kind of throwing it out there as a tangent (or perhaps a red herring)?
Let's stick to the subject.
>>Who is "WE"? Of what exactly does "WE" consist?
>
> In this instance, I'm talking about YOU and your friends, and I and my friends, and the right-leaning moderates, if we can just focus for the time being upon those things about which we are in agreement, and try to CIVILLY work out the differences that remain.
It may very well not be possible to "CIVILLY work out the differences that remain" between me and someone who, despite their "considering themself" libertarian, nevertheless grants as a basic assumption the legitimacy/primacy of the state and its agents, and unconditional surrender thereto, seemingly based on appeal to Authority and "might makes right" instead of reason.
>>The middle of the road is where you get run over. Their l
(continued)
>>loss.
>
> And on the shoulder, you get pelted with McDonald's bags, and eventually mowed down....
Perhaps you do. (Who exactly is it that does the "mowing"?)
> I'm suggesting neither the yellow line in the middle of the road nor the ditch on the far right, but rather that we band together and drive in the RIGHT LANE.
I'm not at all convinced I should "band together" with someone who, on the evidence, is so willing, and even eager, to knuckle under to the strongest power in exchange for a Great Ring of your own -- which seems to have devoured you ("power tends to corrupt," etc.). How could advocates of liberty ever trust your offers of "aid"? And, if we are so "few" and "fringe", then why would you ever need our aid?
> OK, then, since this is obviously an intolerable situation to you.....
>
> What are you going to do about it?
More to the point: What are you going to do about it? Are you, or are you not, going to stop being
(continued)
part of the problem and start being part of the solution?
> Just keep bitching and whining, and ridiculing people for voting?
FYI that's called "freedom of speech".
> You talk about "having no other choice."
. . . in great part because you do.
> Well, it seems to me that the circumstances were no more dire in the days just before the American Revolution......
So what?
> I have yet to see any proposed long-term SOLUTION.
Why do you assume that there must be one, &/or that the burden of proof is on someone else to provide one, in order for you to stop being part of the problem?
> Oh, sure, you have the knee-jerk instant gratification "abolish all government and hang every government official" plan,
Oh, sure, you have the
(continued)
straw-man argument that everyone who disagrees with you necessarily agrees with that plan,
> but WHAT THEN?
It's called "liberty" -- so I can readily understand how you, as an agent of the state, might be unfamiliar with this concept.
> On several sites I read, the authors even admitted to not having any solution in mind
Citations, please?
> Has anyone here either contrived or even HEARD OF a workable solution for societies thriving without government?
It depends on what the meanings of the words "workable" and "thriving" are. At least, they're trying.
Have you contrived or even HEARD OF a "workable" solution for societies thriving with government (see: Union, Soviet), other than to minimize it? (BTW, that's not a straw man, because
(continued)
if you really believe that government is benign, then logically we may as well have lots of it. Equally, if you really believe that government is neutral, then logically it shouldn't matter how much of it we have. OTOH, if you really believe that government is malign, but a non-specific "some amount" is OK, then logically where do you stop?)
> I'm looking for some hope for the future in your outlook. Show me some.
And if what we show you doesn't measure up to your unspecified standards of proof, what then? How do we know you won't just "move the goalposts" when it suits you?
I'm looking for some evidence of intellectual honesty in your outlook. Show me some.
> ....or, if it makes you feel better, I suppose you can just go on calling me a bandit, traitor, thief, etc....
....or, if it makes you feel better, I suppose you can just go on behaving like one of those....
> I spend my working hours pursuing those
(my masters being most-carefull
(continued)
most-carefully excluded from the definition of "those")
> who would steal your belongings,
Crime of aggression -- has a victim.
> intentionally do you physical harm,
Ditto.
And just FYI: if you would please, for the love of God, just stop here, and enforce only laws against harm to person and property, this dispute would cease to exist.
> or behave in such a reckless manner as to harm you or your property.
Oh. You can predict the future then? If not, then does "as to harm" mean that the harm to person or property hasn't actually happened as such; but you just think it will?
> When you call, I'm there in three minutes or less.
Well, that could be either good or bad.
> Sometimes, I've been able to catch the thief digging through cars a few blocks down, before he ever GOT to yours, without ANYBODY calling to report a crime, because I'm out there patrolling.
Bully for you; but I hope you're not implying that
(continued)
you think the "thief"'s behavior is merely reckless; we're talking trespassing &/or breaking-and-entering at the very least, which are crimes with victims.
> if he's got some dope on him, I'll tag him for that, too.
Not a crime of aggression -- has no victim (other than the one your action just created).
Do you see the distinction yet?
> It's not like I go out of my way to catch anyone who's NOT HARMING anyone.
Phew, one bright spot.
> But if they're dumb enough to do it right in front of me,
You mean, if they're dumb enough to NOT HARM anyone right in front of you?
> or while they're doing something else that IS harmful, I'll be more than happy to enforce those laws.
And right there, Officer "consider myself a libertarian", is where we part company; and, on the evidence, you still haven't grasped the elementary reason why.
> Police
(continued)
> officers just man the GATE to the criminal justice system, and provide a portion of the input to the process.
I repeat: "I was just doing my job/following orders" doesn't excuse you of your personal responsibility for your actions, or the results of those actions.
> We DON'T decide the final outcome, and honestly, most of the time, I really don't care what happens.
Thank you for conclusively demonstrating, for all to see, your desire to avoid personal responsibility for the results of your actions.
> I would sincerely like to have a dialogue about those differences.
If so, then I suggest that, in future, you try engaging in one honestly, and then it might happen.
> But that's never going to happen if everyone on your side insists on labeling everyone on my side thieves, thugs, or criminals.
But pigs could fly if they had wings.
> It's only bad if you cast yourself in the role of the frog.
No, only if your masters cast us in that role, an
(continued)
and we don't know it. (Except that we do, to their disadvantage.)
> I DO hesitate. I hesitate so much, in fact, that I only have to use or threaten any force about 1% of the time.
Unfortunately, despite your claims of good faith, we have only your word for that. As you have admitted your willingness to enforce malum prohibitum laws which don't have actual victims, I for one venture to disbelieve your claim.
> If their resistance escalated to an imminently lethal level,
You mean, their defense against your attack? (You also seem to have a difficulty in calling things by their right names.)
> My viewpoint (and that of the courts, whether you recognize it or not) is that the person who violates established, codified, published law
Like Jason?
