Why I am a "cop basher"

[Anti Federalist]

From a local forum I post at from time to time.

Their comment to me:


It's sad to someone constantly posting stuff like this. What ever happened in your life that wants/makes you talk about this all the time?

How do you sleep at night thinking that people are after you?

My reply:

http://wolfgil.forumotion.com/t2267-why-i-am-a-cop-basher

One member here questioned what makes me post "anti cop" articles all the time, suggesting that something may be wrong with me and not the country I used to know.

Look, it's very simple, and here are the facts:

A - We now live in full blown, total surveillance, police state. Oh sure, there may not be tanks rolling down the street every day, but the infrastructure is in place and running, there is no denying that.

B - At the same time, violent crime rates and cop killings are at levels, per capita, in some cases not seen since the 19th century and dropping every year. I submit it has very little to do with the New Authoritarianism that has swept away the Land of the Free, but rather with the huge surge of citizens keeping and bearing arms.

C - FedCoat funding and training has turned local and state police forces from "peace officers" to a standing army of occupation, equipped and trained like Marines heading onto Fallujah. They locked down the entire city of Boston last year and frog marched thousands of people out of their homes at rifle point with no legal justification at all. SWAT raids roll for the slightest infraction.

D - This "War on Us" mentality, the training that says that every "maggot" out there (that's us, the people) is a potential hostile to be "taken out" if we so much as twitch funny, is, combined with the military firepower, a dangerous combination that has cops shooting and tasing us at increasing levels every year.

E - Therefore, if you value your life, avoid cops at all costs. They are not your pals, they are not there to "help".

They are there to fuck people up and throw them in jail.

[kcchiefs6465]

There really is no debating anything you said.

That some people don't see it, or perhaps don't want to see it, is boggling.

[donnay]

Show them this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ejS3u-5vuo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ejS3u-5vuo



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk4bxaWoJvQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk4bxaWoJvQ


Notes Ret Army Speaks Out Against NH Bearcat Marine Corp Colonel speaks out at a local council meeting about the militarization of our police forces on 08/12/13 at 41 Green St, Concord, NH

[Anti Federalist]

I will.

And no, it wasn't Harm. ;)


Show them this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ejS3u-5vuo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ejS3u-5vuo

Notes Ret Army Speaks Out Against NH Bearcat Marine Corp Colonel speaks out at a local council meeting about the militarization of our police forces on 08/12/13 at 41 Green St, Concord, NH

[Suzanimal]

From a local forum I post at from time to time.

Their comment to me:



My reply:

http://wolfgil.forumotion.com/t2267-why-i-am-a-cop-basher

One member here questioned what makes me post "anti cop" articles all the time, suggesting that something may be wrong with me and not the country I used to know.

Look, it's very simple, and here are the facts:

A - We now live in full blown, total surveillance, police state. Oh sure, there may not be tanks rolling down the street every day, but the infrastructure is in place and running, there is no denying that.



Not yet but I fear within 5 years nary a day will pass that we don't see some sort of armored vehicle rolling through our cities and towns.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not yet but I fear within 5 years nary a day will pass that we don't see some sort of armored vehicle rolling through our cities and towns.

Ol' Shurriff Joe has one...he just hasn't used it in patrols, etc. He used it for a Steven Seagull show. Don't trust the cops-even the elected shurriffs need to be watched. Gangs with badges.

[DamianTV]

Solution: Awaken the Cops and get them to turn those who are responsible for empowering their abuse of the people. If cops ever realize that the real threat comes not from an armed disobedient citizen, but the ones who would unlawfully agress on citizen, we may very well save ourselves from absolute oppresson. Of course, this is just me trying to be optomistic and encouraging.

Look at the number of Sheriffs that have "come out of the closet" and declared that they will refuse to enforce Unlawful Ordinances, such as Gun Bans, and others that demand nothing short of the violation of Human Rights. There are some good cops out there, and those are the ones that desperately need our support to stay true to their convictions.

[green73]

Not yet but I fear within 5 years nary a day will pass that we don't see some sort of armored vehicle rolling through our cities and towns.

I doubt a day goes by where there isn't a militarized SWAT raid of some poor serf.

I was listening to Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center today on the Tom Woods Show, and he was saying that each one of these raids ends up costing the taxpayers serious $$$. We're talking MILLIONS (each!).

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=63569

AF, good on you as always.

[donnay]

I also think we need to support Oath Keepers more!

[WM_in_MO]

I doubt a day goes by where there isn't a militarized SWAT raid of some poor serf.

I was listening to Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center today on the Tom Woods Show, and he was saying that each one of these raids ends up costing the taxpayers serious $$$. We're talking MILLIONS (each!).

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=63569

AF, good on you as always.

100+ a day according to Balko:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/remnant/2013/aug/1/radley-balko-we-are-talking-100-115-swat-raid-day-/

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d7/d7c97252f43416c519b1c106c4bdcf188f2d0a82d976849ee1 ace0e86d6e2ed4.jpg
(http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/remnant/2013/aug/1/radley-balko-we-are-talking-100-115-swat-raid-day-/)

[Keith and stuff]

Show them the video of the 3 Seabrook police officers beating a criminal and laughing about it, way back in 2009. The video just came out and I heard the police got vacations because of the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKzxvH6Czsg

[Carson]

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/presidentronpaul/bostonsreasonm16.jpg

[green73]

100+ a day according to Balko:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/remnant/2013/aug/1/radley-balko-we-are-talking-100-115-swat-raid-day-/

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d7/d7c97252f43416c519b1c106c4bdcf188f2d0a82d976849ee1 ace0e86d6e2ed4.jpg
(http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/remnant/2013/aug/1/radley-balko-we-are-talking-100-115-swat-raid-day-/)

USA is FUBAR.

[KCIndy]

I know I've been saying this ad nauseam, but I still think it bears repeating.

Keep in mind that over the last ten years or more, many "new hires" (a majority, I'm guessing) in police departments across the country are military vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of these guys have seen combat, and all of them are going to have an "Us vs. Them" mentality when it comes to the public.

If these guys are already used to kicking in doors, forcing people to the floor and ransacking houses based on little or no evidence, why in the world are they going to stop just because they've changed uniforms?

War on terror.

War on drugs.

These guys are STILL at war. And the enemy is us.

[green73]

I know I've been saying this ad nauseam, but I still think it bears repeating.

Keep in mind that over the last ten years or more, many "new hires" (a majority, I'm guessing) in police departments across the country are military vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of these guys have seen combat, and all of them are going to have an "Us vs. Them" mentality when it comes to the public.

If these guys are already used to kicking in doors, forcing people to the floor and ransacking houses based on little or no evidence, why in the world are they going to stop just because they've changed uniforms?

War on terror.

War on drugs.

These guys are STILL at war. And the enemy is us.

Absolutely.

[Tod]

An awful lot of cop apologists out there.

[DamianTV]

An awful lot of cop apologists out there.

I try to not be one of them. Every cop is an individual human. Every individual cop is responsible for their own actions. This means that they are also charged with the responsibility of DISOBEYING UNLAFUL ORDERS and I dont believe that enough make the efforts needed to disobey. Some do try to maintain peace, but far too many see their position as an opportunity to get away with abuse.

[aGameOfThrones]

They are there to eat doughnuts and fuck people up and throw them in jail... and they're all out of doughnuts.

[Anti Federalist]

100+ a day according to Balko:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/remnant/2013/aug/1/radley-balko-we-are-talking-100-115-swat-raid-day-/

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d7/d7c97252f43416c519b1c106c4bdcf188f2d0a82d976849ee1 ace0e86d6e2ed4.jpg
(http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/remnant/2013/aug/1/radley-balko-we-are-talking-100-115-swat-raid-day-/)

http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/Fat+Guy+Riding+a+Scooter+_aa9d42ee71291c81b9e969dd 48a79c9c.jpg

[JK/SEA]

From this day forward, i will no longer refer to these 'Police Abuse' stories as 'Isolated Incidents'....

We are truly in a Police State Stage 3...out of 5.

[Christian Liberty]

I try to not be one of them. Every cop is an individual human. Every individual cop is responsible for their own actions. This means that they are also charged with the responsibility of DISOBEYING UNLAFUL ORDERS and I dont believe that enough make the efforts needed to disobey. Some do try to maintain peace, but far too many see their position as an opportunity to get away with abuse.

You're not apologizing at all. I usually stick with saying that all "crimes" with no specific victim that is aggressed against are not crimes at all and that enforcing them is wrong. I'm pretty sure there are few, if any, cops that can pass that test (not enforcing any laws that violate the NAP), and for that matter, few people in general actually agree with my standard, but its still a little less offensive, while still getting to the heart of the issue, than just saying you are "anti-cop" or whatever.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe going at it in a way that is "offensive" is admirable, but its hard to do in real life.




From this day forward, i will no longer refer to these 'Police Abuse' stories as 'Isolated Incidents'....

We are truly in a Police State Stage 3...out of 5.

[heavenlyboy34]

I happened to catch a brief clip from the Andy Griffith Show toady. That show's only some 50 years old and already the masses' understanding of police and their real life nature are completely different. I can only imagine how horrifying it is to my older comrades like AF. There never have been "peace officers" in my relatively brief life experience. It's always been just cops.

[InRonITrust]

These threads really do not serve any purpose in getting liberty candidates like Rand Paul elected. No liberty-friendly politician has spoken negatively about police or engaged in any conspiracy theories regarding a "police state". Seriously, we do not live in a police state. If we did, this forum would not be allowed to exist.

Not saying all cops are angels, but come on. The police serve a purpose. I think all liberty politicians like Rand Paul recognize the importance and necessity of police. I haven't seen anything otherwise.

[Nate SY]

These threads really do not serve any purpose in getting liberty candidates like Rand Paul elected. No liberty-friendly politician has spoken negatively about police or engaged in any conspiracy theories regarding a "police state". Seriously, we do not live in a police state. If we did, this forum would not be allowed to exist.

Not saying all cops are angels, but come on. The police serve a purpose. I think all liberty politicians like Rand Paul recognize the importance and necessity of police. I haven't seen anything otherwise.

I suggest you look up federal conviction rates and the percentage of the American population in jail, then compare them to whatever country you do consider to be a police state. Might surprise you.

