NYC - At least the people are honest about not goving a @#$% about liberty.

[Anti Federalist]

Most people don't want freedom, proof #3,927.



An Epidemic of Furtive Movement

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/05/14/an-epidemic-of-furtive-movement.aspx?ref=rss

It would be a New York joke if it didn't mean that 684,000 people were stopped on the streets of New York and frisked last year. In 2003, cops stopped and frisked 160,851 people and recovered 604 guns. This proved that stop and frisked worked, even if it meant the sacrifice of the right to be left alone of more than 150,000 people.

Last year, they recovered 780 guns, proportionately negligible, which again proves that stop and frisk works. Mayor Bloomberg explains that the reason so few guns per capita were seized is that people are afraid to walk around the guns for fear of being stopped and frisked. With that rationale, the program is a rousing success no matter what comes of it.

More than half of all stops were conducted because the individual displayed “furtive movements” — which is so vague as to be meaningless.

The data also show that the police are significantly more likely to use force when they stop blacks and Hispanics than when they stop whites. This means minority targets are more likely to be slammed against walls or spread-eagled while officers go through their belongings. Even when victims are unhurt, they are likely to develop a deep and abiding distrust of law enforcement.

Let's be clear: if police could stop at will anyone they wanted, they would turn up more illegal stuff, whether guns or drugs, than they would if they were limited by something like, oh, a Constitution. Same is true if they could search houses at will. Or people traveling on airplanes.

That Mayor Bloomberg has to stretch so far to spin what he knows to be a flagrantly unlawful program is telling. He's not stupid. Few billionaires are, and even then, they have the wherewithal to surround themselves with smart people. Somebody must have mentioned to him at some point that this really isn't kosher. When the Newspaper That Shall Not Be Named Here Anymore has an editorial stating that stop and frisk is a terribly wrong thing to do, does Punch Sulzberger think it's going to change something?

What this reflects is the Mayor's relative weighing of two irreconcilable responsibilities, one to protect New Yorker's from crime, and the other to respect New Yorker's right to walk the streets without being slammed against a wall for no particular reason. When David Dinkins was hizzoner, there were bloodbaths on the streets of uptown Manhattan, and chains ripped from the necks of white folks downtown. Dinkins wasn't as inclined to promote the police rousting people at will and people screamed about the murder and mugging rates. Of course, the crack epidemic might have had something to do with it as well.

But times have changed, as has the regime on power, and the mess that existed under Dinkins, and exacerbated under his successor, Rudy "If Only I Could Be President" Giuliani, have given way to substantially reduced crime, particularly gun crime. The penalties for possession of a weapon are far more severe than they used to be, and the demographics have changed as well.

So naturally, the solution is the perpetuation of a program at whose core is the evisceration of the constitutional right to be left alone. And naysayers aside, it works, even if it means that many hundreds of thousand of people have to give up a little so that the residents of Sutton Place can sleep at night.

Because filling out forms is the highest order of government service, police officers are expected to do two things: Each time they stop and frisk someone, fill out a form. Each time they fill out a stop and frisk form, state the basis for the stop. And so they do.

This has been going on since the beginning of the program, when naive people (like me) thought 160,851 people stopped for no reason was an outrage. Now that we're closing in on 700,000, maybe it's time to be honest with ourselves. While there has been some squawking from the Newspaper Who Shall Not be Named Here Anymore, the NYCLU and a couple bloggers, there has been no massive uprising against the stop and frisk program. Bloomberg continues in his post as Ruler for Life, and Ray Kelly bobble-head dolls continue to sell like hotcakes.

Forget Mapp v. Ohio, which the uninitiated seem to think applies, and even DeBour, which provides the constitutional limits to police seizures in New York. Every lawyer, every judge, every politician, every cop and certainly every black and Hispanic, in New York knows that to walk the streets of Manhattan is to invite a stop and frisk.

No, the law says they can't do it. Yes, they do it anyway. No, as the numbers climb closer to a million souls stripped of their right to walk on the street without being tossed in the name of safety, there are no cries of revolution.

There is no epidemic of furtive movements. Let's put the lie to rest, stop demanding that cops keep breaking the law again by filing false documents at the behest of the administration, and put up a big sign at the midtown tunnel: All persons subject to search.

The choice has been made and the Constitution lost. At least show New Yorkers the courtesy of being honest about it.

[Anti Federalist]

Bloomberg Likens the NYPD's 'Stop and Frisk' Program to Random DUI Checkpoints

Jacob Sullum | May 11, 2012

http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/11/bloomberg

This week, as Ed Krayewski noted yesterday, the New York Civil Liberties Union reported that as the number of "stop and frisk" encounters initiated by the NYPD grew from about 100,000 in Michael Bloomberg's first year as mayor to almost 700,000 last year, the share of stops yielding guns fell from 0.38 percent (one gun per 266 stops) to 0.033 percent (one gun per 3,000 stops). In a radio interview this morning, Bloomberg said that trend shows the program is working:

The number of guns that we've been finding has continued to go down, which says the program at this scale is doing a great job....The whole idea here, John, is not to catch people with guns; it's to prevent people from carrying guns. It's like a stop we have for driving while intoxicated. It would be great if everybody said, "Oh my goodness, I might get stopped so I'm not gonna drink and drive." That's great. That's what we want. That would be wonderful. And the fact that we're getting fewer guns says the program is working. And the program will really have succeeded when we don't get any guns.

If police were finding guns more often, of course, that would also be counted as evidence of the program's success, so Bloomberg really can't lose with logic like this. Furthermore, he seems to have forgotten that, under the 1968 Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio, police are supposedly stopping people based on "reasonable suspicion" that they are engaged in criminal activity, and the whole justification for frisking them is to protect officers and bystanders from hidden weapons. The reasonableness of New York cops' suspicions is open to question, since only 10 percent of last year's stops resulted in citations or arrests (including arrests for "public display" of marijuana, many of which were illegal). Although officers are supposed to frisk people only when there is "reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed," 56 percent of stops included pat-downs, which 98 percent of the time turned up no weapon of any kind. Now Bloomberg is suggesting that the stops, like the stops at sobriety checkpoints, are essentially random.