Your "viewpoint" (and that of "the courts", which I--unlike you--recognize as part of the problem)
(continued)
assumes that "established, codified, published law" is an unchallengeable given, not subject to reasoned scrutiny. I beg to differ.
> by so doing incurs the risk that a police officer, charged with the responsibility of enforcing those laws on behalf of the public,
Check your premises.
> will seek to introduce the violator to the court system. If the violator then physically resists, the officer is authorized to use only that force which is reasonable and necessary to overcome the resistance.
Again, I'm sure that on some planet this false-premised cloud of verbal sepia sounds quite impressive; but nothing in it refutes the viewpoint that the arrest by the officer on the basis of some malum prohibitum law is an attack.
> You're asking me to stop arresting criminals?
No, because--again unlike you--I observe and acknowledge a crucial distinction between "criminals" and "law
(continued)
"lawbreakers": namely that "criminals" is a tiny subset of the set (as defined by your masters) of "lawbreakers".
> How would crime be dealt with in your ideal society?
Crime, or lawbreaking?
> Then, it's acceptable to you if I arrest only those people who are "acting unjustly"?
Now you're getting warmer.
> Whose definition do we go by?
Another red herring -- it's not whose definition we go by; it's what definition we go by, and for what cogent reasons.
> What if, for instance, we come across someone doing something which Odell and Beck consider to be unjust, but you do not?
Who's "we"?
"Doing something" to whom?
As to "doing something" I consider to be unjust, what did you have in mind? For example....?
> Okay, let's try something different.
Okay -- how about you addressing and responding specifically to more of the points that posters make and the questions we ask, instead of picking and choosing the f
(continued)
few, and ignoring (some might say "evading") the rest? That would be trying something different.
>Okay -- how about you addressing and responding specifically to more of the points that posters make and the questions we ask
For what it's worth I tried to answer some of Mac's new questions higher up the page.
>> When you call, I'm there in three minutes or less.
>Well, that could be either good or bad.
That is a really good retort! The Lord of the Rings reference was poignant too. You're a pretty good debater Odell, you wouldn't happen to have a webblog or something?
Wince and Nod:
"...and if you poke John Lopez hard enough, you'll find that he believes we can find a solution to that problem, but he haven't found it the last time we corresponded."
That's true enough, I don't have a solution for the elimination of tyranny. Of course, you don't either.
Likewise, I don't have a solution for preventing murder. But it's a funny thing: I can still say that murder (even one single murder) is wrong, rather than cheerleading my neighbors taking machetes to one another.
So what, exactly, is your point? That because I'm as ignorant as you are as to what to do to solve the predicament, that your position of figleafing evil rather than mine of exposing it is somehow... better?
Help me out here, Wince.
Sergeant Mac, you have encountered a den of anarcho-capitalists. Kudos to you, sir, for sticking it out so long. And thank you, Jason, for hosting this little discussion, though I suppose it's really Haloscan doing the hosting...
I appear to have invented a new "justice" idea in making slavery the restitution for irreversable physical harm. I'll reinvent the prison concept if I'm not careful. Shame on me. I completely ignored the entire free-market court system that would be necessary once the monopoly state system disappears. I'm not an expert on those theories, remembering only Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory and Wolf de Voon's The Freeman's Constitution. One thing I haven't read is that free-market courts would likely vary radically from place to place.
"Barely more sentient than a parrot," is certainly funny, but I haven't met any cops like that. A minority take advantage of their power and behave tyranically, and the majority certainly need to be selectively blind to what they're really doing in order to do their "job", but most seem pretty normal to me outside of that.
I'm surprised the Sergeant Mac calls himself a "libertarian", and wonder what he means by that. I use L. Neil Smith's definition, the Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap"):
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
Of course the important word is "initiate". Defensive force is allowed, encouraged even.
Of course all this anarcho-capitalist theory will need to be tested and tuned in the real world. Maybe it won't work at all, but my experience tells me that the America has been so successful due primarily to the anarchy in its culture. Successful despite an increasingly tyrannical government. I have decided that the entire government -- legislatures, executives, bureaucrats, cops, and courts -- have passed the point of no return, and that our system guarantees that should we manage to clean it up, it will happen again. Anarcho-capitalism appears to me to be the best choice for the next experiment in civilized living.
> On several sites I read, the authors even admitted to not having any solution in mind
>>Citations, please?
Here's one:
http://www.two--four.net/weblog....eblog.php?
id=P8
"I will not be a constructive critic.
It will not be my task to suggest utopic salvations. It should be enough for a rational person to point out what is wrong, and to leave the implications open to others who have minds to grasp them. In brief: the 'ought' really does proceed from the 'is'. Since what 'is', is wrong, then the 'ought' is clearly obvious enough."
There's another one I recall visiting, in which the author stated, "I'm not in the business of creating Utopias..." but I can't seem to find it again.
>>I'm surprised the Sergeant Mac calls himself a "libertarian", and wonder what he means by that.
I believe that (ideally) there should be no "victimless" crimes.
I believe that the government that governs least, governs best.
But I also believe that, if government is evil, that it is a necessary evil, and that anarchy does NOT represent freedom from "might makes right", but rather the EXPRESSWAY to it.
I think you folks look at freedom in a digital manner, but I see it as analog.
"But I also believe that, if government is evil, that it is a necessary evil,..."
If something is necessary, how can you label it evil?
>If something is necessary, how can you label it evil?
I think he means in the same sense that heart bypass surgery is a 'necessary evil' for a heart patient. Of course it is the repair of the arteries, not the risk of complications from the surgery, that is 'necessary'.
Were it not for human nature, ANY form of government would work just fine.
As would anarchy.
Were it not for human nature, there would be no NEED for the Zero Aggression Principle.
I don't believe that scrapping our government is the answer. I think it should be greatly minimized. I think that both the number and the scope of laws should be scaled way back. I think that I, and everybody else, lose entirely too much of our earnings to taxes. I don't approve of the way the government spends the majority of our money.
I know you're looking at "anarcho-capitalism" as an ideal way of life. Barring consideration of the challenges put forth by human nature, I'll agree that it sounds good.
But I don't think it can work in anything more than a rudimentary, law-of-the-jungle sort of way.
If the ideal is unattainable, how worthwhile is it?
I can sit and stare at a sow's ear all day long, thinking, "This SHOULD BE a silk purse." But in the end, I'll either hav
But in the end, I'll either have to settle for pigskin, or still be sitting there staring and wishing....
John Lopez said: "If something is necessary, how can you label it evil?"