[InRonITrust]

I suggest you look up federal conviction rates and the percentage of the American population in jail, then compare them to whatever country you do consider to be a police state. Might surprise you.

America's high rate of incarceration is because of bad laws regarding drug offences and other victimless crimes. That obviously needs to be changed since those people do not deserve jail.

America doesn't jail people for religious and political beliefs like China or Iran do.

[Anti Federalist]

America's high rate of incarceration is because of bad laws regarding drug offences and other victimless crimes. That obviously needs to be changed since those people do not deserve jail.

America doesn't jail people for religious and political beliefs like China or Iran do.

No, they just burn them out and machine gun them.

Waco, TX 1993

[Christian Liberty]

These threads really do not serve any purpose in getting liberty candidates like Rand Paul elected. No liberty-friendly politician has spoken negatively about police or engaged in any conspiracy theories regarding a "police state". Seriously, we do not live in a police state. If we did, this forum would not be allowed to exist.

Not saying all cops are angels, but come on. The police serve a purpose. I think all liberty politicians like Rand Paul recognize the importance and necessity of police. I haven't seen anything otherwise.N

Not everything is about winning.

Rand Paul isn't a libertarian.

[Nate SY]

I was going to write a well thought out response, however have chosen not to. After reading your previous posts, every single one has been complaining about "Anti-Semites" OR defending the consistant infringements on our rights, by defending the deteriorating status of this country. Therefor I have come to the conclusion that you're simply here to cause a fuss.

I guess I could be wrong and your words could be heartfelt, however in that situation I feel you'd be too blind and far gone to have a chance of saving.

EDIT: This is in ref to InRonITrust

[kcchiefs6465]

America's high rate of incarceration is because of bad laws regarding drug offences and other victimless crimes. That obviously needs to be changed since those people do not deserve jail.

America doesn't jail people for religious and political beliefs like China or Iran do.
America jailed some two thousand Muslims after 9/11, they've jailed many for differing political beliefs, and they've mistreated even to the point of incarceration large swaths of a given population. Whether it be Germans in 1917 or the Japanese in 1942, to attempt to give credence to moral high ground, you'd expect me to forget quite a lot. Like, for instance, an American citizen being jailed every 2 seconds and the fact that stocks are traded based on the number incarcerated. I'd probably also have to forget the total lockdown of Watertown, Massachusetts and the frequent raids and the tank acquirement. Probably have to forget about the COPS grants and the incentivized property confiscation. But you are correct, sir. We are free*. Some restrictions apply, for our safety of course, but we are free.

The 83% jailed that have committed no crime aren't free, or the people trapped in the revolving system of court and debt aren't free, or the people killed aren't free but generally speaking, we are free. The forced blood tests and roadside vaginal screenings are simply a reminder of the non-free countries. We are free.

[Neil Desmond]

you're simply here to cause a fuss.

Good! I'm here to cause a fuss too.

[Anti Federalist]

Saved me some typing.

+rep


America jailed some two thousand Muslims after 9/11, they've jailed many for differing political beliefs, and they've mistreated even to the point of incarceration large swaths of a given population. Whether it be Germans in 1917 or the Japanese in 1942, to attempt to give credence to moral high ground, you'd expect me to forget quite a lot. Like, for instance, an American citizen being jailed every 2 seconds and the fact that stocks are traded based on the number incarcerated. I'd probably also have to forget the total lockdown of Watertown, Massachusetts and the frequent raids and the tank acquirement. Probably have to forget about the COPS grants and the incentivized property confiscation. But you are correct, sir. We are free*. Some restrictions apply, for our safety of course, but we are free.

The 83% jailed that have committed no crime aren't free, or the people trapped in the revolving system of court and debt aren't free, or the people killed aren't free but generally speaking, we are free. The forced blood tests and roadside vaginal screenings are simply a reminder of the non-free countries. We are free.

[InRonITrust]

America jailed some two thousand Muslims after 9/11, they've jailed many for differing political beliefs, and they've mistreated even to the point of incarceration large swaths of a given population.

Let's be fair here. Those Muslims jailed after 9/11 were not US citizens, but immigrants. Immigrants do not have full rights as citizens.

Also, let's also look at how Rand Paul views Muslims and Islam in general. It's far different from how Muslims are talked about in this forum. He recognizes the threat Muslim countries have towards non-Muslims especially Jews and Israel. I think if Mr. Rand Paul was president and attack by Islamic terrorists like 9/11 happened, he would not hesitate to jail Muslim immigrants and monitor US citizens of Islamic faith.

[Christian Liberty]

You know, I already find it annoying when a given person here says something and gets the response of "Ron Paul never said anything like that" as if we all are supposed to agree with Ron 100% of the time. But its even worse with Rand, because at least all of Ron's positions are principled Seeing someone complain about "cop-bashing" simply because it doesn't help Rand... you know... that guy who couldn't even be bothered to defend Edward Snowden... I'd much rather forget Rand and focus on waking people up than forget about waking people up and focusing on Rand.

[JK/SEA]

These threads really do not serve any purpose in getting liberty candidates like Rand Paul elected. No liberty-friendly politician has spoken negatively about police or engaged in any conspiracy theories regarding a "police state". Seriously, we do not live in a police state. If we did, this forum would not be allowed to exist.

Not saying all cops are angels, but come on. The police serve a purpose. I think all liberty politicians like Rand Paul recognize the importance and necessity of police. I haven't seen anything otherwise.

we are at DEFCON 3. This latest 'murder' by cops of the 18 year old because ' we don't have time for this', has raised the Police State level warning.

As too your assertion, AND fear that because we at RPF reporting on the Police State, really, for myself...i don't give a rats ass if any political figure might object is fucking stupid. Look around, read these stories, and tell me everything is getting 'better'...well, it isn't.

[Christian Liberty]

Let's be fair here. Those Muslims jailed after 9/11 were not US citizens, but immigrants. Immigrants do not have full rights as citizens.

Maybe not the right to vote or run for office, but human rights? Of course they do.

I don't really know who these people were, or why they were imprisoned, honestly. But knowing our government, I have no doubt it wasn't right.


Also, let's also look at how Rand Paul views Muslims and Islam in general. It's far different from how Muslims are talked about in this forum. He recognizes the threat Muslim countries have towards non-Muslims especially Jews and Israel. I think if Mr. Rand Paul was president and attack by Islamic terrorists like 9/11 happened, he would not hesitate to jail Muslim immigrants and monitor US citizens of Islamic faith.

This is Ron Paul's forum, not Rand's. My opinion of Rand has been deteriorating of late, and I'm not even sure if I support him. I don't know if you are right about this or not, but if you are, it would just lower my opinion of Rand, nothing else.

See: this here is the problem with Rand's strategy of pandering to sheep. You're seeing it right in front of you.

[Christian Liberty]

we are at DEFCON 3. This latest 'murder' by cops of the 18 year old because ' we don't have time for this', has raised the Police State level warning.

Can you explain what exactly these numbers mean in this context?

[JK/SEA]

Can you explain what exactly these numbers mean in this context?

I'm taking it upon myself to give people a visual.

Police State Level is at 3.

5 being getting on the train at gun point.

[daviddee]

....

[JK/SEA]

America doesn't jail people for religious and political beliefs like China or Iran do.

Explain Adam Kokesh. Was he just loitering? or?

[JK/SEA]

I have been outside of the USA now for close to 7 months and I will give you some observations.

- I was sitting on the property of my brother-in-laws compound in an Eastern European nation. I sat there on a hot August day when I realized what was "wrong". There was no air traffic. No cop helicopters, no military aircraft, etc. Compare this to constant police aircraft in the USA.

- Last month I realized that I stopped looking in my mirrors for cops while driving down the roads/highways. There is simply zero police presence here compared to the USA. All the while, legally driving down the highway at 80mph to 90mph.

- No cops hiding in the bushes waiting to rob the citizenry.

- I have not seen armored assault vehicles. The cops that I have seen drive little Fiat style cars.

- Some cops carry sidearms some don't. When they do it is simply hung on their waist. No tasers, no AR-15 sitting in the car, etc etc.

All of these things are introduced via the slow boil... Once you are out of the pot you realize just how bad it has become in the last 20 years.

9/11.

[daviddee]

...

[JK/SEA]

DEFCON 2.

I believe the USA is 1 step from full police state.

Defcon 4 was the mid-90s. A taste of higher police presence. A taste of intrusion. Pre-Taser.

Defcon 3 was post 9/11 full on militarization, full on Taser usage, and the evolution of "us" or "them". The people should be seen as the enemy.

Defcon 2 (current state) is when the police forces integrated Afghan/Iraq veterans, the older guys from 80s and 90s retired out, the implementation of Afghan/Iraq hardware on the streets, tasers were disregarded in favor of lethal force, executing dogs on site, executing people on site, etc etc. Full cooperation of the Judicial branch. Prison population explosion.

can't argue with that. I was being 'hopeful'...but yeah..2 sounds about right....

2 it is.

[Brett85]

These threads really do not serve any purpose in getting liberty candidates like Rand Paul elected. No liberty-friendly politician has spoken negatively about police or engaged in any conspiracy theories regarding a "police state". Seriously, we do not live in a police state. If we did, this forum would not be allowed to exist.

Not saying all cops are angels, but come on. The police serve a purpose. I think all liberty politicians like Rand Paul recognize the importance and necessity of police. I haven't seen anything otherwise.

I'm sure that in real life you're probably a hardcore Ron Paul supporter, but you'll definitely be labeled "a statist" on this forum simply for suggesting that the police have a purpose and shouldn't be abolished. If you post here you're supposed to be far more anti government than Rand, Amash, Massie and all of the other liberty candidates in Congress. And yet those candidates never get criticized for not criticizing the police. Of course police abuses are a problem and becoming more of a problem and need to be addressed, but that doesn't mean abolishing the police.

[JK/SEA]

I'm sure that in real life you're probably a hardcore Ron Paul supporter, but you'll definitely be labeled "a statist" on this forum simply for suggesting that the police have a purpose and shouldn't be abolished. If you post here you're supposed to be far more anti government than Rand, Amash, Massie and all of the other liberty candidates in Congress. And yet those candidates never get criticized for not criticizing the police. Of course police abuses are a problem and becoming more of a problem and need to be addressed, but that doesn't mean abolishing the police.

get rid of cops and cut the prices of AR-15's so more people can have 'nice' weapons. An armed society, is a polite society....