They are not really random, of course. As the NYCLU points out, they disproportionately involve blacks and Latinos:

In 70 out of 76 precincts, blacks and Latinos accounted for more than 50 percent of stops, and in 33 precincts they accounted for more than 90 percent of stops. In the 10 precincts with black and Latino populations of 14 percent or less (such as the 6th Precinct in Greenwich Village), black and Latino New Yorkers accounted for more than 70 percent of stops in six of those precincts.

Young black and Latino men were the targets of a hugely disproportionate number of stops. Though they account for only 4.7 percent of the city’s population, black and Latino males between the ages of 14 and 24 accounted for 41.6 percent of stops in 2011.

But Bloomberg's analogy to stops aimed at catching drunk drivers suggests that police have no real grounds—aside from race, age, and gender—to suspect these people are illegally armed or doing anything else criminal. The sobriety checkpoints upheld by the Supreme Court in 1990 involved suspicionless stops aimed at the special hazard posed by intoxicated drivers. The Court said police could briefly stop motorists and, if they noticed signs of intoxication, investigate further. It did not say police could randomly stop people to find illegal guns or detect crime in general. A decade later, in fact, the Court said "the general interest in crime control" could not justify such stops, which are considered "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment. As described by Bloomberg, the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program is justified not by individualized suspicion but by its general deterrent effect. It therefore appears to be unconstitutional under the relevant precedents.

[ZenBowman]

Saying that people don't want freedom is dishonest.

Is it so clear that freedom in NYC has gone down of late? I certainly don't believe so.

It wasn't too long ago that NYC was a pretty unsafe place, people didn't feel free to walk around unmolested by thugs. Was the increasingly intrusive policing a factor in turning that around? I'm not sure, but its pretty clear that as a city, NYC is a much freer place than it was 15 years ago. New Yorkers perceive that stop and frisk is a positive factor, and perception drives their decisions.

What we can say is that they prefer the tyranny of the NYPD over the tyranny of criminals, freedom wasn't really a choice they had. This is why such decisions should be as local as possible. It's hard for you or me living in relative security to pass judgment on what New Yorkers want or do not want.

By the way, people in large urban environments overwhelmingly support gun control, globally, even in countries where the media propaganda is far less than the USA. To assume that everyone who lives in a city hates freedom is silly. The environment drives the decision making. And this is actually a good example of why such decisions can only be made by people living in that particular environment.

[phill4paul]

Bloomberg Likens the NYPD's 'Stop and Frisk' Program to Random DUI Checkpoints

Next up...random home 'inspections.'

[Anti Federalist]

So, you're saying that we could have a lot more "freedom" by, for example, erecting cameras in everybody's home to watch them 24/7?

If the denizens of NYC had the freedom to keep and bear arms, then they perhaps would not have been so willing to surrender all the rest of their freedoms in exchange for security.

Because that's what you are talking about here.

Freedom to be safe from a mugger is not freedom, that is security.

Freedom is dangerous. Just like NYC used to be in the 1970s and 1980s.

Given the choice between the two, I'd take old NYC over the new "Surveillance City" any day of the week.

Not that it makes any difference really, where one lives, people, as a whole, do not want freedom and never have.

They want what people have wanted since time began: to be fed, entertained and exercise petty power over their fellow man.

They also do not like to change things, even when things have gone bad, they'll suffer under systems they are used to, rather than make radical changes or abolish those systems.


Saying that people don't want freedom is dishonest.

Is it so clear that freedom in NYC has gone down of late? I certainly don't believe so.

It wasn't too long ago that NYC was a pretty unsafe place, people didn't feel free to walk around unmolested by thugs. Was the increasingly intrusive policing a factor in turning that around? I'm not sure, but its pretty clear that as a city, NYC is a much freer place than it was 15 years ago. New Yorkers perceive that stop and frisk is a positive factor, and perception drives their decisions.

What we can say is that they prefer the tyranny of the NYPD over the tyranny of criminals, freedom wasn't really a choice they had. This is why such decisions should be as local as possible. It's hard for you or me living in relative security to pass judgment on what New Yorkers want or do not want.

By the way, people in large urban environments overwhelmingly support gun control, globally, even in countries where the media propaganda is far less than the USA. To assume that everyone who lives in a city hates freedom is silly. The environment drives the decision making. And this is actually a good example of why such decisions can only be made by people living in that particular environment.

[Danke]

Let everyone carry a weapon, bet crime would go down.

[ZenBowman]

So, you're saying that we could have a lot more "freedom" by, for example, erecting cameras in everybody's home to watch them 24/7?

No.



Freedom is dangerous. Just like NYC used to be in the 1970s and 1980s.

Given the choice between the two, I'd take old NYC over the new "Surveillance City" any day of the week.


And most New Yorkers disagree, which is fine.

I would say that you don't have much freedom if you are physically unsafe as well, they are two different types of violations of freedom.

[ZENemy]

Let everyone carry a weapon, bet crime would go down.

man....we should make it law that everyone can carry a weapon, it could be an admentment or something?

oh wait.....

[ZenBowman]

Let everyone carry a weapon, bet crime would go down.

Crime has gone down in NYC significantly. I'm a gun owner, but we should stick to facts and not wild assumptions when debating.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

So, you're saying that we could have a lot more "freedom" by, for example, erecting cameras in everybody's home to watch them 24/7?

If the denizens of NYC had the freedom to keep and bear arms, then they perhaps would not have been so willing to surrender all the rest of their freedoms in exchange for security.

Because that's what you are talking about here.

Freedom to be safe from a mugger is not freedom, that is security.

Freedom is dangerous. Just like NYC used to be in the 1970s and 1980s.

