Of course, I never said any of that. Probably make up confessions from suspects, too, eh?
You're doing an excellent point of proving that cops do not have honor or integrity.
You don't even have the integrity to answer simple questions. Or the honor to truthfully represent what others said.
Joe
Seems to me like cops are Mafia 2.0
-Libertango
It looks like our friend, Crappy the Cop may be a true believer.
Does he really believe that one can do good by doing evil?
If so, how does one determine which end of the turd to be picked up is the one that is clean?
A stunned number of individuals wait in breathless silence.
Nahh, it's just another case of the state says it, I believe it, that settles it. yawn
"It's okay to aggress against peaceful people as long as some people calling themselves "legislators" tell me I can!"
[quote author=Whammo link=topic=4846.msg50513#msg50513 date=1299060373]
It looks like our friend, Crappy the Cop may be a true believer.
Does he really believe that one can do good by doing evil?
If so, how does one determine which end of the turd to be picked up is the one that is clean?
A stunned number of individuals wait in breathless silence.
Nahh, it's just another case of the state says it, I believe it, that settles it. yawn
[/quote]
Please tell me what evil is done when I help your grandma with dementia find her way back home? How is it evil to tell kids to walk on the sidewalk instead of one of the 4 lanes on the highway? How is it evil to corral your neighbor's dog that has been missing the last few days? How is it evil to stop the 18 wheeler with a bolt hanging out of the trailer tire and make them park the trailer?
Provide a reasonable answer to those scenarios and tell me how they are evil.
And Ian- provide an example of a SUCCESSFUL society that has no rules. I will define successful as a long-term, low or no crime, economically viable and social stable society. Go.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50532#msg50532 date=1299119623]Please tell me what evil is done when I help your grandma with dementia find her way back home? How is it evil to tell kids to walk on the sidewalk instead of one of the 4 lanes on the highway? How is it evil to corral your neighbor's dog that has been missing the last few days? How is it evil to stop the 18 wheeler with a bolt hanging out of the trailer tire and make them park the trailer?
Provide a reasonable answer to those scenarios and tell me how they are evil.[/quote]
Because you do them, while using equipment that you obtained by mugging people, and being paid a salary that you obtained by mugging people?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50532#msg50532 date=1299119623]And Ian- provide an example of a SUCCESSFUL society that has no rules. I will define successful as a long-term, low or no crime, economically viable and social stable society. Go.[/quote]
Lack of rules and lack of rulers are two different things.
"Do not initiate force/fraud against any person" is a rule. It's the only rule needed for a civilized society. Anything beyond that is some petty-minded child trying to enforce his whims on others.
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50532#msg50532 date=1299119623]
And Ian- provide an example of a SUCCESSFUL society that has no rules. I will define successful as a long-term, low or no crime, economically viable and social stable society. Go.
[/quote]
Why does Ian have to proof that Utopia would result when the current system is doing no such thing?
ALL that needs to happen for a society without rules to be better than the current one is for it to be the same and have ONE thing that is better.
Our current system is not long-term (yet), is not low or no crime, is not economically viable, and is not socially stable AND it has us all being robbed to fund force against peaceful people.
Therefore, if a society without rules can be mostly the same as our current system, and have crime, be economically unsound and be socially unstable, but be different in that it does not rob people to fund violence against peaceful people, then that society is per definition BETTER than our current one, simple because it's improved in at least one way.
Before you jump on your high horse and demand that we proof that a world without cops wouldn't be utopia, how about you go ahead and start by demonstrating how a world with cops is utopia.
If you can't do that, it becomes a debate of what is better… not a matter of what is perfect.
Please tell me what evil is done when I help your grandma with dementia find her way back home? How is it evil to tell kids to walk on the sidewalk instead of one of the 4 lanes on the highway? How is it evil to corral your neighbor's dog that has been missing the last few days? How is it evil to stop the 18 wheeler with a bolt hanging out of the trailer tire and make them park the trailer?
Provide a reasonable answer to those scenarios and tell me how they are evil.
And Ian- provide an example of a SUCCESSFUL society that has no rules. I will define successful as a long-term, low or no crime, economically viable and social stable society. Go.
[/quote]
Quite simply, 'government' is the Mob. Organized crime. Cops are their enforcers.
If 'Jimmy the weasel' helps grandmas, kids, dogs and truckers does that make him a good guy?
Just because you have a supposed obligation to follow arbitrary and easily circumvented 'rules' you somehow obtain gain some special right that individuals don't possess?
'Jimmy the weasel's' methods are more direct (not to mention more effective) but he doesn't have the illusion that he is a good guy.
A tyrant such as this will have good days too and be nice and helpful. But a man like you will twist that arm well- without remorse- every time because you're doing it for their own good.