[InRonITrust]

I'm sure that in real life you're probably a hardcore Ron Paul supporter, but you'll definitely be labeled "a statist" on this forum simply for suggesting that the police have a purpose and shouldn't be abolished. If you post here you're supposed to be far more anti government than Rand, Amash, Massie and all of the other liberty candidates in Congress. And yet those candidates never get criticized for not criticizing the police. Of course police abuses are a problem and becoming more of a problem and need to be addressed, but that doesn't mean abolishing the police.

Yes, for some reason the people here think that Muslim immigrants should just let be allowed to roam free after a major terrorist attack. Not saying that those immigrants had anything to do with that, but I trust our police and intelligence services to do the right thing. If that means to incarcerate some hundred or so immigrants from the lands of Islam to gather information, then that's a good use of authority.

[JK/SEA]

Yes, for some reason the people here think that Muslim immigrants should just let be allowed to roam free after a major terrorist attack. Not saying that those immigrants had anything to do with that, but I trust our police and intelligence services to do the right thing. If that means to incarcerate some hundred or so immigrants from the lands of Islam to gather information, then that's a good use of authority.

yer kiddin' right?..

[Brett85]

Yes, for some reason the people here think that Muslim immigrants should just let be allowed to roam free after a major terrorist attack. Not saying that those immigrants had anything to do with that, but I trust our police and intelligence services to do the right thing. If that means to incarcerate some hundred or so immigrants from the lands of Islam to gather information, then that's a good use of authority.

Well, I don't agree with you on that. I just agreed with you that there's a purpose for the police.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, for some reason the people here think that Muslim immigrants should just let be allowed to roam free after a major terrorist attack. Not saying that those immigrants had anything to do with that, but I trust our police and intelligence services to do the right thing. If that means to incarcerate some hundred or so immigrants from the lands of Islam to gather information, then that's a good use of authority.

"Let no more be said about confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution" -- Thomas Jefferson

[tod evans]

Yes, for some reason the people here think that Muslim immigrants should just let be allowed to roam free after a major terrorist attack. Not saying that those immigrants had anything to do with that, but I trust our police and intelligence services to do the right thing. If that means to incarcerate some hundred or so immigrants from the lands of Islam to gather information, then that's a good use of authority.


Holy cow!

What a fucked up perspective...

I suppose it'd be okay with you to lock up every breeding age male when a rape occurs too?

[coastie]

Holy cow!

What a fucked up perspective...

I suppose it'd be okay with you to lock up every breeding age male when a rape occurs too?

...as long as they're muslim, it's cool.



/s

[tod evans]

...as long as they're muslim, it's cool.



/s


Well how silly of me....

Damn mooslums anywho....

USA! USA! USA!

[coastie]

Well how silly of me....

Damn mooslums anywho....

USA! USA! USA!


Glad you got your attitude adjusted, was just about to send in the report.




But, we will be watching you now....

[pcosmar]

Yes, for some reason the people here think that Muslim immigrants should just let be allowed to roam free after a major terrorist attack. Not saying that those immigrants had anything to do with that, but I trust our police and intelligence services to do the right thing. If that means to incarcerate some hundred or so immigrants from the lands of Islam to gather information, then that's a good use of authority.

A Xenophobic Authoritarian.

Are you sure you are on the right forum?

Oh,, and read my sig line.

[Neil Desmond]

Yes, for some reason the people here think that Muslim immigrants should just let be allowed to roam free after a major terrorist attack. Not saying that those immigrants had anything to do with that, but I trust our police and intelligence services to do the right thing. If that means to incarcerate some hundred or so immigrants from the lands of Islam to gather information, then that's a good use of authority.
Neg rep 4 religious intolerance.

[Occam's Banana]

No, they just burn them out and machine gun them.

Waco, TX 1993

BOOM!! goes the dynamite. (Or the CS grenades, as the case may be ...)

[Occam's Banana]

I happened to catch a brief clip from the Andy Griffith Show toady. That show's only some 50 years old and already the masses' understanding of police and their real life nature are completely different. I can only imagine how horrifying it is to my older comrades like AF. There never have been "peace officers" in my relatively brief life experience. It's always been just cops.

I wonder to what extent things like the Andy Griffith Show have contributed to the passive complacency of many people regarding the police. The vocally enthusiastic supporters of aggressive police actions are, of course, on an entirely different "vibe." But I suspect most people just have a (sorely mistaken) "Helpful Officer Friendly" image of "cops in general" - fostered (or at least expressed) in good part by bucolic "Sheriff Andy" fantasies and Norman Rockwell-esque iconographies.

[InRonITrust]

A Xenophobic Authoritarian.

Are you sure you are on the right forum?

Oh,, and read my sig line.

I am not xenophobic. I did not say to incarcerate ALL. Just the ones our intelligence agencies find suspect. They may not be all Muslim. They could be Arab Christians as well since they have engaged in terrorism against Israeli Jews.

[pcosmar]

Neg rep 4 religious intolerance.

And apparently someone is supporting this shit,, because he does not have a red box yet.

Why I am a "cop basher"

Because I am not an Authoritarian. I am anti-authoritarian.

and because I have had a gun put to my head.

Police should not exist. The very concept of police should not exist in a free society.
It is an Authoritarian concept.. It is control. And the idea that free people need to be controlled is repulsive.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

[pcosmar]

I am not xenophobic. I did not say to incarcerate ALL. Just the ones our intelligence agencies find suspect. They may not be all Muslim. They could be Arab Christians as well since they have engaged in terrorism against Israeli Jews.

Intelligence agencies?
Is that supposed to be a joke?

And Arab Christians (and Muslims) that had their homes and land stolen by the Zionists have a very good and just reason to fight that regime.

That has nothing to do with the police abuse in this country.

[Philhelm]

Hitler and the Holocaust (Godwin) were probably the worst thing to ever happen to liberty. Most people think that if people aren't being loaded into trains for extermination, or if troops aren't marching around every street with warhounds barking, then we live in a state of freedom. The truth is that they will never need to, nor would it be possible, to fully patrol the United States with a proper military force. That's what the police combined with full surveillance, are for. They only need to be able to drag people away by ones and twos.

[Anti Federalist]

Let's be fair here. Those Muslims jailed after 9/11 were not US citizens, but immigrants. Immigrants do not have full rights as citizens.

Also, let's also look at how Rand Paul views Muslims and Islam in general. It's far different from how Muslims are talked about in this forum. He recognizes the threat Muslim countries have towards non-Muslims especially Jews and Israel. I think if Mr. Rand Paul was president and attack by Islamic terrorists like 9/11 happened, he would not hesitate to jail Muslim immigrants and monitor US citizens of Islamic faith.

Well, you're not selling me.

[coastie]

Well, you're not selling me.



Funny how that NEVER happens when a "Christian" does does something terrible, huh?

[Brett85]

Police should not exist. The very concept of police should not exist in a free society.
It is an Authoritarian concept.. It is control. And the idea that free people need to be controlled is repulsive.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Then why hasn't Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, or any of the other liberty candidates ever taken that position? Are they "authoritarians?"

[Anti Federalist]

9/11.

Moos-Lims

[heavenlyboy34]

Then why hasn't Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, or any of the other liberty candidates ever taken that position? Are they "authoritarians?"

I don't see why any so-called "conservative" hasn't taken Pete's position. Riddle me this-what is "conservative" about police? None of the founders that modern conservatives gush over would have even dreamed of such a concept as government-run police.

[tod evans]

And apparently someone is supporting this shit,, because he does not have a red box yet.



I don't give neg rep for ignorance.

[Neil Desmond]

I don't give neg rep for ignorance.
That's alright & he's gone now, anyways.

[tod evans]

That's alright & he's gone now, anyways.

Good riddance of bad rubbish...

[heavenlyboy34]

I wonder to what extent things like the Andy Griffith Show have contributed to the passive complacency of many people regarding the police. The vocally enthusiastic supporters of aggressive police actions are, of course, on an entirely different "vibe." But I suspect most people just have a (sorely mistaken) "Helpful Officer Friendly" image of "cops in general" - fostered (or at least expressed) in good part by bucolic "Sheriff Andy" fantasies and Norman Rockwell-esque iconographies.
I bet you could get a government grant to study that. ;) I suspect media influence with shows like "Cops" (Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?), "America's Most Wanted", and the array of cop dramas has something to do with it...

[heavenlyboy34]

Funny how that NEVER happens when a "Christian" does does something terrible, huh?

They haven't come up with good enough propaganda to make people scared of Christians...yet. For now at least, "Mooslim Extremist"/"Insurgents"/"Islamic Terrorists"/etc suffice to stir up fear and passions amongst Boobus.

[Brett85]

I don't see why any so-called "conservative" hasn't taken Pete's position. Riddle me this-what is "conservative" about police? None of the founders that modern conservatives gush over would have even dreamed of such a concept as government-run police.

What is conservative about anarchy?

[heavenlyboy34]

What is conservative about anarchy?

Who said anything about anarchy? Answer my question, please.

[Occam's Banana]

Hitler and the Holocaust (Godwin) were probably the worst thing to ever happen to liberty. Most people think that if people aren't being loaded into trains for extermination, or if troops aren't marching around every street with warhounds barking, then we live in a state of freedom. The truth is that they will never need to, nor would it be possible, to fully patrol the United States with a proper military force. That's what the police combined with full surveillance, are for. They only need to be able to drag people away by ones and twos.

+ frakkin' rep! You have absolutely nailed it here.

One of the Nazis' greatest sins is that they turned naked, jack-booted thuggery into a cartoonish parody of itself. As a result, most people can't or won't recognize police-state fascism in any terms except those of death camps, bombastically Hitlerian rhetoric, and orgiastic "Triumph of the Will" martial spectacles.

[Brett85]

Who said anything about anarchy? Answer my question, please.