Water is necessary for human survival. Too much of it will kill you.
Oxygen is necessary for human survival. Too much of it will kill you.
Proteins, carbohydrates, and fats are necessary for human survival. Too much of any of them will kill you.
But I'll grant you that the mere fact that they'll kill you doesn't necessarily make them evil.
Perhaps, then, neither is government, necessarily.....
Stefan,
regarding the Icelandic Free State:
"As Diamond writes:
'Originally, soon after settlement, Iceland had about 4,500 independent farms, but by the thirteenth century 80 percent of Iceland’s farmland was owned by five families, and all the other formerly independent farmers had become tenants.'
These five families also managed to buy up most of the chieftaincies, enabling them to dominate the courts and parliament. The concentration of chieftaincies in fewer hands also meant an end to the existence of competing chieftains within the same territory; Iceland began to be fractured into regions, each operating as a local monopoly or mini-state. During the years 1220-1262, the resulting struggle for hegemony among these mini-states broke out into open conflict, a crisis that was finally resolved only when the Icelanders, exhausted by civil war, invited King Haakon of Norway to govern them, thus bringing the Free State period to a close."
This is precisely what I'm
This is precisely what I'm talking about: human nature, greed, competition without concern for ethics.
> We DON'T decide the final outcome, and honestly, most of the time, I really don't care what happens.
>>Thank you for conclusively demonstrating, for all to see, your desire to avoid personal responsibility for the results of your actions.
Way to read my mind there, Odell....
How long have you had these psychic abilities?
Where in my statement is there anything about any DESIRE?
(Yes, Mr. Odell, two can play at maliciously pointless word games. How do YOU like it? Has it furthered the discussion at all?)
From "Civil Disobedience" by Thoreau:
" I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have."
I don't doubt it will happen. Are you ready, Mac?
"When men are prepared for it". That's when it'll happen.
> or behave in such a reckless manner as to harm you or your property.
>>Oh. You can predict the future then? If not, then does "as to harm" mean that the harm to person or property hasn't actually happened as such; but you just think it will?
Must you suffer a gunshot wound prior to shooting an armed opponent in self-defense?
I mean:
"No harm has actually happened as such" when he drew the pistol while staring right at you.
"No harm has actually happened as such" when he began to turn the muzzle in your direction.
"No harm has actually happened as such" by the time his arm was extended, and the gun was pointed in your direction.
"No harm has actually happened as such" as his finger whitened against the trigger.
"No harm has actually happened as such" while the bullet is in flight.
.....or do you just THINK that's gonna hurt?
>>I don't doubt it will happen. Are you ready, Mac?
Sigh....sure, why not. Bring it.
BTW, who will lead you?
>I don't believe that scrapping our government is the answer. I think it should be greatly minimized.
Why, precisely? If government regulation of, say, the oil industry is ethical, then why not total government control of the oil industry? If government regulation of drugs is ethical, then why not total government control of the drug industry?
>Were it not for human nature, there would be no NEED for the Zero Aggression Principle.
This is in reverse; the appropriateness of ZAP derives FROM the nature of man and his life. It's not something somebody just picked out of thin air as a "solution" that we "need"; it is intended to be a fundamental identification of a requirement for human life. Think of it this way S. Mac: You obviously accept some form of the negation of the ZAP, since you support government. What PRECISELY do you find wrong with the ZAP? What, in your experience, has led you to believe it is NOT a correct principle, something not applicable to human life?
(Sorry for the double post...)
Mac: "Perhaps, then, neither is government, necessarily....."
Perhaps, except for the fact that you're proposing a blatantly false analogy. The defining difference, here, is that it takes moral actors to commit evil. Obviously if a man drowns in the ocean, the water isn't evil, since the water can't choose between right and wrong.
A government is made up of individual men, like yourself. Humans are moral actors, therefore they are uniquely capable of doing good and doing evil.
The often-heard assertion that government is a necessary evil is nonsensical on the face of it, because if government is necessary for you to live, and it is evil, then you by definition live your life by evil means.
Not too many people are willing to cop to doing that. Thus, the only claims that are defensible are a) government is evil and not necessary, or b) government is not evil and is necessary or c) government is not evil and not necessary.
Supporters of gove
(cont)
Supporters of government, then, find themselves logically in camp #2, defending the position that government is not evil.
That position is demonstratably false, government subsists entirely on force and fraud, like any common bandit (proof: imagine how many people would pay taxes if they were voluntary: approximately no-one).
So it's quite clear that government is both evil and unneccessary. What to replace it with? Exactly what replaced Soviet collective farms and bread-lines and other government programs: the free exchange of values among individuals.
>Thus, the only claims that are defensible are a) government is evil and not necessary, or b) government is not evil and is necessary or c) government is not evil and not necessary.
Just out of curiosity, who ever defends camp c)? Consequentialists like Micha, perhaps?
>>What PRECISELY do you find wrong with the ZAP?
Answer: defining "initiation of force"
I see a problem there. If this is not absolute, then you find yourself moving the goalposts, and once that starts, where does it stop?
If it IS absolute, then no one can defend their property.
You come home and find someone sitting in your recliner, watching your TV and eating your Doritos. You tell them to leave. They refuse.
What now? Do you throw them out? Is that not initiating force, as they have offered none to you? Under the ZAP, would they not be justified in "defending" themselves against your "attack"?
Or is "peacefully" sitting in your recliner, watching your TV and eating your Doritos somehow considered "force"? And if that's so, what other exceptions can be made?
He would be trespassing on your property, and stealing your Doritos. Trespassing and theft = aggression. You would be clear to defend the rest of your Doritos and expell the invader from your recliner and house. Damn Dorito thief.
Stefan:
I'm unsure, but it's a possibility that must, logically, be mentioned.
>What now? Do you throw them out? Is that not initiating force, as they have offered none to you? Under the ZAP, would they not be justified in "defending" themselves against your "attack"?
I think you have a misconception about the nature of property; there is an essential unity between life, liberty, and property that is vital to understanding this example. In this case, one observes that you don't have to bash someone's head in in order to have "initiated force" against them; violating their property is *morally speaking* merely a variant of violating their life because property is the MEANS by which you live your life. The dorito thief is a trespasser, someone who has violated your property, hence HE is the one who has initiated force in this example, and you have all reasonable means at your disposal to remove him from your house.