Given the choice between the two, I'd take old NYC over the new "Surveillance City" any day of the week.

Not that it makes any difference really, where one lives, people, as a whole, do not want freedom and never have.

They want what people have wanted since time began: to be fed, entertained and exercise petty power over their fellow man.

They also do not like to change things, even when things have gone bad, they'll suffer under systems they are used to, rather than make radical changes or abolish those systems.

If someone is afraid for their life (whether real or percieved) it's natural they would prefer security over liberty...

Most of this "fear" is mass media created propoganda...

People are kept in a constant state of terror by news and TV shows that alter their percieved reality in to the authoritarian mindset.

Fix this mostly irrational fear and they will realize the real threat is their liberties.

[ZenBowman]

If someone is afraid for their life (whether real or percieved) it's natural they would prefer security over liberty...

Most of this "fear" is mass media created propoganda...

People are kept in a constant state of terror by news and TV shows that alter their percieved reality in to the authoritarian mindset.

Fix this mostly irrational fear and they will realize the real threat is their liberties.

Exactly.

Historically, freedom only comes about when people are relatively unafraid. In a state of high crime, that isn't happening. Most urban environments tend to be high crime, so claiming people "hate freedom" in these environments is silly. It's not that they hate freedom, its that they hate the alternative more.

Ideally, we'd find a way to maintain both security and liberty, and part of our job is to think of ways to accomplish this, not to belittle people for choosing security.

[aGameOfThrones]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. " C.S. Lewis.

[Anti Federalist]

I would say that you don't have much freedom if you are physically unsafe as well, they are two different types of violations of freedom.

That's like FDR saying you have a right to be "free from fear".

You have right to defend yourself.

The city and state of NY have taken that away from people.

Now, to be "free from fear" they must, by necessity, destroy true freedoms of everybody that lives there in an attempt to make people safe.

I'm all for local control, to a point. You do not have the right to tyrannize me because you wish to feel "safe".

In the end, it's doomed to failure and oppression, since the muggers will now be the guys you hired to keep you safe in the first place.

And having convinced the people that is the only way to keep them safe, they will clamor for more and more intrusive power.

Put surveillance and night cameras and sound recording equipment in every room of every home, all hooked into the police grid, have cops randomly frisk everybody on the street, hire a 100,000 more cops to hut hut around with automatic weapons, give them the power to shoot to kill any act of malfeasance they see, have every financial transaction tied into the surveillance grid as well, ban any "civilian" ownership of any weapon of any kind, put biometric checkpoints in at every subway stop, ban any private automobiles...

And you'll be on your way to creating a pretty crime free and "safe" society.

Can you call that freedom in any sense of the word?

[ZenBowman]

That's like FDR saying you have a right to be "free from fear".

Well, that's a different and fictional right. You do have a right to be free from physical violence.



Can you call that freedom in any sense of the word?

No, but you cannot call a violent and crime-ridden society free either.

Violence is violence, whether from government or from street thugs. The constant presence of violence is incompatible with freedom.

You seem to claim that part of being free is being free from state oppression (which I agree with). But I would say that you also should be free from criminal oppression. You cannot say that government oppression is anti-freedom while claiming criminal oppression is not anti-freedom.

[Anti Federalist]

Exactly.

Historically, freedom only comes about when people are relatively unafraid. In a state of high crime, that isn't happening. Most urban environments tend to be high crime, so claiming people "hate freedom" in these environments is silly. It's not that they hate freedom, its that they hate the alternative more.

I don't buy that for a second. People in suburban and rural areas hate freedom just as much.

They just hate different kinds of freedom.


Ideally, we'd find a way to maintain both security and liberty, and part of our job is to think of ways to accomplish this, not to belittle people for choosing security.

It was already thought of.

It's called the Bill of Rights.

Security (at least government provided security) will always be at odds with liberty.

When one gains, the other loses.

[Danke]

Crime has gone down in NYC significantly. I'm a gun owner, but we should stick to facts and not wild assumptions when debating. Didn't come here for a debate, especially not with a fool.

[ZenBowman]

It was already thought of.

It's called the Bill of Rights.

Security (at least government provided security) will always be at odds with liberty.

When one gains, the other loses.

I don't think so. In order for liberty to flourish, you need physical security and vice-versa.

Liberty does not flourish where there is high crime.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than the absolute loss of ones soul.

[Anti Federalist]

Violence is violence, whether from government or from street thugs. The constant presence of violence is incompatible with freedom.

Well, now you've opened a can of worms.


"No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government." - Thomas Jefferson

I happen to agree, and I agree with a multitude of similar quotes from the founders as well.

Only a virtuous people can remain free.

And we, as a people, are no longer virtuous in any sense of the word.

So, with a lack of virtue comes corruption, crime and decline.

And with that comes the call for more and more "control" and "crack downs".

Suddenly: tyranny.

It's nothing new and has happened to thousands of cultures and societies over the ages.

[fisharmor]

By the way, people in large urban environments overwhelmingly support gun control, globally, even in countries where the media propaganda is far less than the USA. To assume that everyone who lives in a city hates freedom is silly.

So, people in cities overwhelmingly hate freedom, but to assume that is silly..... ?
:confused:

[puppetmaster]

I hope that when it gets bad, Bloomberg will be tried for treason, convicted and punished as a war criminal

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I don't buy that for a second. People in suburban and rural areas hate freedom just as much.

They just hate different kinds of freedom.


It was already thought of.

It's called the Bill of Rights.

Security (at least government provided security) will always be at odds with liberty.

When one gains, the other loses.

It's like a two headed dragon...

Intellectual tyranny (Statist ideas) being one head and the psychological need for security that leads to authoritarianism being the other.

I think that the intellectual tyranny is more of a threat, but we can defeat it, if those around us begin to think rationally,

but many are trapped in this state of terror by the very policies of the government they think is protecting them.

[fisharmor]

Crime has gone down in NYC significantly. I'm a gun owner, but we should stick to facts and not wild assumptions when debating.