I answered your question. I think that without any police at all, we would have anarchy, and I don't believe that anarchy has anything to do with liberty. I don't think that people would have any liberties or any rights if we didn't have a way to enforce laws. People wouldn't have any rights if someone could just go on a rampage of murdering hundreds of people and not get caught or prosecuted for it. Of course, with our current system the police don't simply protect rights, but take them away. So I'd like to reform our criminal justice system to make these police abuses much more rare, such as repealing the war on drugs, and other similar reforms. I'm just not in favor of actually abolishing the police. That doesn't mean that I support the current system.

[Anti Federalist]

+ frakkin' rep! You have absolutely nailed it here.

One of the Nazis' greatest sins is that they turned naked, jack-booted thuggery into a cartoonish parody of itself. As a result, most people can't or won't recognize police-state fascism in any terms except those of death camps, bombastically Hitlerian rhetoric, and orgiastic "Triumph of the Will" martial spectacles.

Damn it...we don't even get the cool military parades...;)

[Anti Federalist]

Since "police" are a relatively modern invention, circa 1850 or so, what was the state of man in the centuries prior to that, specifically in the US/Colonies?


I answered your question. I think that without any police at all, we would have anarchy, and I don't believe that anarchy has anything to do with liberty. I don't think that people would have any liberties or any rights if we didn't have a way to enforce laws. People wouldn't have any rights if someone could just go on a rampage of murdering hundreds of people and not get caught or prosecuted for it. Of course, with our current system the police don't simply protect rights, but take them away. So I'd like to reform our criminal justice system to make these police abuses much more rare, such as repealing the war on drugs, and other similar reforms. I'm just not in favor of actually abolishing the police. That doesn't mean that I support the current system.

[Brett85]

Since "police" are a relatively modern invention, circa 1850 or so, what was the state of man in the centuries prior to that, specifically in the US/Colonies?

How many people lived in America in 1850? Maybe a million? We have 300 million people living in America today. So it's an apples and oranges comparison. I mean, if you and 50 of your friends moved to a deserted island and started living there, I'm sure you could get by without having any "police." But as more people started coming to the island, it would get harder and harder to keep law and order without a mechanism to do so.

[Philhelm]

Damn it...we don't even get the cool military parades...;)

If I have to live in tyranny, I would prefer all false pretenses be dropped. They did look cool carrying torches, after all.

[Anti Federalist]

How many people lived in America in 1850? Maybe a million? We have 300 million people living in America today. So it's an apples and oranges comparison. I mean, if you and 50 of your friends moved to a deserted island and started living there, I'm sure you could get by without having any "police." But as more people started coming to the island, it would get harder and harder to keep law and order without a mechanism to do so.

23 million, but who's counting.

OK, so you've just made the case that freedom has to die as population increases.

[Anti Federalist]

If I have to live in tyranny, I would prefer all false pretenses be dropped. They did look cool carrying torches, after all.

I know...we always seem to get the shitty end of the stick...I mean, c'mon, you're going to have us live in tyranny, at least give us some of those "orgiastic "Triumph of the Will" martial spectacles"...amirite?

[Occam's Banana]

I answered your question. I think that without any police at all, we would have anarchy, and I don't believe that anarchy has anything to do with liberty. I don't think that people would have any liberties or any rights if we didn't have a way to enforce laws. People wouldn't have any rights if someone could just go on a rampage of murdering hundreds of people and not get caught or prosecuted for it.


Since "police" are a relatively modern invention, circa 1850 or so, what was the state of man in the centuries prior to that, specifically in the US/Colonies?

Well, obviously, since there were no policemen, there was nothing but anarchy before c. 1850.
People would just suddenly go on rampages and murder hundreds of other people. :rolleyes:
And people were absolutely helpless to do anything about it, because some of them didn't have uniforms & badges.
Uniforms & badges are the very bestest & greatest inventions in history. Civilization would not be possible with out them.

[Occam's Banana]

If I have to live in tyranny, I would prefer all false pretenses be dropped. They did look cool carrying torches, after all.


I know...we always seem to get the shitty end of the stick...I mean, c'mon, you're going to have us live in tyranny, at least give us some of those "orgiastic "Triumph of the Will" martial spectacles"...amirite?

And the uniforms! Don't forget the uniforms. The Nazis may have been some of the most gratuitously despicable bastards ever to walk the earth, but I'll give them this: they had THE snazziest uniforms EVARRR!!

[Brett85]

23 million, but who's counting.

OK, so you've just made the case that freedom has to die as population increases.

Don't some people here take the position that there should be a County Sheriff, and he should be allowed to hire as many deputees as he or she needs to hire to keep law and order? If so, why not just reform the current system to give the County Sherriff the authority to hire and fire police officers? Wouldn't that basically just be the same thing?

[Occam's Banana]

How many people lived in America in 1850? Maybe a million? We have 300 million people living in America today. So it's an apples and oranges comparison. I mean, if you and 50 of your friends moved to a deserted island and started living there, I'm sure you could get by without having any "police." But as more people started coming to the island, it would get harder and harder to keep law and order without a mechanism to do so.

You've made this argument before, and it's one of the most ridiculous I have ever heard.

Tell me: what police precinct has a population of 300 million? Or to put it another way:

What does the size of the populations of Oregon, Missouri, etc. have to do with the need (or lack thereof) of police in, say, some town in Florida?

[Neil Desmond]

How many people lived in America in 1850? Maybe a million? We have 300 million people living in America today. So it's an apples and oranges comparison. I mean, if you and 50 of your friends moved to a deserted island and started living there, I'm sure you could get by without having any "police." But as more people started coming to the island, it would get harder and harder to keep law and order without a mechanism to do so.
I'm not necessarily in favor of doing away with police myself, but if this increase in population is somehow playing a role in causing police forces to be a failure for society, then maybe that in itself is a reason to consider doing away with police forces.

[Brett85]

You've made this argument before, and it one of the most ridiculous one's I have ever heard.

Tell me: what police precinct has a population of 300 million? Or to put it another way:

What does size of the population of Oregon have to do with the need (or lack thereof) of police in, say, some town in Florida?

Well, I believe in local government, so if a small town doesn't want to have police officers, they shouldn't have to have them. There's a small town of about 50-100 people about 10 miles from where I live, and they don't have any police officers. They just have a county Sheriff. So I'm not saying that every single town in America needs police officers.

[Occam's Banana]

Well, I believe in local government, so if a small town doesn't want to have police officers, they shouldn't have to have them. There's a small town of about 50-100 people about 10 miles from where I live, and they don't have any police officers. They just have a county Sheriff. So I'm not saying that every single town in America needs police officers.

That's just my point. The police we are talking about are "local police" (as distinct from, say, "federalized police" like the FBI).
So the popluation of the country as a whole is completely irrelevant and simply hasn't got anything at all to do with it.

[UWDude]

I have never been robbed.

Except by men with badges and guns.

Every time I go out, I know I am risking getting pulled over and my money taken from me for whatever fits the cop's fancy that day. And even then, even being parked in front of my own house, my car has been stolen by cops and tow companies simply for being parked in front of my own house.

I don't fear street criminals. They have never robbed me or stole my car. The state has, and continues to do so, and now is going to make me by their insurance for worthless health insurance that will not help me when I need them.

We are run by a nation of gamblers and idiots who think they know best. And I mean not just the politicians, I mean the mindless masses that elect them.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Maybe not the right to vote or run for office, but human rights? Of course they do.

I don't really know who these people were, or why they were imprisoned, honestly. But knowing our government, I have no doubt it wasn't right.

This is Ron Paul's forum, not Rand's. My opinion of Rand has been deteriorating of late, and I'm not even sure if I support him. I don't know if you are right about this or not, but if you are, it would just lower my opinion of Rand, nothing else.

See: this here is the problem with Rand's strategy of pandering to sheep. You're seeing it right in front of you.

His name isn't InRandItrust

[pcosmar]

What is conservative about anarchy?

What Anarchy?
I have never advocated anarchy. Ever.
I do not even believe that anarchy can exist for more than a moment.

This country did quite well for 100 years without police,, and there was not anarchy.
There was Liberty. Laws were enforced. (though there were a lot less of them)

Police simply did not exist. There was no such thing,, until they were invented.

[Neil Desmond]

I do not even believe that anarchy can exist for more than a moment.
What if we could somehow in effect eliminate scarcity (i.e., to the point where people never go hungry again, and will always have things like shelter, transportation, etc.) thus eliminating the need for money/trade/hoarding?

[UWDude]

How many people lived in America in 1850? Maybe a million?

LoL

A million?

I think it's time you did more reading and less yapping.

[tod evans]

This country did quite well for 100 years without police,, and there was not anarchy.
There was Liberty. Laws were enforced. (though there were a lot less of them)


If/when there are so many laws that the man on the street can't keep track of them in his head government has gotten too big.

[pcosmar]

What if we could somehow in effect eliminate scarcity (i.e., to the point where people never go hungry again, and will always have things like shelter, transportation, etc.) thus eliminating the need for money/trade/hoarding?

You would have to change the nature of man.

And I am not into social engineering or social control.

That would be the socialists and communists,,

[Neil Desmond]

You would have to change the nature of man.

And I am not into social engineering or social control.

That would be the socialists and communists,,
I don't see why the nature of man would have to be changed, just like it didn't need to be changed for man to adapt to having and using money or technology such as cars, planes, TV, radio, the Internet, etc. Why do you believe that the nature of man has to be changed?

Does it have to be changed to eliminate the need or desire for cops?

[Brett85]

I do not even believe that anarchy can exist for more than a moment.

I don't really see why you would say something like that when what you support is almost identical to anarchism. Minarchists are generally thought to be anarchists with the exception that they support police, the military, and the court system, but yet you don't even believe the police should exist. So I don't really see how the minarchist label would even fit you.

[Brett85]

LoL

A million?

I think it's time you did more reading and less yapping.

I was typing fast. I wasn't going to stop and go look up the number.

[pcosmar]

Does it have to be changed to eliminate the need or desire for cops?

It would have to be changed for Anarchy to exist.
People follow leaders,, and they are power hungry..
Anarchy will never exist until these are eliminated from the nature of man.

[pcosmar]

I don't really see why you would say something like that when what you support is almost identical to anarchism.

No,, it is not.
Have you ever bothered to read the link I posted?

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

It has nothing to do with Anarchy.. It does address proper law enforcement.

[Pericles]

There really is no debating anything you said.