Here's another example: Is it moral to use force against a thief in HIS house to regain YOUR stolen property? By your argument Mac, this
By your argument Mac, this would be "initating" force against the thief. But clearly it is moral to retrieve your stolen property; why? The reason is that the thief is aggressing against you by virtue of holding the stolen loot in his possession, and so you can go and get it back.
On the issue of property Mac, that link to David King's book is the best reference by the way. There is a rich classical liberal tradition about the nature of property that is typically not fully explored in schools today, so I highly recommend you check it out. Here's the link again:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/...s/Olympus/7695/
I've got that link saved, Stefan, and I've browsed through the book.
I'll admit I'm having a bit of a problem seeing past what seems to me to be just plain hatefulness, but I'll try and absorb it as my blood pressure allows.
>>So it's quite clear that government is both evil and unneccessary. What to replace it with? Exactly what replaced Soviet collective farms and bread-lines and other government programs: the free exchange of values among individuals.
Uhhh.....are you really holding up post-Soviet Russia as an example of freedom?
I might be able to see that, for a very brief period of time, with regards to economic freedom, but the Russians continue to keep folks under their thumb socially/politically.
>> there is an essential unity between life, liberty, and property that is vital to understanding this example. In this case, one observes that you don't have to bash someone's head in in order to have "initiated force" against them; violating their property is *morally speaking* merely a variant of violating their life because property is the MEANS by which you live your life
uh-oh. liberty.....see next post (don't want to run afoul of that 1000 character limit)
OK, so if I, as a police officer (which you're not AT ALL fond of), want to speak to you and say, "Excuse me, sir, could I speak with you a minute?", would any of you consider that an attack upon your liberty?
How about, "Stop!"?
And, if so, how much force do you believe you'd be justified in using to "defend yourself?"
"OK, so if I, as a police officer (which you're not AT ALL fond of), want to speak to you and say, "Excuse me, sir, could I speak with you a minute?", would any of you consider that an attack upon your liberty?"
Not if you peacefully accept my decline.
"How about, "Stop!"?
And, if so, how much force do you believe you'd be justified in using to "defend yourself?""
Then "you" would be guilty of initiation of force. It then, simply becomes an escalation/response senario. I ignore you. You grab my arm to restrain/detain me. I push it way, you put your hand on your sidearm and unsnap your holster. I do the same. You initiate a quickdraw, I respond in kind. The results will be based on practice, preparedness and, a little bit, on luck. Feeling lucky.
Feeling Lucky?
Understand, Sargent Mac, I, and most of those on this thread, wish you no harm. And there are some problems withthe scenario I just laid out. I'll get to those in a minute. But, libertarians and other freedom loving people are tired of the authoritarian intrusions on our lives. It starts at the federal level, then more from the state. These two levels can be ignored to some extent, in that they are mere legislation actions that have no effect until enforced or applied at the street level.
Now, when it gets down to the street level is where it involves you and me. If you approach me in a polite manner and explain what you are doing, what you are interested in and how you think I can help you, you might find that I am all too willing to help, if I can.
If, however, you decide to try to use an assumed authority over me, you will find me resistive. If you then escalate the scenario as above, don't be surprised to find me responding, in kind.
You have no right to my time, my property, or my cooperation. If I decide to give it willingly, that is one thing. But don't think you can take it by force. Won't happen.
Now, to the problems with the scenario;
1. - As soon as restistance is apparent, I know of no officer who is going to backdown to a challenge of his/her authority, even to the demise of his/her investigation or even the possible loss of his/her life.
2. - Most people are aware of problem #1 and have already decided how they will handle the situation.
3. - The officer has no way of knowing what the detainee is prepared to do.
4. - Some, knowing that the officer is likely to escalate all the way to the deadly force level (by drawing his weapon) have already decided that they will not follow the escalate/response scenario above, since it leaves them at a disadvantage in the draw. They will draw first.
I think this is a serious concern to you, as it should be. What I have gathered from your posts here, is that you would like a more free nation. You would like less government. You would like to not have to play out the scenario above.
Yet, you are unwilling to recognize individual rights. You are unwilling to recognize property rights. And, you are unwilling to stop doing the very things that make this country a police state.
I submit that yo make some form of the scenario,...inevitable.
Now you may pontificate on the law all that you want. You may defend the corrupted courts as the place to seek justice. But I would point you to a work, by Frederick Bastiat, called "The Law". The laws first duty (and yours) is to protect the natural right of defense.
Something that you would transgress in your attempt at authoriatarian structure.
From "The Law":
"Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right."
"If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable -- whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non- intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false phil
"The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy."
I'll let youread the rest at your leisure.
But please, remember, few here want to see your death or a civil war. But most here are willing to match your escalation, action for action, and accept whatever outcome prevails.
I only hope that local police and sheriff's departments learn this before too many examples have been made.
Then again, those first examples will probably be the worst LE offenders and rogues.
So maybe it will just be house-cleaning.
Let's be careful out there...
...everybody.
For additional reading:
http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2002/...0020107-
03.html
One more thing...
As someone above menteioned, early in this thread, you will be the one to set yourself up as an enemy of the people.
No one here is going to rifle through your car under pretense of a safety search. No one here is going to violate you house and steal your Doritos. No one here is going to order you to stop or do a "Terry" patdown of you.
We are not your enemy, until you make it so.
I really hate this character limit.
>I'll admit I'm having a bit of a problem seeing past what seems to me to be just plain hatefulness
You'd probably be a bit irritable yourself if you believed 99% of the population routinely tolerated and encouraged rampant injustice.
>OK, so if I, as a police officer (which you're not AT ALL fond of), want to speak to you and say, "Excuse me, sir, could I speak with you a minute?", would any of you consider that an attack upon your liberty?
David posted the best reply, so I'll just add my 2 cents. Use common sense Mac; everything in this scenario depends on perception of intent. Police officers right now are in the business of kidnapping, assaulting, detaining and searching, and sometimes killing and injuring people, sometimes criminals and sometimes innocents (as we have identified them). Right now, in America today, put yourself in that guy's shoes and ask yourself "What is the probable intent of this individual and the probab
Right now, in America today, put yourself in that guy's shoes and ask yourself "What is the probable intent of this individual and the probable outcome of a conversation with him?". Hint: If "lethal force" is part of your answer then you've correctly identified the problem.
>How about, "Stop!"?
See above. Now, if you were my next door neighbor shouting "stop", I probably wouldn't consider that an "attack" since I know him very well. But then my neighbors generally don't wear fancy hats and go around "enforcing law" on my either. And if you shouted "stop" because, say, I am about to run you over with my car then of course I would hit the brakes, but I'm guessing this isn't what you had in mind.