My point about society is that you CAN NOT have a successful society without someone being the ruler. It just doesn't work. It is human nature to either lead or follow, and unless your society has but one individual with the desire to lead, you will deal with malcontents and anger, which leads to revolutions and violence.
In your utopia of the free state project, how do you deal with someone that plays his music too loud and too late into the night when you need to work the next morning? Assume the person playing the music is using his individual freedom to do so, and outright refuses your request to turn it down. What now?
^^^ It is human nature to be free. If you desire to follow somebody I don't think anybody here will stop you. It is when other people peacefully minding their own business are MADE to follow somebody at the point of a gun that problems develop. Look around, the evidence is everywhere.
You also seem to be under the illusion that many people here are advocating a "society without rules". I don't think that's the case. The first "rule" which I dare say the majority of people here "get" , and try to follow and a rule you may want to familiarize yourself with, is the one where you get to be left alone as long as you leave others alone. I like that rule. It's often referred to as the nonaggression principle.
When people deviate from THAT rule, rationalizations ensue. You bring up some of the "good" things a cop can do, that's fine, sometimes they can, but that is moving the argument into an area that you are more comfortable in and does not serve to justify the BAD things a cop does on a regular basis. Those bad things include enforcing laws that
take away rights and have nothing to do with helping peaceful people.
You can obfuscate the argument, but the TRUTH won't change. Your job is to enforce arbitrary rules more often than not. Putting together a list of "good things" you do is not a license to do other "bad" things, please don't try to sell that argument here, it will go nowhere. Save that for cop picnics. I sense you are smarter than that too, that's why you came here, because some of your co-workers may not be capable of the kind of conversation that requires intellect. Maybe I'm not being fair…but I bet I'm pretty close on that guess.
Your pay is not derived from a consensual transaction and relies on the threat of violence. You are responsible for the choices you make. "Just doing my job" is lame and relies on rationalizations as it's support.
I appreciate your being here and hope you stick around. Eventually you will either get angry and run away or you might hang in there. It takes courage to be open minded and accept what we thought we knew is founded in a lie.
There are alot of people here that I've learned from, you could do the same if you can stick it out and be open minded.
The truth is what it is, things that rely on the initiation of violence are hard to justify. Rationalize ? Sure. Justify? Nope.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50540#msg50540 date=1299151754]My point about society is that you CAN NOT have a successful society without someone being the ruler. It just doesn't work. It is human nature to either lead or follow, and unless your society has but one individual with the desire to lead, you will deal with malcontents and anger, which leads to revolutions and violence.[/quote]
A) No, that's not "human nature." Someone has never studied actual psych…
2) We already have "malcontents and anger," so that would be a lateral move, if so.
III) The overwhelming majority of human interaction is anarchic. Very few interactions actually involve a ruler. The rare individuals who cannot tolerate not being in charge, end up as hermits with no friends, because who will tolerate being dictated-to, all the time? If my friends and I want to order a pizza, I don't tell them, "we're having pepperoni, and I don't care what you want, so pay up for what I want or I'll kill you." We pull out a menu and we reach a consensus as to what we want to order.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50540#msg50540 date=1299151754]In your utopia of the free state project, how do you deal with someone that plays his music too loud and too late into the night when you need to work the next morning? Assume the person playing the music is using his individual freedom to do so, and outright refuses your request to turn it down. What now?[/quote]
Assuming you have no pre-existing agreements with him (in which case he would be in violation, and you would have a right to enforce something that he voluntarily agreed to), you add some sound insulation, or buy some ear plugs, or move. Maybe next time, you'll be smart enough to get agreements from your neighbors, before buying/leasing a place.
What you don't do, is take a situation where no force is involved, and call armed thugs to escalate it to a violent confrontation.
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50540#msg50540 date=1299151754]
Unless your society has but one individual with the desire to lead, you will deal with malcontents and anger, which leads to revolutions and violence.
[/quote]
Is revolutions and violence worse than no revolutions and violence?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50540#msg50540 date=1299151754]
My point about society is that you CAN NOT have a successful society without someone being the ruler. It just doesn't work. It is human nature to either lead or follow, and unless your society has but one individual with the desire to lead, you will deal with malcontents and anger, which leads to revolutions and violence.
In your utopia of the free state project, how do you deal with someone that plays his music too loud and too late into the night when you need to work the next morning? Assume the person playing the music is using his individual freedom to do so, and outright refuses your request to turn it down. What now?
[/quote]
What you're missing here is that YOU are the angry malcontent to which you refer. Why in the heck do you think you became a cop?
Police forces aren't there to police the people, they're there to keep angry malcontents on the 'good' side.