That some people don't see it, or perhaps don't want to see it, is boggling.

What he said

[Brett85]

No,, it is not.
Have you ever bothered to read the link I posted?

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

It has nothing to do with Anarchy.. It does address proper law enforcement.

I understand your argument, but I'm just saying that if your view is that we can abolish all government with the exception of the county sheriff and the court system, what would be the big deal about going one step further and abolishing the country sheriff and the court system? If you want to get rid of 98% of government, then I'm not sure how you can say that getting rid of 100% of it "couldn't exist even for a moment."

[pcosmar]

I understand your argument, but I'm just saying that if your view is that we can abolish all government with the exception of the county sheriff and the court system, what would be the big deal about going one step further and abolishing the country sheriff and the court system? If you want to get rid of 98% of government, then I'm not sure how you can say that getting rid of 100% of it "couldn't exist even for a moment."

Damn.. you are dishonest.
You have twisted what I have said into something totally different. You keep up with this "You're an anarchist" meme.

How is doing away with an Authoritarian Control Mechanism equated with doing away with government?

Have you read the link? What points of that abstract do you have an issue with? specifically.


I understand your argument,

I doubt that. You won't even read the Constitutional argument.

[Brett85]

Damn.. you are dishonest.

Why? I simply asked you a question.


I doubt that. You won't even read the Constitutional argument.

I started reading it, but it was about as long as a book. I'll try to read more of it sometime.

[Henry Rogue]

*Originally Posted by*Traditional Conservative*I support abolishing the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the Department of Education, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services, EPA, FDA, DEA, support ending the war on drugs, support bringing our troops home from around the world, oppose preemptive war, oppose sanctions on foreign countries, oppose foreign military bases, oppose the Patriot Act, oppose warrantless wiretapping, etc.

Does that sound like a "statist" to you?
My God, we'll have money anarchy, education anarchy, commerce anarchy, energy anarchy, farming anarchy, resource anarchy, poverty anarchy, environmental anarchy, food anarchy and drug anarchy.

[DamianTV]

My God, we'll have money anarchy, education anarchy, commerce anarchy, energy anarchy, farming anarchy, resource anarchy, poverty anarchy, environmental anarchy, food anarchy and drug anarchy.

Can i has some too?

[Henry Rogue]

Can i has some too?
Kinda sounds good, doesn't it? Like freedom or something.

[DamianTV]

Kinda sounds good, doesn't it? Like freedom or something.

What is Freedumb that u speek of, comrade? Well, what evar it is, I wants me some too so I can be cool like teh other kidz!

[Henry Rogue]

What is Freedumb that u speek of, comrade? Well, what evar it is, I wants me some too so I can be cool like teh other kidz!
You have to ask the authority for permission. The laws that apply to you may not apply to them.

[DamianTV]

You have to ask the authority for permission. The laws that apply to you may not apply to them.

Dammit! The waiting list is over 10,000 years long! If I would have known sooner that I could have Freedom from Authority, I would have asked my local Authority for Permission sooner! :p

[Brett85]

My God, we'll have money anarchy, education anarchy, commerce anarchy, energy anarchy, farming anarchy, resource anarchy, poverty anarchy, environmental anarchy, food anarchy and drug anarchy.

Um, it's pretty simple for me. I think that both big government and anarchism are opposite extremes and are both bad for our country, and I oppose both. I support limited government. I think the government should only do the things that it absolutely has to do.

[pcosmar]

I started reading it, but it was about as long as a book. I'll try to read more of it sometime.

I doubt you even clicked in the link. It is one page. Takes 15 minutes to half an hour to read,, depending on how slowly you read.
(not counting the documented references)

CONCLUSION

The United States of America was founded without professional police. Its earliest traditions and founding documents evidenced no contemplation that the power of the state would be implemented by omnipresent police forces. On the contrary, America's constitutional Framers expressed hostility and contempt for the standing armies of the late eighteenth century, which functioned as law enforcement units in American cities. The advent of modern policing has greatly altered the balance of power between the citizen and the state in a way that would have been seen as constitutionally invalid by the Framers. The implications of this altered balance of power are far-reaching, and should invite consideration by judges and legislators who concern themselves with constitutional questions.

[Pericles]

LoL

A million?

I think it's time you did more reading and less yapping.

Those who know Patrick Henry's "Liberty or Death" speech would know that population was at 3 million in 1775.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't really see why you would say something like that when what you support is almost identical to anarchism. Minarchists are generally thought to be anarchists with the exception that they support police, the military, and the court system, but yet you don't even believe the police should exist. So I don't really see how the minarchist label would even fit you.

Supporting government run sheriffs, court systems, and a navy (I'm guessing this is his position since that's the one most of the Founders took, but I may be wrong on one or more things here) is not the same thing as supporting government run nothing. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this distinction.


I understand your argument, but I'm just saying that if your view is that we can abolish all government with the exception of the county sheriff and the court system, what would be the big deal about going one step further and abolishing the country sheriff and the court system? If you want to get rid of 98% of government, then I'm not sure how you can say that getting rid of 100% of it "couldn't exist even for a moment."

Heck, I could ask you the same thing. You probably want to abolish 80-90% of all government? Why do those of us who want to abolish the whole thing scare YOU so much?;)


Um, it's pretty simple for me. I think that both big government and anarchism are opposite extremes and are both bad for our country, and I oppose both. I support limited government. I think the government should only do the things that it absolutely has to do.

I agree, I just don't think there are any such things;)

That said, you're probably closer to anarchism than to the status quo.


Well, you're not selling me.

To be fair, I don't think this guy is correct here, at least according to what positions Rand has actually taken. That said, I'm still iffy on Rand.


Then why hasn't Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, or any of the other liberty candidates ever taken that position? Are they "authoritarians?"

First of all, they're Federal officials, so they don't need to say anything about the state-level. Ron supports a state's right to ban drugs. Does this mean they actually have such a right? Well, they do in the sense that its not the Federal Government's job to stop them from doing that, but they don't have a moral right to do it. But, what does that have to do with a Federal official? Not much.

Second of all, I don't see what part of "Some of us admire Ron Paul a lot but are a little bit more radical on certain issues" is so complicated. For me, when I first found out about Ron, I liked him but thought he was a little too extreme. Now I like Ron but think he's not quite extreme enough. I don't hold that against him though. I don't agree with anybody on everything. Ron is one of the greatest voices for liberty that there are, however.

Regarding the police thing: here's the bottom line for me, as an ancap (And I'd love to hear other ancap's critiques of this.) Specialization of labor is a natural result of capitalism. You have the right to fix your own car, but you will usually delegate this responsibility to a mechanic. You have the right to fix your own electric, but will probably hire an electrician. You have the right to take care of your own family when they are sick, but its probable that you will go to a doctor. Now, there may be statuatory laws against doing these things, or there may not, but any such laws are incompatible with a free society, since doing these things for yourself is not in any way an act of aggression. So, you are delegating responsibilities, voluntarily, to a mechanic, electrician, and doctor respectively. You can only delegate these people rights to do things that you have the right to do yourself. They have no right to force you to deal with them, and you have no right to force anyone else to deal with them.

I view police in a similar way. You have a right to protect yourself, and, if necessary, to force someone who has violated your rights to stand trial. But in the real world, protecting yourself is dangerous, and you likely won't want to personally do the work of hunting a criminal down. So you may hire "police" to do this for you. But you cannot delegate any rights to the police that you yourself do not have. You have a right to protect yourself against murder or theft, so you can hire police to do the same thing. But you don't have a right to break into someone's house and look for drugs, or to force someone to pay the police for you, so you cannot delegate this right to the police, since you yourself do not have this right.

Of course, in such a society, I suspect there'd be competition amongst police agencies. Police would be genuinely worried about doing a good job for their customers, otherwise, much like anything else, the market mechanism would kick in. You'd have just as much right to use lethal violence against a "cop" as they would against you (none except in response to aggression.) In reality, the "police" would probably spend more time bringing people to justice than other people, but this would be because of division of labor, not rights. You'd have the right to bring those who aggress against you to trial just the same way as a cop would, much like you'd have the right to fix your own car but would likely hire a mechanic, etc.



I answered your question. I think that without any police at all, we would have anarchy, and I don't believe that anarchy has anything to do with liberty. I don't think that people would have any liberties or any rights if we didn't have a way to enforce laws. People wouldn't have any rights if someone could just go on a rampage of murdering hundreds of people and not get caught or prosecuted for it. Of course, with our current system the police don't simply protect rights, but take them away. So I'd like to reform our criminal justice system to make these police abuses much more rare, such as repealing the war on drugs, and other similar reforms. I'm just not in favor of actually abolishing the police. That doesn't mean that I support the current system.

I think the people who say no police period are missing the natural division of labor. That said, the concept of police that I have is radically different than the status quo. I believe in laws, and I believe those laws should apply to every adult American in exactly the same way (Children are somewhat unique in that their parents still have authority over them.) So, when you say "Anarchy", do you include the system I describe above?


Don't some people here take the position that there should be a County Sheriff, and he should be allowed to hire as many deputees as he or she needs to hire to keep law and order? If so, why not just reform the current system to give the County Sherriff the authority to hire and fire police officers? Wouldn't that basically just be the same thing?

I don't consider "law and order" a positive unless the laws are moral, but aside from that, who cares if they're called "Deputies" or "officers"? I see that as a meaningless distinction.


His name isn't InRandItrust

Yet he acts like it is.

[UWDude]

I was typing fast. I wasn't going to stop and go look up the number.

A million is a HORRIBLE guesstimate. I would expect even a fifth grader would know it was more than that.


I started reading it, but it was about as long as a book. I'll try to read more of it sometime.

LoL

I think you need to read a lot more of everything.

[Brett85]

@Freedom Fanatic-I think it might be theoretically possible to privatize police forces, but I don't think it's theoretically possible to privatize law.

[Brett85]

A million is a HORRIBLE guesstimate. I would expect even a fifth grader would know it was more than that.



LoL

I think you need to read a lot more of everything.

Such a nice guy you are. I guess I'm not allowed to hold a minority position here. Not to mention the fact that I'd probably be right in line with Rand, Amash, Massie if I were a member of Congress, or even more libertarian than them.