Consider this as well: as we have discussed, police officers sometimes act within the confines of justice, but often they do not. For example, last month a friend and I drove to a university to pick up a friend, and a couple of traffic cops stopped us as we were enter
For example, last month a friend and I drove to a university to pick up a friend, and a couple of traffic cops stopped us as we were entering. Did I regard this as an "attack"? Of course not; evidently the university officials WANTED them to be there to direct entering cars to the appropriate lot (this was during a ballgame or something). As I perceived the INTENT of the officers it was nothing more than them carrying out a job (on university property) of traffic direction delegated to them by the university, which they are perfectly correct in doing. A week later the same friend and I were on a public road, and a cop stopped us and told us to go around (I never determined the reason). In light of the fact that government prohibits private ownership and management of such roads, such an act seems to be an infringment (however minor, as in this case) on my liberty to travel. Since the officers had the road blocked and held pistols, it was in my best-interest to take another route to g
it was in my best-interest to take another route to get back home. Can you see the difference between the examples, Sergeant Mac? Cops are human beings, not infallible robots that are always good or always evil.
"Uhhh.....are you really holding up post-Soviet Russia as an example of freedom?"
No, my point is that institutions which are apparently vital to peoples' existences, which a government has monopolized via force (such as food production and distribution), not only work without the government, they work better. It's pretty obvious that food is more plentiful and more varied now in Russia than in Soviet times, and the reason for it is that the government isn't squashing the people producing food as hard as it used to.
It's another example of the fact that government is both evil and uneccessary.
Can you imagine DMV-esque feebs handing out rations to you? Can you imagine casting a vote for beer?
>>A week later the same friend and I were on a public road, and a cop stopped us and told us to go around (I never determined the reason). In light of the fact that government prohibits private ownership and management of such roads, such an act seems to be an infringment (however minor, as in this case) on my liberty to travel. Since the officers had the road blocked and held pistols, it was in my best-interest to take another route to get back home. Can you see the difference between the examples, Sergeant Mac?
Other than private/public property, not really. You've filled in what you believe to be the reason for the first instance, but not for the second.
I'm going to just go ahead and guess at the second, and ask if you think it would have been better for no cops to have been there blocking the road to keep you away from the.....downed power wire?......sinkhole?.......washed-out bridge?
Is it better if your car's wrecked and/or you're hurt or even killed, but at least
Is it better if your car's wrecked and/or you're hurt or even killed, but at least it was YOUR CHOICE?
I'm going to make some concessions here, so that you understand that I'm trying to work with you.
(And because I've never really had any argument about these things anyway -- they're self-evident.)
Yes, the absence of government would result in near-total personal freedom, theoretically limited only by personal morality, self-control and whatever social pressures might exist.
Yes, freedom is the RIGHT of every human being, and is the ideal state of being.
Yes, no person has the RIGHT to violate the rights of others.
(next)
I have no doubt that these IDEALS are perhaps the most worthy ones proposed throughout history.
Here's my problem: there are, always have been, and always will be people in the world whose selfishness far outweighs any concern they might have for the rights of others. While most others shy away from violence, they embrace it. This makes most people even MORE reluctant to interfere with them, again out of pure self-interest.
Now, I'm talking about the sort of common street criminal that I deal with day after day, but if it fits in better with your worldview, OK, I'll be the goat in this example:
(next)
Let's say that the US government is GONE. Offices empty, vehicles abandoned, former tasks in limbo.
I get together with my former comrades and we agree to start plundering. (After all, we're violent and armed and have no moral dilemma with "attacking" "innocents"....)
And so the 20 of us come and kick in your door and take what we want. You're not going to stop us by yourself, and we both know you're not going to even try...it'd be suicide.
So, after the fact, you start looking for help. Very few people are willing to put themselves in harm's way to help you. And, morally, no one can FORCE them to do it.....
So you want to hire somebody to help? Sure, Ragnar says, it'll cost you $20,000. That's insane, you say. Take it or leave it, Ragnar says.
So you go and see if your neighbors will jump in with you, to defray the cost. Nahhhh, rather not. And you can't FORCE them to, either.
Actually this situation has been repeated many times in history. Here is a recent case (1946), except the bad guys weren't ex-government officials, they were the current government officials.
The Battle of Athens
Well, when it comes right down to it, everything but the home invasion was a matter of CHOICE.
You CHOSE not to defend your property.
Your neighbors CHOSE not to join your posse.
Ragnar CHOSE to set his price, and you CHOSE not to pay it.
Your neighbors CHOSE not to help you pay the price.
Everybody has freedom to choose here. So why is it that you gain no comfort from that?
How many other house do you expect to 'raid' before the people figure out that it was not just me that you were after. People have and do rise to the occasion, when the occasion warrants.
You seem to take a dim view of a majority of the populous, Sargent Mac.
But your system gives those same hoodlums the authority of government to commit there crimes. What is the difference?
"If a man cannot be trusted with the government of himself, can he be
trusted with the government of others?" [Thomas Jefferson]
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. -- A city police officer charged with going on a shooting spree in a city housing project has resigned.
John Biehn, who is accused of shooting up the Marina Village public housing complex last summer, Wednesday submitted a letter to Police Chief Wilbur L. Chapman, who had wanted him fired.
Officer accused in shooting incident quits
Would a civilian even still have a job to quit? Or would he be behind bar?
So, let's say that everyone recognizes the threat that I and my band of rogues and bandits pose.....well, ALMOST everybody....
You've called for a meeting of everyone in your small village. The situation is grim. There are 30 of you. You've heard that my gang numbers 100, that we're more heavily armed than you, and that we're headed your way again.
The only saving grace is that Ragnar is still out there, and has enough men and weapons to defeat my gang. But he's raised his price to $30,000.
So you tell everyone that if everybody antes up $1000, the village can be saved. People hand over their money.
Wait. Why is there only $29,000 here? David says, "I'm not paying. I never said I wanted it, and I'm not paying for it."
But the JACKBOOTS are coming!!! "Don't care. That's YOUR problem." But you live here too.... "Don't care. You can't force me."
So everybody else forks over another $33.34, and Ragnar gets paid.
Do you boot David from t
Do you boot David from the village? By what right?
Or do you just accept that, even though he benefitted from your expenditures, he doesn't owe you anything, simply because he did not consent?
And, Mr. Goodyear, I'm not picking on you here. I picked the name "David" this morning when I thought of this scenario.