So you contend that it's a "wild assumption" that when the general population goes about armed, crime is not reduced?

[Anti Federalist]

So, people in cities overwhelmingly hate freedom, but to assume that is silly..... ?
:confused:

I owe you a rep when I get more ammo.

Sometimes I get drawn into a discussion and neglect to see the forest for the trees.

[puppetmaster]

Well, that's a different and fictional right. You do have a right to be free from physical violence.



No, but you cannot call a violent and crime-ridden society free either.

Violence is violence, whether from government or from street thugs. The constant presence of violence is incompatible with freedom.

You seem to claim that part of being free is being free from state oppression (which I agree with). But I would say that you also should be free from criminal oppression. You cannot say that government oppression is anti-freedom while claiming criminal oppression is not anti-freedom.

To be a free society laws must be written to defend a victim after a crime has been alleged/commited. If there is no victim there can be no crime. When there is a crime the our constitutional justice system is capable of dealing with the issue. When you violate ones rights to achieve a false sense of security you are actually breaking the very law you say you are defending.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Exactly.

Historically, freedom only comes about when people are relatively unafraid. In a state of high crime, that isn't happening. Most urban environments tend to be high crime, so claiming people "hate freedom" in these environments is silly. It's not that they hate freedom, its that they hate the alternative more.

Ideally, we'd find a way to maintain both security and liberty, and part of our job is to think of ways to accomplish this, not to belittle people for choosing security.

As I'm sure you are aware - there is an intellectual push against Liberty and Freedom.

So there are those among us that do HATE Liberty...

The other's are just incapable of rationalizing and deciphering the real problem due to their state of fear.

[Anti Federalist]

Relevant:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112396.html

How Many Private Americans Died in 2010 Due to Terror Incidents?

Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on May 21, 2012 10:44 AM

Fifteen (15) according to the U.S. government's 2010 Report on Terrorism, the most comprehensive of its kind. Of these, thirteen (13) were in Afghanistan, one (1) in Iraq, and one (1) in Uganda.

These data suggest that the War on Terror for the sake of American security is entirely fraudulent. They suggest that the unbelievably high U.S. military expenditures that are often loosely linked to terror concerns cannot be justified by any conceivable terror threats.

Further evidence in support of these inferences are data from the same report on the total deaths by country worldwide associated with terror incidents in 2010. The largest number is 3,364 in Iraq. The second largest is 3,202 in Afghanistan. The U.S. attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan have without question caused terrorist attacks to soar in those two countries. Before the U.S. made war on Saddam Hussein and on the Taliban, who ever heard of terrorism being a problem in those lands? And who in his right mind regarded whatever terrorism existed there as a significant threat to America or American lives?

[ZenBowman]

To be a free society laws must be written to defend a victim after a crime has been alleged/commited. If there is no victim there can be no crime. When there is a crime the our constitutional justice system is capable of dealing with the issue. When you violate ones rights to achieve a false sense of security you are actually breaking the very law you say you are defending.

Agreed, which is why I said for true freedom you need both freedom from state and criminal oppression. One without the other is not really freedom. Physical security is a part of freedom.

To say that government oppression ends freedom and criminal oppression does not is inconsistent. Both of them are anti-freedom.

[Anti Federalist]

To say that government oppression ends freedom and criminal oppression does not is inconsistent. Both of them are anti-freedom.

I can deal with street crime, or at least have a fighting chance against it, even against organized crime.

I have no chance as one man against the forces of the state if they choose to oppress me or carry out criminal acts against me.

Crooks with badges > crooks without.

[puppetmaster]

Agreed, which is why I said for true freedom you need both freedom from state and criminal oppression. One without the other is not really freedom. Physical security is a part of freedom.

To say that government oppression ends freedom and criminal oppression does not is inconsistent. Both of them are anti-freedom.

Being assaulted without probable cause is a crime whether it is done by a individual or a government I agree. Walking down the street in NYC is NOT justification for a probable cause pat down by any stretch.

[Anti Federalist]

Relevant:



A Virginia-based Piedmont Airlines pilot was arrested today at the Buffalo airport for trying to bring a loaded .357 Magnum aboard a LaGuardia-bound flight.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/national/article/255902/81/Pilot-arrested-at-Buffalo-airport-with-loaded-gun-in-bag

Authorities said he had flown seven other flights since Wednesday with the gun in his bag, the Buffalo News says.

Brett Dieter, 52, of Barbersville, Va., was charged after a Transportation Security Administration screener spotted what appeared to be a handgun concealed in his carry-on this morning. The bag apparently did not pass through X-ray screening Wednesday in Charlottesville, Va., where he piloted a flight to LaGuardia. Piedmont is a subsidiary of US Airways.

Police at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport reported the Smith & Wesson revolver was loaded with five rounds.

Dieter appeared before a federal magistrate this afternoon and was released. He is due back in federal court Wednesday. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail and a $250,000 fine.

"While under certain circumstances, certain Government officials - such as sworn law enforcement officers - are allowed to travel with firearms on airplanes, the law is clear regarding the steps that must be taken before a gun is brought onto a plane," U.S. Attorney William J. Hochul Jr. said in a statement. "In today's day and age, we simply can't afford to have anyone ignore these important regulations, all of which are designed to protect the traveling public."

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Saying that people don't want freedom is dishonest.

Is it so clear that freedom in NYC has gone down of late? I certainly don't believe so.

It wasn't too long ago that NYC was a pretty unsafe place, people didn't feel free to walk around unmolested by thugs. Was the increasingly intrusive policing a factor in turning that around? I'm not sure, but its pretty clear that as a city, NYC is a much freer place than it was 15 years ago. New Yorkers perceive that stop and frisk is a positive factor, and perception drives their decisions.

What we can say is that they prefer the tyranny of the NYPD over the tyranny of criminals, freedom wasn't really a choice they had. This is why such decisions should be as local as possible. It's hard for you or me living in relative security to pass judgment on what New Yorkers want or do not want.