[tod evans]

I don't think it's theoretically possible to privatize law.

The "practice" of law has been privatized for centuries...

That's a large part of the problem.

[Quark]

What if we could somehow in effect eliminate scarcity (i.e., to the point where people never go hungry again, and will always have things like shelter, transportation, etc.) thus eliminating the need for money/trade/hoarding?

Do you think scarcity can be eliminated? Say everybody had unlimited ability to obtain shelter, transportation, etc. That'd just mean they'd put their time into creative endeavors (in science, art, etc.) These creative endeavors, due to their unique identities, would be scarce. Consequently, in Star Trek, where scarcity does not exist in the things you have mentioned, there is still conflict and war. However, reducing scarcity through economic productivity is the surest way to help make the lives of all human beings better, at both the individual and utilitarian levels.

[Quark]

@Freedom Fanatic-I think it might be theoretically possible to privatize police forces, but I don't think it's theoretically possible to privatize law.

"Theoretically" that is possible as well. Polycentric law is certain logically contained and truthful. Whether or not it can be practically implemented with certain initial conditions to deal with is the issue. Something like polycentric law is an example of spontaneous order, and it requires the precise initial conditions so that a state doesn't take control.

[pcosmar]

@Freedom Fanatic-I think it might be theoretically possible to privatize police forces, but I don't think it's theoretically possible to privatize law.

And just how would you privatize Authoritarian CONTROL?

If you wish to hire private security to protect your person or property,, you are welcome to do so.

Private security is NOT Police.

Police are CONTROL. It is the MEANING OF THE DAMN WORD.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police



: to control and keep order in (an area) by the use of police or military forces

: to control (something) by making sure that rules and regulations are being followed



1 archaic : govern
2: to control, regulate, or keep in order by use of police
3: to make clean and put in order
4a : to supervise the operation, execution, or administration of to prevent or detect and prosecute violations of rules and regulations
b : to exercise such supervision over the policies and activities of
5: to perform the functions of a police force in or over

The idea that a free people need to be controlled is repulsive.



THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT

The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

[Occam's Banana]

@Freedom Fanatic-I think it might be theoretically possible to privatize police forces, but I don't think it's theoretically possible to privatize law.

There are more things, Horatio ...

Not only is it theoretically possible to privatize law, it is practically possible to do so, as well. In fact, history clearly & undeniably illustrates this. Private law existed & flourished throughout the history of Western civilization, in various forms - common law (most notably that of England), the Law Merchant (lex mercatoria), Church canon law, etc., etc., etc. These private law systems dealt with matters such as theft, murder, fraud, contracts, and all the usual things we expect legal systems to deal with when we talk about "the law."

Private law went into (steep) decline only relatively very recently - with the tragic advent of the modern totalitarian "nation-state" (which, unfortunately, is now the form pretty much ALL States take). Modern nation-states systematically usurped & destroyed the old private law systems in order to concentrate and centralize all legal power in the hands of the State alone. The totalitarian nature of the nation-state demands that private legal venues be eliminated or supressed, so that they may be placed under a single, over-arching, all-encompassing controlling authority (i.e., the State itself).

Prior to rise of modern nation-states, the law was widely distributed across numerous institutions, many of them private - common law courts, merchant leagues, the Church, etc. States & governments existed, of course, but they were VERY different from the nation-states that exist today. Back then, State law dealt primarily with things like taxation and feudal land concerns (primogeniture, entailment, quitrent, etc.). You did not, for example, have things like State-run courts with State-appointed "prosecuting attorneys" who charged & tried people for things like theft or rape or fraud or murder (those were matters for common, merchant or Church law courts). Kings & dukes & barons simply had no interest or authority in settling contract disputes between tradesmen - or figuring out who stole some peasant's pig - or deciding if Yeoman John murdered Farmer William - or so forth. Thus, private institutions evolved to handle such things.

So, yes: private law is very much possible, and NOT just "theoretically" ...

[Christian Liberty]

@Freedom Fanatic-I think it might be theoretically possible to privatize police forces, but I don't think it's theoretically possible to privatize law.

This isn't something I yet have a particularly strong opinion on, but I know Rothbard did advocate having one system of law apply to a given area. Although there are other ancaps who indeed believe in competing systems of law. Personally, I lean toward the view that the law, or at least the general law of the NAP, would need to be agreed upon by the people in a given area in order for the system to work. But, maybe I'm wrong about that.


Such a nice guy you are. I guess I'm not allowed to hold a minority position here. Not to mention the fact that I'd probably be right in line with Rand, Amash, Massie if I were a member of Congress, or even more libertarian than them.

I hope you don't take my comments in that light. I'm not trying to attack you, just trying to get you to rethink certain assumptions the same way I did a few months ago. That said, I think you're probably a little bit less libertarian than Ron. Not much, but a little. Ron seems more open to anarcho-capitalism than you are, though, even if he doesn't quite agree with it.

That said, I'd take you in congress in a heartbeat.


And just how would you privatize Authoritarian CONTROL?

If you wish to hire private security to protect your person or property,, you are welcome to do so.

Private security is NOT Police.

Police are CONTROL. It is the MEANING OF THE DAMN WORD.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police







The idea that a free people need to be controlled is repulsive.



http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

OK, I get your point. What I'm talking about, and what I think TC is talking about, is a group hired to protect people against aggressors, and to execute justice against said aggressors. Whereas you're talking about something more akin to the standing army, which admittedly, modern police pretty much are.

So maybe I should really be saying "Private security forces" or "private bounty hunters" or something:p

[Brett85]

I hope you don't take my comments in that light. I'm not trying to attack you, just trying to get you to rethink certain assumptions the same way I did a few months ago.

Of course. I wasn't talking about you. I was responding to someone else's comment.

[pcosmar]

OK, I get your point. What I'm talking about, and what I think TC is talking about, is a group hired to protect people against aggressors, and to execute justice against said aggressors. Whereas you're talking about something more akin to the standing army, which admittedly, modern police pretty much are.

So maybe I should really be saying "Private security forces" or "private bounty hunters" or something:p

Private security is fine..If you want to hire someone to protect your person or property. As long as they do not interfere with anyone else.

"and to execute justice" WTF?
No one has the right to hire someone to kill for them.

And this is not the job of police even in our fucked up system.

Either take responsibility and do you own killing or don't.
but neither you nor society has a right to hire killers to do it for them.
That is what a jury trial is for.

[Christian Liberty]

Private security is fine..If you want to hire someone to protect your person or property. As long as they do not interfere with anyone else.

"and to execute justice" WTF?
No one has the right to hire someone to kill for them.

And this is not the job of police even in our fucked up system.

Either take responsibility and do you own killing or don't.
but neither you nor society has a right to hire killers to do it for them.
That is what a jury trial is for.

OK, I agree with you that nobody has a right to have someone kill for them. However, if you did have the right to kill someone, you would have the right to hire someone else to do it for you. So I see your assertion that nobody has a right to hire someone to kill for them incompatible with the idea that they have a right to kill themselves.

When I say "execute justice" I mean bringing a person for whom probable cause of an act of aggression exists to trial, or forcing them to comply with the punishment that the jury decided on if they refuse to do so. I'm not talking about hiring assassins.

[pcosmar]

I'm not talking about hiring assassins.

Well good.

but that is exactly how "police" came to be.

People refused to take responsibility..so they hired someone to do their killing for them.

They hired someone to enforce (stupid) laws that they would not enforce themselves.

Then they added more and more laws,, and more and more enforcers.

And an Authoritarian Monster is created.

[jbauer]

Yes, for some reason the people here think that Muslim immigrants should just let be allowed to roam free after a major terrorist attack. Not saying that those immigrants had anything to do with that, but I trust our police and intelligence services to do the right thing. If that means to incarcerate some hundred or so immigrants from the lands of Islam to gather information, then that's a good use of authority.

So wait? Did they let you roam free after 911? Those Humans that happened to immigrate here are no different than you or I. They deserve to be treated the same.

Also did they pick up ALL the immigrants? How about the Mexicans picking fruit, did they close the orchards down?

[jbauer]

I wonder to what extent things like the Andy Griffith Show have contributed to the passive complacency of many people regarding the police. The vocally enthusiastic supporters of aggressive police actions are, of course, on an entirely different "vibe." But I suspect most people just have a (sorely mistaken) "Helpful Officer Friendly" image of "cops in general" - fostered (or at least expressed) in good part by bucolic "Sheriff Andy" fantasies and Norman Rockwell-esque iconographies.
I'd be more worried about how every new program on todays TV is a reality show showing how dumb we all are or a police drama showing how cool the cops are.

[jbauer]

What if we could somehow in effect eliminate scarcity (i.e., to the point where people never go hungry again, and will always have things like shelter, transportation, etc.) thus eliminating the need for money/trade/hoarding?

Well comrade they already tried that. It didn't work out so well.

[UWDude]

Such a nice guy you are. I guess I'm not allowed to hold a minority position here. Not to mention the fact that I'd probably be right in line with Rand, Amash, Massie if I were a member of Congress, or even more libertarian than them.

I haven't really even cared about your opinion. I am more astounded by your ignorance. When I said you need to do more reading, I meant it. Guessing 1 million Americans in 1850 shows a very sorry grasp of American history. The civil war was only a little over a decade after.

[Spikender]

I'd like to be able to say that people who defend cops, no matter what sort of heinous thing they do, would change their mind if they got screwed over by them.

But honestly, and I don't think I need to tell anyone here this, they make up excuses for the police even when they are the one's getting screwed.

Can't tell you how disgusted I am with the people of this country nowadays. I honestly don't think I can put it into words. Even when there is blatant video evidence of police abuse, even shooting and killing, people make excuses. There is no excuse for so-called heroes to be busting heads at even the slightest inkling of someone not respecting their authority or the silly rags they put on, or scoffing at the waste of perfectly good metal they call a badge.

Fuck em.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I don't agree with you on that. I just agreed with you that there's a purpose for the police.


I'd like to be able to say that people who defend cops, no matter what sort of heinous thing they do, would change their mind if they got screwed over by them.

But honestly, and I don't think I need to tell anyone here this, they make up excuses for the police even when they are the one's getting screwed.