Oops...hit the wrong key.
I don't know why you want to continue posting fantasy "Magnificient Seven" stories. I could make one up that goes my way. In fact, since you and your gang are attacking homes and villages in a post government world, I would expect them to be fortified and capable of defending against even greater numbers than youm present.
But that misses the point.
Your way is to have the guys with badges do the looting and killing and use the courts to keep them out of trouble.
I'd rather take my chances in the world that you paint, instead of the one we have.
No offense taken. Thanks for the clarification, though.
What I'm ultimately getting at is that, while it wouldn't be IDEAL to your worldview, surely there must be some workable alternative, some happy medium, between absolute tyranny and absolute anarchy.
And I don't understand why you won't work WITHIN the system, using it as you would any other tool, to accomplish at least some of your goals, even though you don't agree with the system.
You see yourself as thinking outside the box. The box, of course, being the entire concept of government.
I contend that you're just thinking inside ANOTHER box.
>>Your way is to have the guys with badges do the looting and killing and use the courts to keep them out of trouble.
Is not then at least PART of the problem the LAWS those courts work with, if they permit the looting and killing?
What's wrong with CHANGING the laws?
You see, I have already accepted the fact that there are bad guys out there and that I need to be prepared to deal with them. The problem comes in identifying them. Many are now wearing badges, making it easier for them to prey on the deceived victims.
When I see you, how do I know which kind you are? My first guess will be by your actions.
What kind of impression do you want o make?
>>I'd rather take my chances in the world that you paint, instead of the one we have.
But what of those who WOULDN'T? What of those who "consent" to abide by rules made by others, and to pay them, in exchange for protection?
By what right do you insist that THEY cannot have what THEY choose?
"Is not then at least PART of the problem the LAWS those courts work with, if they permit the looting and killing?
What's wrong with CHANGING the laws?"
The laws prohibit such violations, even by the government. but since the government is in charge, they can give themselves a pass.
What's wrong with changing the government? Or as the founding fathers said:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,..."
"Of the 10,129 civil rights cases reviewed in FY1996(which included official misconduct complaints), just over .2 percent resulted in official misconduct cases filed for prosecution. If compared to the number of all civil rights matters fully investigated - by the FBI initially or after being referred to the FBI by the Civil Rights Division - the prosecution rate for official misconduct cases (including police abuse) is still less than 1 percent of cases investigated."
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/pol...lice/
uspo34.htm
"But what of those who WOULDN'T? What of those who "consent" to abide by rules made by others, and to pay them, in exchange for protection?
By what right do you insist that THEY cannot have what THEY choose?"
I did not say they cannot do as they please (as long as they don't violate any individual rights). By what right do they force their rules on me?
They cannot choose to violate someone else's rights. That is tyranny.
I have to go in now. No more playtime.
I will be back later...
In the meantime you might want to look at this.
>>the prosecution rate for official misconduct cases (including police abuse) is still less than 1 percent of cases investigated."
1) This doesn't paint the whole picture. How about disciplinary measure short of criminal prosecution -- suspension or outright firing? How many offenders resigned? How many complaints were found to be outright fabrications? How many were simply not rights violations?
2) Despite #1 above, you've identified a PROBLEM. The next step is to explore options in search of a COMPREHENSIVE solution.
>>In the meantime you might want to look at this.
I found it helpful, and did some further exploring at its root site. I can AGREE with and SUPPORT those folks.
I'd SIGN their new Declaration. I find it almost entirely reasonable.
I've done a little reading up on Ron Paul of Texas. In most areas, I agree with him. In some I don't. But I can always appreciate his logic. So I ask: what would be WRONG with trying to elect, say, 400 more just like him?
And wouldn't that further your goals a great deal?
"So I ask: what would be WRONG with trying to elect, say, 400 more just like him?"
Read: Fifty Ron Pauls
and the government
with Only One Law. (Warning: The Last Ditch is filled with creepy, creepy creeps. Despite that, there are gems such as this buried in the mire. Proceed with caution).
From the last page of that article, Mr. Lopez: "I do not know how we can best oppose the Permanent Regime. For that matter, I doubt that even the best opposition can overthrow or defeat it. That, of course, does not imply that we should not oppose it as best we can."
I say again, that sounds to me like, "Since there's no way for us to win by working according to our own narrowly defined worldview, we'll settle for holding our heads high, suffering mightily, and annoying as many other people as possible while we LOSE. As for the rest of you, thanks for nothing, you bastards, this is all YOUR fault."
Come on, folks. You can do better than that. Why not compromise a little bit, temporarily, in pursuit of ultimate victory?
Is a moral defeat better than an immoral victory? More just?
^^^^ That "Anonymous" one is mine, on the off chance you haven't gotten familiar with my style.
This Haloscan is a flaky beast.
>Do you boot David from the village? By what right?
If you take a man's house and throw him out on the street, how are you better than the plunderers whom you oppose?
>Ragnar CHOSE to set his price, and you CHOSE not to pay it
Well, people can make bad choices that don't violate rights. Injustice, despite the amount of attention we have been devoting to it, is not the only bad thing that can happen to people. You can stub your toe, for instance.
>2) Despite #1 above, you've identified a PROBLEM. The next step is to explore options in search of a COMPREHENSIVE solution.
We have offered a solution, you just don't like it.
>So I ask: what would be WRONG with trying to elect, say, 400 more just like him [Ron Paul]?
Well, nothing really. If government officials can be persuaded to violate less rights (in other words, to stop acting like government officials), I'm all for it. Your question is tantamount to asking your fellow inmates in a prison complex "Hey, let's
Well, nothing really. If government officials can be persuaded to violate less rights (in other words, to stop acting like government officials), I'm all for it. Your question is tantamount to asking your fellow inmates in a prison complex "Hey, let's all vote for the nicest possible jailors around". A few of your fellows respond "Well, why don't we keep working on trying to escape?". You respond "That's not a *comprehensive* solution".
I note two points:
1) People like Ron Paul are exceedingly rare and repelled from the corruption we have been describing in politics, thus difficult to elect, and
2) of those you CAN elect sometimes it's not completely clear who has the better conception of justice, if either. If you have a republican who wants a tax on alcohol and a democrat who wants to raise a property tax then they BOTH clearly acknowledge and approve of unjust taxation.
By the way Sergeant Mac, Dr. Long's talk is a good starting point for some answers (in a
By the way Sergeant Mac, Dr. Long's talk is a good starting point for some answers (in addition to David's) concerning your "Magnificent Seven" scenario; not having government-issued shoes doesn't mean everyone has to be their own shoemaker!