By the way, people in large urban environments overwhelmingly support gun control, globally, even in countries where the media propaganda is far less than the USA. To assume that everyone who lives in a city hates freedom is silly. The environment drives the decision making. And this is actually a good example of why such decisions can only be made by people living in that particular environment.

I am in NYC and lived here on and off since '81.

The city is like a different place, akin to a police state these days.

If, perhaps, you look like one of " them " or priveleged, this is probably not upsetting to you.

Even the guy that made the I Heart NY was arrested a few days ago, and got an additional 30 days in the clink for " planting bombs " , crazy place now, seems to have no flavor.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/ny-artist-arrested-planting-bombs-brooklyn-180941117.html

[Anti Federalist]

Freedom.


I am in NYC and lived here on and off since '81.

The city is like a different place, akin to a police state these days.

If, perhaps, you look like one of " them " or priveleged, this is probably not upsetting to you.

Even the guy that made the I Heart NY was arrested a few days ago, and got an additional 30 days in the clink for " planting bombs " , crazy place now, seems to have no flavor.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/ny-artist-arrested-planting-bombs-brooklyn-180941117.html

[ZenBowman]

Freedom.

Strawman, I never made the claim that police statism was freedom.

What I said was that rampant criminality isn't freedom either.

[JK/SEA]

Strawman, I never made the claim that police statism was freedom.

What I said was that rampant criminality isn't freedom either.

criminality is part of the price you pay for living in a free society, otherwise you advocate rampant police abuse and tyranny on a grand scale. No one ever promised you a rose garden. As for Bloomberg...New Yorkers deserve this scum bag.

[LimitedGovernment]

criminality is part of the price you pay for living in a free society, otherwise you advocate rampant police abuse and tyranny on a grand scale. No one ever promised you a rose garden. As for Bloomberg...New Yorkers deserve this scum bag.

Is this a troll thread?

This is all coming down to a fundamental difference - with one side focused on utility and the other focused on principle.

This is the point where you either agree to disagree and focus on issues of common interest, or you calm down and have a discussion about reasons for the respective positions.

[Valli6]

I am in NYC and lived here on and off since '81.

The city is like a different place, akin to a police state these days.

If, perhaps, you look like one of " them " or priveleged, this is probably not upsetting to you.

Even the guy that made the I Heart NY was arrested a few days ago, and got an additional 30 days in the clink for " planting bombs " , crazy place now, seems to have no flavor.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/ny-artist-arrested-planting-bombs-brooklyn-180941117.html

I used to go to NYC all the time and worked there (commuted). Over the last 10 years everything became different. There's military-looking guys with guns standing around the train stations, you can't help but notice how everything's been made overly secured and safe, and a lot of ordinary behavior is no longer permitted. It used to seem exciting and interesting. Now it's controlled. I rarely go there anymore. In fact, I think the last 2 times I was there, was for Ron Paul's book signings.

I'd once heard a different perspective on the crime there - My friend lived in a part of downtown NYC throughout the 80's and into the early 90's. (around ave C I think) Her neighborhood was known for selling drugs. She said the neighborhood became more dangerous after the city started it's big push to end crime (this was pre-9/11). Before then, the drug dealers always had people around to keep the muggers away, because If customers got mugged it was bad for business. (Sort of like the free black market taking care of a problem, I guess) They never bothered the people who lived there and no one really cared about the drugs. They felt reasonably safe. During one of these big "anti-crime" pushes, they got rid of all the drug dealers, but they didn't stick around to deal with the new influx of muggers, so now the people who lived there were getting robbed.

[No Free Beer]

So, you're saying that we could have a lot more "freedom" by, for example, erecting cameras in everybody's home to watch them 24/7?

If the denizens of NYC had the freedom to keep and bear arms, then they perhaps would not have been so willing to surrender all the rest of their freedoms in exchange for security.

Because that's what you are talking about here.

Freedom to be safe from a mugger is not freedom, that is security.

Freedom is dangerous. Just like NYC used to be in the 1970s and 1980s.

Given the choice between the two, I'd take old NYC over the new "Surveillance City" any day of the week.

Not that it makes any difference really, where one lives, people, as a whole, do not want freedom and never have.

They want what people have wanted since time began: to be fed, entertained and exercise petty power over their fellow man.

They also do not like to change things, even when things have gone bad, they'll suffer under systems they are used to, rather than make radical changes or abolish those systems.

Here's a great 1923 quote from H.L. Mencken:

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths
imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth....
He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit
alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the
great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and
disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor.
It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and
he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."

[JK/SEA]

This is all coming down to a fundamental difference - with one side focused on utility and the other focused on principle.

This is the point where you either agree to disagree and focus on issues of common interest, or you calm down and have a discussion about reasons for the respective positions.

The only thing i can take away with your posts is that you support gun confiscation because it makes you feel safer at the expense of Constitutional Amendments. Maybe you'd like to clarify your true position, as this is an issue that isn't really that difficult to figure out. Principle wins hands down.

[Anti Federalist]

Great quote and couldn't agree more.


Here's a great 1923 quote from H.L. Mencken:

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths
imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth....
He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit
alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the
great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and
disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor.
It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and
he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."

[Anti Federalist]

This is all coming down to a fundamental difference - with one side focused on utility and the other focused on principle.

This is the point where you either agree to disagree and focus on issues of common interest, or you calm down and have a discussion about reasons for the respective positions.

A government solely dedicated to "utility" leads to death camps, gulags and killing fields.

[heavenlyboy34]

Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than the absolute loss of ones soul.
No. Liberty (whether for the sake of liberty or something else) is the pursuit of virtue. (Men without virtue do not remain free)

[heavenlyboy34]

A government solely dedicated to "utility" leads to death camps, gulags and killing fields.
QFT. Utilitarianism=fail.