Can't tell you how disgusted I am with the people of this country nowadays. I honestly don't think I can put it into words. Even when there is blatant video evidence of police abuse, even shooting and killing, people make excuses. There is no excuse for so-called heroes to be busting heads at even the slightest inkling of someone not respecting their authority or the silly rags they put on, or scoffing at the waste of perfectly good metal they call a badge.

Fuck em.

I think there's a mixture of those who don't know/haven't seen the evidence, and those that reject the truth.

[Brett85]

I'd like to be able to say that people who defend cops, no matter what sort of heinous thing they do, would change their mind if they got screwed over by them.

But honestly, and I don't think I need to tell anyone here this, they make up excuses for the police even when they are the one's getting screwed.

Can't tell you how disgusted I am with the people of this country nowadays. I honestly don't think I can put it into words. Even when there is blatant video evidence of police abuse, even shooting and killing, people make excuses. There is no excuse for so-called heroes to be busting heads at even the slightest inkling of someone not respecting their authority or the silly rags they put on, or scoffing at the waste of perfectly good metal they call a badge.

Fuck em.

It seems to me like even if you criticize the police in these situations, that's not good enough. People think that if you don't hate the police and want to completely abolish them, then you must be an authoritarian police statist who always defends the police, defends all of these police abuses, and supports the status quo and doesn't want to repeal any of the laws that we have on the books. In the minds of a lot of the really hardcore libertarians there isn't any room at all for a position that's in between the status quo and the complete abolishment of all police forces.

[azxd]

Still angry over that knock on the head LOL

[pcosmar]

In the minds of a lot of the really hardcore libertarians there isn't any room at all for a position that's in between the status quo and the complete abolishment of all police forces.

That is because in a Free Society, police should simply NOT EXIST.

Police are an Authoritarian concept and construct. To support their existence is an Authoritarian position.
It is to support the idea that free people NEED to be Controlled.

I find that position to be repulsive,, and offensive.


http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

And you still have not given any specific argument against this constitutional position. Or been able to point out any anarchy in the article.

Authoritarianism is the polar opposite of Liberty.

[phill4paul]

In the minds of a lot of the really hardcore libertarians there isn't any room at all for a position that's in between the status quo and the complete abolishment of all police forces.

Some don't believe in compromise. Those you would call hard core libertarians realize that the "just-us" system is incapable of policing itself. Therefore, the only way to end "in-just-us" is to abolish the practice itself.

[Brett85]

Some don't believe in compromise. Those you would call hard core libertarians realize that the "just-us" system is incapable of policing itself. Therefore, the only way to end "in-just-us" is to abolish the practice itself.

Then why do people here compromise by supporting liberty candidates like Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, etc? Do you really think that any of them are in favor of abolishing the police? It seems like if you post here you're supposed to have positions that are far more radical than the liberty people that we have in Congress.

[LibertyEagle]

It's true that many police are out of control and have been for some time. Perhaps sheriffs are better because they are more accountable to the people, as it should be. Or maybe we need something different entirely. But, I do think having some kind of peacekeepers is beneficial in a free society. But, they must be kept in a box and responsible to the communities that pay them.

[LibertyEagle]

Some don't believe in compromise. Those you would call hard core libertarians realize that the "just-us" system is incapable of policing itself. Therefore, the only way to end "in-just-us" is to abolish the practice itself.

And that wouldn't be nirvana, either. Because it would be up to who had the bigger gun and the most money to buy security to protect their property and person.

I just don't want government to have the corner on either and not be accountable to the people. It seems clear to me, at least, that this like most matters, is best kept constrained to the local level.

[phill4paul]

Then why do people here compromise by supporting liberty candidates like Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, etc? Do you really think that any of them are in favor of abolishing the police? It seems like if you post here you're supposed to have positions that are far more radical than the liberty people that we have in Congress.

I would submit that Justin Amash, Thomas Massie and Rand Paul have no idea of the scope of police abuse and that this issue is not at the top of thier radar. Those that read these forums should know better.

[phill4paul]

It's true that many police are out of control and have been for some time. Perhaps sheriffs are better because they are more accountable to the people, as it should be. Or maybe we need something different entirely. But, I do think having some kind of peacekeepers is beneficial in a free society. But, they must be kept in a box and responsible to the communities that pay them.

The peaekeepers are the citizens. Or they should be. However, that obligation has been taken from them. In fact it is denied them in many places.

[phill4paul]

And that wouldn't be nirvana, either. Because it would be up to who had the bigger gun and the most money to buy security to protect their property and person.

I just don't want government to have the corner on either and not be accountable to the people. It seems clear to me, at least, that this like most matters, is best kept constrained to the local level.

There is no nirvana. Anyone seeking it will be sorily disappointed. The government is no longer accountable to the people. At any level.

[Spikender]

I think there's a mixture of those who don't know/haven't seen the evidence, and those that reject the truth.

Ignorance is no excuse in my mind, because I share the truth and to them it's isolated. I'm going to be honest, if you don't know about police abuse by this time, especially in this day and age, then you're just fooling yourself.

And yes, cognitive dissonance runs very deep, especially among the police apologist crowd. In their eyes, cops can absolutely do no wrong, every action they do is justified.


It seems to me like even if you criticize the police in these situations, that's not good enough. People think that if you don't hate the police and want to completely abolish them, then you must be an authoritarian police statist who always defends the police, defends all of these police abuses, and supports the status quo and doesn't want to repeal any of the laws that we have on the books. In the minds of a lot of the really hardcore libertarians there isn't any room at all for a position that's in between the status quo and the complete abolishment of all police forces.

I'm going to be honest and just say that after all the experiences I've had with police as well as the crap I've seen in my neighborhood, I just plain hate all police officers. Call it wrong if you will, but I will not lie about the way I feel.

Do I support complete abolishment? I'm not sure. I do support police officers, at the very least, being treated just like the rest of us when they brutally stomp someone into submission or pop a cap into a 90 lb boy because they're running late for their daily doughnut run.

[Brett85]

I do support police officers, at the very least, being treated just like the rest of us when they brutally stomp someone into submission or pop a cap into a 90 lb boy because they're running late for their daily doughnut run.

I agree.

[pcosmar]

And that wouldn't be nirvana, either. Because it would be up to who had the bigger gun and the most money to buy security to protect their property and person.

I just don't want government to have the corner on either and not be accountable to the people. It seems clear to me, at least, that this like most matters, is best kept constrained to the local level.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton,

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson,

Local Law enforcement is Every Man Armed.
Stop delegating the responsibility to others.

[Christian Liberty]

It's true that many police are out of control and have been for some time. Perhaps sheriffs are better because they are more accountable to the people, as it should be. Or maybe we need something different entirely. But, I do think having some kind of peacekeepers is beneficial in a free society. But, they must be kept in a box and responsible to the communities that pay them.

I believe sheriffs would be better, and free market peace-keepers would be even better than that, since being accountable to customers who have a right to cut off your pocket book works even better than being accountable to voters, which in turn is better than being accountable to nobody at all.

I agree with you that there will always be some need for some form of peacekeepers though. Specialization of labor and all that. Some people won't want their services, and those people have a right to protect themselves and opt out of paying peacekeepers, but most people won't. Much like you have a right to try to fix your own car or electricity, but most people will choose to hire a mechanic or electrician.



Then why do people here compromise by supporting liberty candidates like Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, etc? Do you really think that any of them are in favor of abolishing the police? It seems like if you post here you're supposed to have positions that are far more radical than the liberty people that we have in Congress.

First of all, some people do not so compromise. I admit I occasionally see a comment that makes me wonder about someone's consistency, since if they really meant what they said they wouldn't support Ron Paul, and I wonder why they would be here if they don't support Ron Paul. But I cannot say the same for Amash, Massie, or Rand Paul since this is not an Amash, Massie, or Rand Paul forum. Its a Ron Paul forum (And I say that as someone who thus far supports Amash and Massie at the very least).

Second of all, I do see some distinctions between politicians, even good ones, and the rest of us. I honestly probably would get annoyed with anyone here who actually took all of Rand's positions, since some of them are mind-blowingly stupid and designed to pander to the sheep. For instance, "an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States." Note that, while I don't like it, I understand why Rand says things like this, but I wouldn't take that as an acceptable deviance by a poster here. Now, depending on sincerity, my approach to dealing with such might differ, but I wouldn't consider someone who took that position a friend of liberty.


It seems to me like even if you criticize the police in these situations, that's not good enough. People think that if you don't hate the police and want to completely abolish them, then you must be an authoritarian police statist who always defends the police, defends all of these police abuses, and supports the status quo and doesn't want to repeal any of the laws that we have on the books. In the minds of a lot of the really hardcore libertarians there isn't any room at all for a position that's in between the status quo and the complete abolishment of all police forces.

I don't think most of the people here are calling you an apologist. I certainly don't think you are. I think what you're hoping for is impossible though. You want the monopoly to voluntarily contain itself. By nature, it can't, unless you have competition.


I agree.

Thus, if I don't have a right to break into your house looking for drugs, neither do "cops", and you have the same right to protect yourself against "law enforcement" as against anyone else. Thus, if I don't have a right to demand money and threaten to kidnap you if you don't pay, "taxes" are imprisonment for "tax evasion" is illegitimate as well.

Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

[Christian Liberty]

Ignorance is no excuse in my mind, because I share the truth and to them it's isolated. I'm going to be honest, if you don't know about police abuse by this time, especially in this day and age, then you're just fooling yourself.


Three things:

First, I'm talking about the country at large, not just the subset that you or I have talked to.

Second of all, not everybody uses the internet, and the MSM doesn't admit to this stuff.

Third of all, I'm not saying its an excuse, just a mitigating factor. Kind of like how manslaughter isn't "OK", but its not quite as bad as murder.



And yes, cognitive dissonance runs very deep, especially among the police apologist crowd. In their eyes, cops can absolutely do no wrong, every action they do is justified.

The thing is, I've never met anyone who thinks like this, and I'm almost certain the police captain that I know personally doesn't think this. Admittedly, most people I know consider some actions justified that I do not. So I'd agree that they view police as a higher authority than "mundanes." Which is wrong. But its not the same thing as saying cops have a right to do absolutely anything.