Actually, I thought the scenario looked more like Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome or The Postman. 
But I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion.
Right now, however, it's time to make preparations to ring in the New Year, as I'm sure some of you might be doing.
Happy New Year, everyone, and be safe. I'd say don't drink and drive, but......nahhh. See you on the other side.
Lopez: The last ditch has this on their page:
"TLD is a forum of opinion, edited by hard-core libertarians, that does not flinch from any of the most pressing issues of our time. We are especially interested in questions of culture and ethnicity, our Polite Totalitarian ruling class, and the homicidal humanitarianism of the U.S. Empire.
"
When you said they were "infested" with creepiness, which person(s) on there did you have in mind?
Sargent Mac said:
"1) This doesn't paint the whole picture. How about disciplinary measure short of criminal prosecution -- suspension or outright firing? How many offenders resigned? How many complaints were found to be outright fabrications? How many were simply not rights violations?"
Knowing that most people don't even know that they can complain in this channel about rights violations and knowing that they all know that it will be investigated by the 'government' before any action is taken, how in the world could I come up with figure of less than 50% for actual violations. Which means 49% are dismissed with prejudice.
"Actually, I thought the scenario looked more like Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome or The Postman.
But I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion.
Right now, however, it's time to make preparations to ring in the New Year, as I'm sure some of you might be doing.
Happy New Year, everyone, and be safe. I'd say don't drink and drive, but......nahhh. See you on the other side."
Those scenarios are possible but can't really last to long before economics and survival take over.
Will be drinking at home, thank you...that is still 'legal' isn't it?
Have a safe and Happy New year...
(sorry for the double post!)
Mac: "Why not compromise a little bit, temporarily, in pursuit of ultimate victory?"
Because "compromise", A.K.A. participation in electoral politics, can't bring victory - you can't vote your way out of the natural consequences of democracy. That doesn't stop most self-described conservatives and libertarians from trying, however: they're institutionalized.
Stephan: "When you said they were "infested" with creepiness, which person(s) on there did you have in mind?"
Crypto-Nazi Jared Taylor, on their "authors" pane, for one. Also note that they devote a section of their links page to such charming folks as Vdare.com, and worse.
>>Will be drinking at home, thank you...that is still 'legal' isn't it?
Sure is (even for minors, in my state), or even at a friend's house (not for minors, though) as I did before catching a ride home.
yep, I'm feeling a little good. And I have something to say, which I would still say on this New Year even were I stone cold sober:
I'm learning your way of thinking. I might not AGREE totally, but I'm trying to UNDERSTAND. For instance, I can understand why some if not all of you "hate and fear" me.
I don't hate any of you. I fear only what you might do, or force me to do (from my viewpoint, not yours). I went from being a soldier (TWO hitches, not just one, you rude SOB, whoever you were ) to being a cop because while I LOVE defending the sheep from the wolves, I HATE killing wolves that look a lot like me.
With any luck, we'll never meet "professionally", and if we do, I'll see no need to do anything more than remind you that what you did probably
wasn't all that smart.
Should that day ever come, though, I'd appreciate it if you'd meet me halfway. It might just make all the difference.
"I don't hate any of you. I fear only what you might do, or force me to do (from my viewpoint, not yours)."
I think that feeling is mutual. Personally, I would rather go fishing.
"Should that day ever come, though, I'd appreciate it if you'd meet me halfway. It might just make all the difference."
That is all any of us want. That is the spirit of cooperation, the freedom of association, guaranteed by the Constitution.
http://www.lp.org/issues/
platfor...atform_all.html
^^^^ I still say that their GOALS are virtually identical to yours, just worded more artfully, and their "transitional actions" are probably the best (as in most likely to succeed) way to get there.
Mr. Lopez, I know you don't agree on that last part. I read that TLD article.
My opinion is that those folks, you, and many of the others who have chimed in here, are IDEALISTS. Nothing necessarily wrong with that as long as you're just working for your own satisfaction, or that of God. Every religious leader I've ever met was an idealist, too.
I guess I'm just not that virtuous. I'd rather get things done, as quickly, efficiently, and painlessly as possible.
I'll wager that abolitionists were called "idealists" 150 years ago as well.
" I'd rather get things done..."
You'd think that once a particular course of action has been shown to be both immoral and impractical, folks would realize that nothing will "get done" by following that course.
[shrug]
"Hamsters need wheels." That's what I always say.
Mr. Lopez, I'd suggest that we are BOTH spinning our respective wheels.
Because I'm just not seeing the collapse you folks envision in our lifetime, and I suspect I'm a few years younger than you, even (40).
At least I'm getting some exercise....
^^^^sorry bout that
"I'd rather get things done, as quickly, efficiently, and painlessly as possible."
... quickly?, maybe... efficiently?, I think expediently is more apropos, though redundant to quickly ... government does nothing efficiently ... nothing.
Painlessly? Hardly, for the victims of government busybodies. And that brings us to the role reversal that will send the pain back to those who first inflicted it, and is the thing you fear most.
Sargent Mac, while you may agree that Jason got a raw deal, you are perfectly willing to accept and even support your brother officers actions. You hold up the 'law' as your source for your rightousness. Yet you ignore that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and that you gave an oath to uphold it.
We can wrangle all day or week or month over effectiveness or majority rule, but you will still be outside of your oath and outside of the 'Law', as written. In addition, you are outside of an moral right to persecute those whom you victimize.
It is clear that meeting you halfway is most of the way into my individual rights. That is something you will have to fight for, since I am unwilling to give them up on demand.
In closing, Sargent Mac, I would like to believe from some of your posts, that you are at least thinking about what you are doing and whether it is keeping to the spirit and letter of the law and you oath.
I say I would like to believe it, but, I think you have a long way to go.
I am going to provide this link. It will take you to an article about officers all over the country, waking up to what there true duty is. It includes a few other links. I hope you will follow them.
Good luck to you.
Mr. Goodyear, I was really hoping to find some help and hope in that link you offered.
Instead, I kept digging and found this:
http://www.hackcanada.com/
blackc...mergency_10.txt
Those are the actual words, from his radio program, of Jack McLamb, the founder and leader of the "American Citizens and Lawmens Association."
Someone was asking for a definition of "moonbat"? Ladies and gentleman, I give you Jack McLamb.