[LimitedGovernment]

The only thing i can take away with your posts is that you support gun confiscation because it makes you feel safer at the expense of Constitutional Amendments. Maybe you'd like to clarify your true position, as this is an issue that isn't really that difficult to figure out. Principle wins hands down.

How can you come to any conclusion about my views on guns, given that this is the first post that I've made in this thread, and that I haven't really commented on guns anywhere else on this forum?

My position is that people should be able to have guns unless there's a statistically-based reason to restrict their access. For example, having a history of violence or paranoid belief that people are out to kill them.

[LimitedGovernment]

A government solely dedicated to "utility" leads to death camps, gulags and killing fields.


QFT. Utilitarianism=fail.

Bullshit. I'd put a good amount of cash down that neither of you have read about the different forms of utilitarianism and the ways that they've been implemented.

[phill4paul]

How can you come to any conclusion about my views on guns, given that this is the first post that I've made in this thread, and that I haven't really commented on guns anywhere else on this forum?

My position is that people should be able to have guns unless there's a statistically-based reason to restrict their access. For example, having a history of violence or paranoid belief that people are out to kill them.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[heavenlyboy34]

Bullshit. I'd put a good amount of cash down that neither of you have read about the different forms of utilitarianism and the ways that they've been implemented. You'd lose that money. ;)

[Anti Federalist]

Strawman, I never made the claim that police statism was freedom.

What I said was that rampant criminality isn't freedom either.

You made the point that people in NYC shouldn't be called stupid for preferring less crime over more freedom.

Comes a poster who actually lives in NYC and verifies that yes, NYC has turned into a police "state" or perhaps fiefdom would be a better word..

Thus, my sarcastic remark, not directed at you, in particular, that the false freedom from "crime" is preferred by New Yorkers to the real freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

That is silly and dangerous and should be mocked and scorned.

[John F Kennedy III]

Relevant:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112396.html

How Many Private Americans Died in 2010 Due to Terror Incidents?

Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on May 21, 2012 10:44 AM

Fifteen (15) according to the U.S. government's 2010 Report on Terrorism, the most comprehensive of its kind. Of these, thirteen (13) were in Afghanistan, one (1) in Iraq, and one (1) in Uganda.

These data suggest that the War on Terror for the sake of American security is entirely fraudulent. They suggest that the unbelievably high U.S. military expenditures that are often loosely linked to terror concerns cannot be justified by any conceivable terror threats.

Further evidence in support of these inferences are data from the same report on the total deaths by country worldwide associated with terror incidents in 2010. The largest number is 3,364 in Iraq. The second largest is 3,202 in Afghanistan. The U.S. attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan have without question caused terrorist attacks to soar in those two countries. Before the U.S. made war on Saddam Hussein and on the Taliban, who ever heard of terrorism being a problem in those lands? And who in his right mind regarded whatever terrorism existed there as a significant threat to America or American lives?

You beat me to it. Wonder what there is to be so afraid of? Terrorists aren't killing us, yet "security measures" are being ramped up at an alarming rate, all in the name of protecting us from terrorism.

[LimitedGovernment]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Quotes don't make things true.

[phill4paul]

You beat me to it. Wonder what there is to be so afraid of? Terrorists aren't killing us, yet "security measures" are being ramped up at an alarming rate, all in the name of protecting us from terrorism.

'They' aren't killing us here because we are killing them 'there.' At least that is what we are told. Until, the public gets tired of spending money 'there.' Then something will happen here. Again. And we will have to start fighting 'them' here and there and everywhere.

[phill4paul]

Quotes don't make things true.

Neither do statistics.

[LimitedGovernment]

Neither do statistics.

You know, i saw that coming from a mile away. I hoped I wouldn't have to respond to it.

You're right that statistical reports don't mean much, because reports can be warped presentations of facts. The actual data in statistical analyses, though, are indicators of truths.

[phill4paul]

You know, i saw that coming from a mile away. I hoped I wouldn't have to respond to it.

You're right that statistical reports don't mean much, because reports can be warped presentations of facts. The actual data in statistical analyses, though, are indicators of truths.

Truth is self-evident....;)

[LimitedGovernment]

Truth is self-evident....;)

If you really believe that, I've got some very bad news for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely

Start there.

[phill4paul]

If you really believe that, I've got some very bad news for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely

Start there.

No, thank you. I really don't wish to waste time having you running me through your 'left-leaning independent public-oriented' ideology. Good luck with that.

[TheTexan]

You can't trade liberty for security. That's not how it works. You can trade liberty for a false sense of security, and the only difference then is the crimes are done by those with badges.

[John F Kennedy III]

'They' aren't killing us here because we are killing them 'there.' At least that is what we are told. Until, the public gets tired of spending money 'there.' Then something will happen here. Again. And we will have to start fighting 'them' here and there and everywhere.

Nothing will happen here except more false flags. Until the American people revolt.

[madengr]

They frisked 160,000 people and only found 600 guns? They need to come out to flyover country. We can do lot better than that.

[phill4paul]

They frisked 160,000 people and only found 600 guns. They need to come out to flyover country. We can do lot better than that.

Bwahahaha! +rep

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

No. Liberty (whether for the sake of liberty or something else) is the pursuit of virtue. (Men without virtue do not remain free)

Yes. Liberty and equality are mere prequisites obtained when the people aim for a greater Civil Purpose. Aim for the blue sky, hit an apple out of a tree. That sort of thing. Please, don't waste your time getting me all bent out of shape and emotional about freedom. If I don't want to be a slave, you ain't going to make me a slave. It is a matter of choice and a matter of a slow process which takes many years of one culture falling into submission to another of which the misunderstanding of this fact has worked out to cause so much blood shed.

However, Simon was made to carry the cross of Jesus temporarily, while Jesus was avoiding the saving of Himself. When Jesus was about to pass away half way to Being crucified, as He barely had left in Him the Will to speak, Simon was appointed as a slave to both carry Him and His cross the rest of the way.

It isn't that freedom isn't important, but it is an absolute prerequisite.