"A job for two, who are now of job age, the police." - Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (they then proceed to beat nearly to death their former partner in ultraviolence)
MaineShark has covered my problems with the police. That the cop who started this thread doesn't understand his arguments doesn't surprise me. It takes some amazing brain-washing to believe it's OK to kidnap people for smoking herbs or driving without a permission slip. Not necessarily a permanent disease, but rarely cured.
[quote author=Bill St. Clair link=topic=4846.msg50546#msg50546 date=1299180875]
"A job for two, who are now of job age, the police." - Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (they then proceed to beat nearly to death their former partner in ultraviolence)
MaineShark has covered my problems with the police. That the cop who started this thread doesn't understand his arguments doesn't surprise me. It takes some amazing brain-washing to believe it's OK to kidnap people for smoking herbs or driving without a permission slip. Not necessarily a permanent disease, but rarely cured.
[/quote]
I think the correct term here is Unmitigated Gall.
I am a government licensed busy-body. It's my job to get up in your shit.
If you don't answer my questions, I'll have a government licensed fit.
[quote author=MaineShark link=topic=4846.msg50542#msg50542 date=1299158113]
Assuming you have no pre-existing agreements with him (in which case he would be in violation, and you would have a right to enforce something that he voluntarily agreed to), you add some sound insulation, or buy some ear plugs, or move. Maybe next time, you'll be smart enough to get agreements from your neighbors, before buying/leasing a place.
What you don't do, is take a situation where no force is involved, and call armed thugs to escalate it to a violent confrontation.
Joe
[/quote]
Assume you DO have this 'contract' in place and he is infringing your rights, now what step do you take?
I find it very, very, VERY hard to believe that at 230am on a 'school night' where you need to get up at 530am for your job, you are going to be 'reasonable' if no one is there to enforce your 'contract.' This is especially true when all the stores are closed and you can't go out to buy ear plugs to stop the noise. So your next step is to pack up all your belongings, your memories, and your family to move to another location? That's absurd, and the beginning of the end of your 'society.' If you have to move every time there is a disagreement or an uncompromising party, you may as well plan on being a nomad.
And there is no reason for the rest of your posters to continue with the 'violence at the end of a gun' for a traffic ticket concept. I get it, and stated as much in my very FIRST post. But what you don;t seem to get it that your idea of a free society is doomed to fail based on simple psychology. Eventually you will get fed up with no enforcement, or you will get tired of moving away from your problems, or even get tired of buying earplugs. You need to realize that there must be an enforcement arm for your rules, or why bother having rules at all?
If you want to debate types of enforcement that you think might work that aren't at the end of gun, my simple mind can only think of one- ostracism. But ostracism may not stop the guy from playing his loud music, and he may just do it louder out of spite. In the end, there is ONE thing proven to keep the majority of us monkeys in line, violence.
If there is a contract in place, the loud music person will restitute the others at what ever the agreed restitution was or find that others will not "do business" with him.
Of course before it gets to that point, it's possible that a good neighbor relationship would have been cultivated and you could simply ask the neighbor politely if they'd mind turning the music down.
Violent solutions are not always needed. Speaking of which, how do you feel about arresting peaceful people for consuming a plant ? Do you believe that is an acceptable action? if you see yourself as a protector when one party is aggressing against another how do you explain when a person bothering nobody is aggressed against by police?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50548#msg50548 date=1299185934]
[quote author=MaineShark link=topic=4846.msg50542#msg50542 date=1299158113]
Assuming you have no pre-existing agreements with him (in which case he would be in violation, and you would have a right to enforce something that he voluntarily agreed to), you add some sound insulation, or buy some ear plugs, or move. Maybe next time, you'll be smart enough to get agreements from your neighbors, before buying/leasing a place.
What you don't do, is take a situation where no force is involved, and call armed thugs to escalate it to a violent confrontation.
Joe
[/quote]
Assume you DO have this 'contract' in place and he is infringing your rights, now what step do you take?
I find it very, very, VERY hard to believe that at 230am on a 'school night' where you need to get up at 530am for your job, you are going to be 'reasonable' if no one is there to enforce your 'contract.' This is especially true when all the stores are closed and you can't go out to buy ear plugs to stop the noise. So your next step is to pack up all your belongings, your memories, and your family to move to another location? That's absurd, and the beginning of the end of your 'society.' If you have to move every time there is a disagreement or an uncompromising party, you may as well plan on being a nomad.