I am more in agreement with you folks than I am with him. He's one of those "New World Order", Trilateralist Commission, Bilderberger conspiracy kooks.
I agree with you that total freedom is the IDEAL state of being for any human.
I agree that everyone has the right to their OWN life, liberty and property as long as they respect those same rights of others.
I agree with the concept that force itself is morally neutral.
I agree with the concept that it is the unprovoked INITIATION of force that is the problem, and is morally wrong.
That's a start.
I believe that your best bet might just be to spread this:
http://www.isil.org/resources/
in...ntroduction.swf
far and wide. I's a very powerful presentation.
As I see it, the ROOT CONCEPTS of libertarianism are irrefutable.
The challenge isn't in the concept, it's in the implementation.
Put another way, it's not a question of where we're headed, but what route we take. (And, ultimately, just how far down that road we go).
I still have an aversion to anarchy. I equate it with chaos, suffering and rampant crime. Just my perception.
Stefan wrote:
>>>When you call, I'm there in three minutes or less.
>>
>>Well, that could be either good or bad.
>
> That is a really good retort!
I'm sure the man who wrote it appreciates your compliment
> The Lord of the Rings reference was poignant too.
Glad you caught that, it was the best analogy I could think of.
> You're a pretty good debater Odell,
Thank you.
> you wouldn't happen to have a webblog or something?
Well, yes and no.
Sergeant Mac wrote:
>>> We DON'T decide the final outcome, and honestly, most of the time, I really don't care what happens.
>>
>>Thank you for conclusively demonstrating, for all to see, your desire to avoid personal responsibility for the results of your actions.
>
> Way to read my mind there, Odell....
Way to assume facts not in evidence and jump to conclusions there, Mac....
> How long have you had these psychic abilities?
No "psychic abilities" were required -- just a willingness to read your own words.
> Where in my statement is there anything about any DESIRE?
How can your statement be taken to mean anything else but your DESIRE not to care about the final outcome (in the specific case of your enforcing malum prohibitum laws, please note)? Past that, what other logical inference is there than that you wish not to be held responsible in any way, shape, manner
(continued)
, or form for the final outcome? If you had any other desire, then you'd show evidence of it; e.g., you'd start to take seriously the oath you swore, and you'd behave differently from what you've already admitted you do.
BTW, a simple statement that "Yes, I am personally responsible--to the Constitution--for my actions and for the results of my actions" would put paid to this matter.
> (Yes, Mr. Odell, two can play at maliciously pointless word games.
Thanks, I did actually know that; but our exchanges thus far do not prove that two are. Disagreeing with your position, and wishing to expose it to the light of day, is not "malicious", despite your scorn; and none of my words are "pointless", despite what appears to be your lack of interest (at the very least) in directly addressing some of them.
I'm
(continued)
not playing "word games"; but I suspect, on the evidence of your failure to address substantively, much less refute, most of the points raised in this thread, that you are.
> How do YOU like it? Has it furthered the discussion at all?)
No. Your playing at word games, sarcasm and several logical fallacies, instead of substantive responses, has only confirmed my initial suspicion that you really weren't interested in engaging in rational discussion. But rather than forejudge the issue, I figured that if I gave you enough rope, you'd either hang yourself or make a rope bridge.
>>>or behave in such a reckless manner as to harm you or your property.
>>
>>Oh. You can predict the future then? If not, then does "as to harm" mean that the harm to person or property hasn't actually happened as such; but you just think it will?
>
> Must you suffer a gunshot wound prior to shoo
(continued)
> an armed opponent in self-defense?
[snippage of remaining allegedly-clever attempt to chop logic]
That's a mighty big straw man you've got there. Also, you didn't answer the questions. It might have strengthened your argument to calmly answer the second one (to yes-or-no questions, I suggest a simple "No"), and then explained exactly what you meant at first by "behave in such a reckless manner as to harm", perhaps illustrating with a specific example; instead of trying to chop logic and flying off the rhetorical handle (has it furthered the discussion at all?).
> I fear only what you might do, or force me to do (from my viewpoint, not yours).
Nice try, but no sale: you've already admitted that your masters, a
(continued)
and not I, force your actions.
> He's one of those "New World Order", Trilateralist Commission, Bilderberger conspiracy kooks.
You mean, he at least acknowledges the fact of conspiracy rather than being what you seem to prefer: a coincidence theorist? You mean, you prefer "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and name-calling using thought-terminating clichés, to scrutinizing facts and evaluating claims for yourself?
What David said.
> I agree with the concept that it is the unprovoked INITIATION of force that is the problem, and is morally wrong.
Your words contr
(continued)
contradict your other words.
My purpose in this effort has been to establish one of two things: either to show that you can be reasoned with to a correct conclusion, or--by your responses to Socratic inquiry--to allow you to demonstrate conclusively to this blog's readers that your position just isn't amenable to reason, and you can't be. (Either way I win, you see.)
Thus far:
- Your picking-and-choosing which questions you answer (some might say, "evading inconvenient questions")--in contrast to my diligence in addressing each of your questions, even if that's only to call in question their premises--doesn't reflect at all favorably on your intellectual honesty.
- Your fragmentary answers to the few of my questions you do answer--not to mention the way
(continued)
you fly off the handle, and begin shouting--are not looking good for your ability to reason.
- Your evident tendency to wander off-topic to tangential matters, without even trying to show how they connect, and your "hit and run", trollish comments such as those to Mr. Schneider, fail utterly to support your argument.
Hope the reading-comprehension problem works out okay.
Thanks for the exercise.
"My purpose in this effort has been to establish one of two things: either to show that you can be reasoned with to a correct conclusion, or--by your responses to Socratic inquiry--to allow you to demonstrate conclusively to this blog's readers that your position just isn't amenable to reason, and you can't be. (Either way I win, you see.)"
And you call ME closed-minded? I notice that nowhere in your statement of purpose, quoted above, appears either (1) finding the TRUTH, or (2) the possibility that YOU might be wrong.
Regardless, congratulations on your inevitable and brilliantly engineered victory, and all the fame and fortune it might bring.
As for myself, I've learned about your point of view, which was MY goal in continuing the discussion to this point.
A few of your links, some of Mr. St. Clair's, all of Stefan's, and especially that one big bomb of Mr. Goodyear's, have been very informative.
Good day.
Libertarians are to anarchists as nudists are to naked people.They're just middle class & organized so they appear less crazy.
An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican.
It's like the difference between a lover and a rapist.They're both in the same place but one uses violence to get there.
Commenting by HaloScan