I will never be enslaved. My children and their future generations, this nation's posterity, are on the downhill slide towards it.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Nothing will happen here except more false flags. Until the American people revolt.

Pretty sure that's what he was saying , re : false flags

[ClydeCoulter]

Uncle and Dark_Horse, you guys have been around since 2008 with thousand+ posts and never got a hug (rep)? I will exercise my freedom to give you guys one just for being here that long without any :)

[Anti Federalist]

Uncle and Dark_Horse, you guys have been around since 2008 with thousand+ posts and never got a hug (rep)? I will exercise my freedom to give you guys one just for being here that long without any :)

I know I've given UEW at least one rep, if nothing but for the lulz.

Dark Horse, I can't recall.

[Anti Federalist]

You can't trade liberty for security. That's not how it works. You can trade liberty for a false sense of security, and the only difference then is the crimes are done by those with badges.

And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

[Xhin]

If you really believe that, I've got some very bad news for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely

Start there.

"a 2008 book by Dan Ariely, in which he challenges readers' assumptions about making decisions based on rational thought."

I'm good, thanks.

[donnay]

Prior to 9/11 Nyer's would see a bleeding body on the street and walk over them. Crime rate was running ramped, and of course if you were a law abiding citizen, figgetabout trying to apply for a gun permit. Desensitizing people daily was the name of the game. Post 9/11 Nyer's are walking around with PTSD, a good majority of people are on psychotropic drugs and they fluoridate the waters so the people remain docile. NY is the elites playbook for tyranny unabashed and the people just go on without even blinking.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Uncle and Dark_Horse, you guys have been around since 2008 with thousand+ posts and never got a hug (rep)? I will exercise my freedom to give you guys one just for being here that long without any :)

I really don't understand the rep system. Should I be trying to be popular? If so, I guess one way towards acheiving that popularity would be for me to forget all the philosophy courses I ever took while resorting to hitting myself in the head with a hammer. Thanks, I will always cherish this rep.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Prior to 9/11 Nyer's would see a bleeding body on the street and walk over them. Crime rate was running ramped, and of course if you were a law abiding citizen, figgetabout trying to apply for a gun permit. Desensitizing people daily was the name of the game. Post 9/11 Nyer's are walking around with PTSD, a good majority of people are on psychotropic drugs and they fluoridate the waters so the people remain docile. NY is the elites playbook for tyranny unabashed and the people just go on without even blinking.

I always assumed the only people who cared in New York City on 9-11 about the 9-11 tragedy were those caring ones who happened to be visiting the city on that day and, unfortunately so, those trapped in the burning buildings. Figure the typical New Yorker witnessed that kind of crap happening on a daily basis.
But call me a pessimist who only sees the out house half empty rather than half way to being an over flowing crapper.
Someone give me a rep, please.

[PaulConventionWV]

No.



And most New Yorkers disagree, which is fine.

I would say that you don't have much freedom if you are physically unsafe as well, they are two different types of violations of freedom.

You're wrong. You still have freedom, even in an unsafe place. If you go into the jungle, are you suddenly void of freedom because your risk of infection, attacks by animals, or accidents goes way up? Freedom and security are two different things. If you are physically unsafe, you still have the freedom to choose how to deal with danger, but if you are subject to random searches by authority figures, then you have given up your freedom because it's now the system that's targeting you, not just the inherent danger of being outside.

[PaulConventionWV]

Exactly.

Historically, freedom only comes about when people are relatively unafraid. In a state of high crime, that isn't happening. Most urban environments tend to be high crime, so claiming people "hate freedom" in these environments is silly. It's not that they hate freedom, its that they hate the alternative more.

Ideally, we'd find a way to maintain both security and liberty, and part of our job is to think of ways to accomplish this, not to belittle people for choosing security.

A good way to increase liberty and security is to give people individual options to increase their own security, not use a top-down approach by giving more power to "authority" and letting them handle it, which will ALWAYS result in the loss of freedom. The answer is to let people choose how they want to be secure. A good way to facilitate this is to allow people to own guns. A society where everyone carries guns is a society very hostile to those who would commit violence, lest they suffer the consequences of their actions. God forbid they actually suffer immediate consequences as opposed to waiting for the largely inept police force to come look for them. The police force has always been about control, however, so it's not like this was actually a measure meant to increase security or freedom.

[PaulConventionWV]

a
Well, that's a different and fictional right. You do have a right to be free from physical violence.

It depends on how you define a right. "Rights" are a concept that stem from the idea that humans are inherently free and should remain so without the intervention of authority. In this case, you don't have a "right" to be protected by governmental authority, a right which completely undermines rights because it authorizes authority in order to invade other rights in the name of security, or the absence of violence. You cannot prevent the occurrence of some violence, so it is futile unless every other right is violated first. If you are saying that people who commit violence should suffer lawful punishment, then I agree, but ONLY when violence is committed should any action be taken. There is no such thing as a right not to meet people who might harm you because nobody can possibly know who is violent and who is not before they commit violence.


No, but you cannot call a violent and crime-ridden society free either.

Why not? It's only a crime if the government says it is. You are free as long as you have the right and the ability to defend yourself. Violence has nothing to do with the absence or presence of freedom, or vice versa.


Violence is violence, whether from government or from street thugs. The constant presence of violence is incompatible with freedom.

Perhaps, but if authority removes the ability to protect yourself and be the master of your own individual security, then you don't really have freedom anyway. At the risk of getting back on topic, the current gun laws in NYC are targeted, not at violent people, but at people who carry guns. Those two things are not the same. The assumption is that gun ownership is a precursor to violence, which is inherently absurd. If people had the freedom to carry guns without the fear of being stopped by the authorities, only then would we truly have freedom because, in that situation, criminals would think twice before committing crimes in which they might face deadly retaliation. So, at the very least, I hope you agree that the current actions of the NYPD are not conducive to lower crime rates.