And there is no reason for the rest of your posters to continue with the 'violence at the end of a gun' for a traffic ticket concept. I get it, and stated as much in my very FIRST post. But what you don;t seem to get it that your idea of a free society is doomed to fail based on simple psychology. Eventually you will get fed up with no enforcement, or you will get tired of moving away from your problems, or even get tired of buying earplugs. You need to realize that there must be an enforcement arm for your rules, or why bother having rules at all?
If you want to debate types of enforcement that you think might work that aren't at the end of gun, my simple mind can only think of one- ostracism. But ostracism may not stop the guy from playing his loud music, and he may just do it louder out of spite. In the end, there is ONE thing proven to keep the majority of us monkeys in line, violence.
[/quote]
You still don't get it.
What are YOU going to do?
Are YOU gonna be the guy playing the stereo too loud?
Are YOU going to be the neighbor or the stereo too loud guy.
That's the ONLY question.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50548#msg50548 date=1299185934]Assume you DO have this 'contract' in place and he is infringing your rights, now what step do you take?
I find it very, very, VERY hard to believe that at 230am on a 'school night' where you need to get up at 530am for your job, you are going to be 'reasonable' if no one is there to enforce your 'contract.' This is especially true when all the stores are closed and you can't go out to buy ear plugs to stop the noise. So your next step is to pack up all your belongings, your memories, and your family to move to another location? That's absurd, and the beginning of the end of your 'society.' If you have to move every time there is a disagreement or an uncompromising party, you may as well plan on being a nomad.[/quote]
If we have a contract, then his violation of said contract is an initiation of force, and I might even respond forcefully, if peaceful means do not work. I might do so, myself, or I might hire someone else to act on my behalf.
That's different from what you do, of course. You act on behalf of the State, not the victim, and will often act contrary to the wishes of the victim. You start out by bringing force into the situation, whereas to civilized people, violence is the last resort, not the first step. If someone harms me in violation of a contract, he owes me restitution. You, on the other hand, will fine him and send the money to your masters, leaving the victim uncompensated for the damage s/he suffered.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50548#msg50548 date=1299185934]And there is no reason for the rest of your posters to continue with the 'violence at the end of a gun' for a traffic ticket concept. I get it, and stated as much in my very FIRST post. But what you don;t seem to get it that your idea of a free society is doomed to fail based on simple psychology. Eventually you will get fed up with no enforcement, or you will get tired of moving away from your problems, or even get tired of buying earplugs. You need to realize that there must be an enforcement arm for your rules, or why bother having rules at all?
If you want to debate types of enforcement that you think might work that aren't at the end of gun, my simple mind can only think of one- ostracism. But ostracism may not stop the guy from playing his loud music, and he may just do it louder out of spite. In the end, there is ONE thing proven to keep the majority of us monkeys in line, violence.[/quote]
Enforcing the non-aggression principle, even at gunpoint, is acceptable. It's a universal moral principle - it applies in all situations. You try and enforce non-universal principles in situations to which they do not apply, like your ludicrous seatbelt example - there's a one in multi-billion chance of some insane situation occurring, in which not wearing a seatbelt would be immoral, but you will try to apply that extremely-situational principle to each and every individual who is in a vehicle. And you also enforce grossly-immoral rules, as well. I'm assuming that your lack of response to my questions on the subject means that you do regularly violate the inalienable human (and Constitutional, for those who care about such things) right to keep and bear arms.
That's the difference between "rules" and "rulers." Any rational person can derive the NAP, and no one has ever found a competing principle (at least, not that applies to h. sapiens - I can set up a thought experiment with a society of telepaths, where it turns out that you can pre-emptively use force, because you know if someone else intends to do you harm, but that's just fun and games not the reality of here&now). That's a rule, and it applies universally. "You may only have ball ammunition, which is less likely to stop your assailant effectively, and more likely to harm innocent bystanders" is something handed down by a ruler. It's insane on the face of it, and no rational person could derive such a rule from nature and human psychology. But you will happily enforce that nonsense, because you work for the rulers.
That's the difference between a legitimate peace officer, and a thuggish law enforcement officer.
Joe
[quote author=free libertarian link=topic=4846.msg50549#msg50549 date=1299187684]
If there is a contract in place, the loud music person will restitute the others at what ever the agreed restitution was or find that others will not "do business" with him.
Of course before it gets to that point, it's possible that a good neighbor relationship would have been cultivated and you could simply ask the neighbor politely if they'd mind turning the music down.
Violent solutions are not always needed. Speaking of which, how do you feel about arresting peaceful people for consuming a plant ? Do you believe that is an acceptable action? if you see yourself as a protector when one party is aggressing against another how do you explain when a person bothering nobody is aggressed against by police?
[/quote]
You might not do business with the guy, so instead he goes into town where he gets what he needs and bypasses you. You now lose TWICE- you lose business and you get the loud music treatment.