You seem to claim that part of being free is being free from state oppression (which I agree with). But I would say that you also should be free from criminal oppression. You cannot say that government oppression is anti-freedom while claiming criminal oppression is not anti-freedom.

Yes, you can. The government has powers that no criminal could ever have. It's this power that makes it oppression. Being against violence is always good, but you can't possibly solve that with more government power. If a criminal keeps you locked up in his or her basement, then yes, that is anti-freedom for the individual involved, but it never justifies more state power, and it does not affect the freedoms of the individuals who were not victims of the crime. When government takes away freedom, it affects everyone. If you keep the complete power and authority to protect oneself an individual matter, then freedom is at its absolute peak.

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't buy that for a second. People in suburban and rural areas hate freedom just as much.

They just hate different kinds of freedom.



It was already thought of.

It's called the Bill of Rights.

Security (at least government provided security) will always be at odds with liberty.

When one gains, the other loses.

That's only true in a state sense. Security can also exist on an individual basis. A 250 lb. muscle bound man who walks around with a gun and a bullet-proof vest has very good security, and if he is not oppressed, then he is also free. In that case, individual freedom and security are not at odds with each other. The key is to leave it up to the individual.

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't think so. In order for liberty to flourish, you need physical security and vice-versa.

Liberty does not flourish where there is high crime.

Let's not beat around the bush. Do you believe security is an individual responsibility or the responsibility of the state?

[Anti Federalist]

That's only true in a state sense. Security can also exist on an individual basis. A 250 lb. muscle bound man who walks around with a gun and a bullet-proof vest has very good security, and if he is not oppressed, then he is also free. In that case, individual freedom and security are not at odds with each other. The key is to leave it up to the individual.

Thus, the caveat:


at least government provided security

;)

[PaulConventionWV]

How can you come to any conclusion about my views on guns, given that this is the first post that I've made in this thread, and that I haven't really commented on guns anywhere else on this forum?

My position is that people should be able to have guns unless there's a statistically-based reason to restrict their access. For example, having a history of violence or paranoid belief that people are out to kill them.

It's called pre-crime. You're asking for a police state. That's why we have doctors who can fit people into these mentally-disturbed categories. When we have the government taking control of the medical industry, then we get massive amounts of people being defined as mentally disturbed when, really, their actions may be normal. That leads to a police force doing exactly what the police do today and possibly more in order to protect us from "the crazy people who might kill you someday."

[PaulConventionWV]

I really don't understand the rep system. Should I be trying to be popular? If so, I guess one way towards acheiving that popularity would be for me to forget all the philosophy courses I ever took while resorting to hitting myself in the head with a hammer. Thanks, I will always cherish this rep.

Here's one ironic +rep :)

[PaulConventionWV]

I always assumed the only people who cared in New York City on 9-11 about the 9-11 tragedy were those caring ones who happened to be visiting the city on that day and, unfortunately so, those trapped in the burning buildings. Figure the typical New Yorker witnessed that kind of crap happening on a daily basis.
But call me a pessimist who only sees the out house half empty rather than half way to being an over flowing crapper.
Someone give me a rep, please.

My outhouse runneth over.

[PaulConventionWV]

Thus, the caveat:



;)

Come to think of it, I just described a police officer.

[ZenBowman]

Let's not beat around the bush. Do you believe security is an individual responsibility or the responsibility of the state?

It's an individual responsibility, but practically, it is also a prerequisite to liberty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/450px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png

IMO liberty becomes more desirable once humans have satisfied their basic needs, you are unlikely to see very poor or unsafe countries clamoring for liberty (even though eventually, everyone wants to be free, but it is not the primary desire until you have a safe environment and food on your table).

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Prior to 9/11 Nyer's would see a bleeding body on the street and walk over them. Crime rate was running ramped, and of course if you were a law abiding citizen, figgetabout trying to apply for a gun permit. Desensitizing people daily was the name of the game. Post 9/11 Nyer's are walking around with PTSD, a good majority of people are on psychotropic drugs and they fluoridate the waters so the people remain docile. NY is the elites playbook for tyranny unabashed and the people just go on without even blinking.

your statement contains many vague and broad generalizations, and i tend to disagree with some of that post.

when are you meaning pre 9leven ? jooliani had already run his cleanup agenda on the city.

there certainly are people like you described above , but also many fine folks.

easy to bash ny , but the exact same theft of personal freedoms is happening around the whole country.

[PaulConventionWV]

It's an individual responsibility, but practically, it is also a prerequisite to liberty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/450px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png

IMO liberty becomes more desirable once humans have satisfied their basic needs, you are unlikely to see very poor or unsafe countries clamoring for liberty (even though eventually, everyone wants to be free, but it is not the primary desire until you have a safe environment and food on your table).

As long as you don't think liberty should be sacrificed so that the state can enhance security, then we agree. Put another way, as long as you don't think the state should have any part in crime prevention or safety, then we agree.

[ZenBowman]

As long as you don't think liberty should be sacrificed so that the state can enhance security, then we agree. Put another way, as long as you don't think the state should have any part in crime prevention or safety, then we agree.

I think the state has a role in crime prevention, but it shouldn't do so by banning self-defense.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think the state has a role in crime prevention, but it shouldn't do so by banning self-defense.

What role would that be?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

your statement contains many vague and broad generalizations, and i tend to disagree with some of that post.

when are you meaning pre 9leven ? jooliani had already run his cleanup agenda on the city.

there certainly are people like you described above , but also many fine folks.

easy to bash ny , but the exact same theft of personal freedoms is happening around the whole country.

Ironic that in order to advance the ancient Greek people beyond playing the part of a foolish audience to the eloquence of the sophists, Plato developed the process of generalization. So, what is a sophist to do? Well, argue against the collective process which creates generalizations.

[ZenBowman]

What role would that be?

Lets see, many here believe the state has a role in national defense and border security, others believe in the provision of basic police services (while maintaining this should be at a local level). I'd agree with both of those.