Now, when it comes to the horiffic abuses that almost everyone knows is wrong, most people don't excuse it but make the "few bad apples" argument. While I don't think every cop does things like that, I'm definitely starting to wonder if those who don't are the "few".



I'm going to be honest and just say that after all the experiences I've had with police as well as the crap I've seen in my neighborhood, I just plain hate all police officers. Call it wrong if you will, but I will not lie about the way I feel.


When I see them in uniform, or in their police cars, I usually feel a little bit of resentment. Not really "hatred", but certainly a certain degree of dislike. Interestingly, my parents get nervous when they see cops behind them on the road, because they're almost always "speeding", yet they can't seem to make the connection that in any encounter like that somebody is doing something wrong. I'd argue that its the police, since "speeding" has no victim. But most Christians (including them) I know want to have it both ways, they don't think enforcing "the law" is immoral, and they think breaking "the law" is immoral, but yet they still "speed". Yet they don't get that "Speeding laws" are a joke. I've made the connection. The cops who enforce those laws, whether knowingly or not, are aiding and abetting theft.

That said, if I know the person personally, I usually think of them as a person who happens to be a police officer (and thus I take them at their individual merits rather than view them in light of their profession), rather than as a cop who I will somewhat dislike and be nervous around.

Am I inconsistent? Maybe. Trying to be 100% logically consistent... I try but its hard.

Do I support complete abolishment? I'm not sure. I do support police officers, at the very least, being treated just like the rest of us when they brutally stomp someone into submission or pop a cap into a 90 lb boy because they're running late for their daily doughnut run.

I support abolishment of all coercion. I think its likely that people will want to hire other people to protect them rather than do it themselves, and that's fine. But I don't think having a certain profession gives you a special set of rights. The same applies for "police."

[Brett85]

Thus, if I don't have a right to break into your house looking for drugs, neither do "cops", and you have the same right to protect yourself against "law enforcement" as against anyone else. Thus, if I don't have a right to demand money and threaten to kidnap you if you don't pay, "taxes" are imprisonment for "tax evasion" is illegitimate as well.

Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

No, I don't agree with that. If a cop first gets a warrant from a judge and goes into someone's home, that's perfectly Constitutional under the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment gives law enforcement the authority to enter someone's home after they obtain a warrant from a judge. I was just saying that I think the police should have to suffer legal consequences for shooting someone's dog, damaging their property, or injuring or killing innocent people.

[Christian Liberty]

No, I don't agree with that. If a cop first gets a warrant from a judge and goes into someone's home, that's perfectly Constitutional under the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment gives law enforcement the authority to enter someone's home after they obtain a warrant from a judge. I was just saying that I think the police should have to suffer legal consequences for shooting someone's dog, damaging their property, or injuring or killing innocent people.

I understand appealing to the constitution in quick face-to-face debates (I do it all the time when a more complex argument won't actually register in the person's mind), but is something inherently right just because its constitutional? Come to think of it, even the 17+ oz soda ban in NYC was technically "constitutional". Does that mean that law was actually morally OK?

Now, if you are going to say its not the job of the Federal government to overturn such laws, I'd agree with that, but that's a different issue than whether or not its actually morally acceptable.

I know no politician will ever "go here", but I don't understand how someone can say, out of one side of their mouth, that we're supposed to love our neighbor as ourselves, that we're supposed to do unto others as we want them to do unto us, and that as far as it depends on us, we should live at peace with all men, and then out of the other side of our mouths justify police who arrest drug users or tax evaders "because its the law" even if they do get a warrant and do everything "by the book" without any obvious cases of abuse. It seems to me that the ethical statements of Jesus Christ would trump any government "laws" here.

The video I'm about to post below comes off a little harsh. I try to be nicer, especially to people like you who are mostly aligned with the ideas of liberty. But if you can get past the harsh tone and consider the ideas presented in the video, I think its an eye opener that everybody should think about:

http://disinfo.com/2012/08/message-to-the-voting-cattle-larken-rose/

[LibForestPaul]

we should live at peace with all men, and then out of the other side of our mouths justify police who arrest drug users or tax evaders "because its the law" even if they do get a warrant and do everything "by the book"
because our men in blue with shiny badges are good. while those man who wore black leather and spoke german and carried out the laws at the time were evil, and those other guys with brown skin speaking a foreign tongue with shiny badges carrying out their laws as well are bad.

[Travlyr]

From a local forum I post at from time to time.

Their comment to me:



My reply:

http://wolfgil.forumotion.com/t2267-why-i-am-a-cop-basher

One member here questioned what makes me post "anti cop" articles all the time, suggesting that something may be wrong with me and not the country I used to know.

Look, it's very simple, and here are the facts:

A - We now live in full blown, total surveillance, police state. Oh sure, there may not be tanks rolling down the street every day, but the infrastructure is in place and running, there is no denying that.

B - At the same time, violent crime rates and cop killings are at levels, per capita, in some cases not seen since the 19th century and dropping every year. I submit it has very little to do with the New Authoritarianism that has swept away the Land of the Free, but rather with the huge surge of citizens keeping and bearing arms.

C - FedCoat funding and training has turned local and state police forces from "peace officers" to a standing army of occupation, equipped and trained like Marines heading onto Fallujah. They locked down the entire city of Boston last year and frog marched thousands of people out of their homes at rifle point with no legal justification at all. SWAT raids roll for the slightest infraction.

D - This "War on Us" mentality, the training that says that every "maggot" out there (that's us, the people) is a potential hostile to be "taken out" if we so much as twitch funny, is, combined with the military firepower, a dangerous combination that has cops shooting and tasing us at increasing levels every year.

E - Therefore, if you value your life, avoid cops at all costs. They are not your pals, they are not there to "help".

They are there to fuck people up and throw them in jail.

There is no doubt about it. "We now live in full blown, total surveillance, police state." What can we do about it? There are a couple of things. Keep exposing the truth and work diligently for sound money. Sound money is the enemy of the ruling class. Sound money promotes honesty & privacy and starves the State.

[Zevrey]

I think if Mr. Rand Paul was president and attack by Islamic terrorists like 9/11 happened, he would not hesitate to jail Muslim immigrants and monitor US citizens of Islamic faith.

I don't think Rand would actually do that even though he has mentioned Muslim exchange students and how they ought to be treated. It's purely to get votes.

[LibertyEagle]

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton,

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson,

Local Law enforcement is Every Man Armed.
Stop delegating the responsibility to others.

Nowhere did I recommend delegating, nor did I suggest the citizenry be disarmed. But, that also doesn't preclude having a constable, sheriff, or the like, hired and constrained at the local level.

[pcosmar]

Nowhere did I recommend delegating, nor did I suggest the citizenry be disarmed. But, that also doesn't preclude having a constable, sheriff, or the like, hired and constrained at the local level.

And nowhere have I ever said there should be no elected Sheriff. (County Level is Local)

But Law enforcement is rightfully in the hands of the common man,, (and woman) and not the preview of the State.

Police are by definition CONTROL. (I posted the Definition)

To say we need police is to say "we need to be Controlled."

I reject that idea.

[Spikender]

Three things:

First, I'm talking about the country at large, not just the subset that you or I have talked to.

Second of all, not everybody uses the internet, and the MSM doesn't admit to this stuff.

Third of all, I'm not saying its an excuse, just a mitigating factor. Kind of like how manslaughter isn't "OK", but its not quite as bad as murder.

But you see, I'm only talking about the ones that I have personally talked to. Perhaps you meant the country at large, but to me, everyone that I have ever talked to is the country at large. That's my sample size. And for the most part, they will cling to cops no matter what, even when I pull up evidence to show them.

Not everyone visits Ron Paul forums, not everyone watches a certain commentator on the television, but most of everyone purposely chooses an echo chamber where their ideas get minimal challenge. You can't use the excuse that people don't use a medium or only watch a certain channel, because they are mentally doing that to avoid the counterpoints in their life. I know it's hard, because I can barely stand to sit through hearing something that flies in the face of everything I believe, but I tough it out all the time to hear other points of view to draw conclusions. People are dismissive of police abuse, at least for the most part and the way I understand it, because they choose either not to view sources that talk negatively and show the real face of the coppers that they so admire, or because when they do view it, it's either justified or in their minds or, as you mention further down, the few bad apples argument.

Third point... understood.


The thing is, I've never met anyone who thinks like this, and I'm almost certain the police captain that I know personally doesn't think this. Admittedly, most people I know consider some actions justified that I do not. So I'd agree that they view police as a higher authority than "mundanes." Which is wrong. But its not the same thing as saying cops have a right to do absolutely anything.

Now, when it comes to the horiffic abuses that almost everyone knows is wrong, most people don't excuse it but make the "few bad apples" argument. While I don't think every cop does things like that, I'm definitely starting to wonder if those who don't are the "few".

We have very, very, very different experiences with people then. Here's one thing I will admit; most of the people I'm talking about come from the rich side of the city in which I live after my recent move. My hometown... most of the people there don't need to be told that the cops for the most part will find any reason to jail, harass, and harm the people. Save for my family, of course, because they've been suckered into believing that calling the cops is a great solution to even family issues. I won't go further into that.

You say that, but from my experience, when I show evidence to those who typically bow to the authority of a cop, they dismiss it. They will find a reason why it is justified, so in their mind, it's not the cops' fault.

And even on the horrific abuses point, I'd like to move where you live if people honestly do concur with you when you show them police abuse. Because most people I talk to in my new area are not like that. We're talking about people who honestly think entrapment is okay, beating on criminals just because they might have spit at an officer or because they have a rap sheet is okay, and they generally believe that as long as you follow the law and be a model citizen, you'll be okay.

Sorry, I'm just sick of it, especially since I'm surrounded by it.


When I see them in uniform, or in their police cars, I usually feel a little bit of resentment. Not really "hatred", but certainly a certain degree of dislike. Interestingly, my parents get nervous when they see cops behind them on the road, because they're almost always "speeding", yet they can't seem to make the connection that in any encounter like that somebody is doing something wrong. I'd argue that its the police, since "speeding" has no victim. But most Christians (including them) I know want to have it both ways, they don't think enforcing "the law" is immoral, and they think breaking "the law" is immoral, but yet they still "speed". Yet they don't get that "Speeding laws" are a joke. I've made the connection. The cops who enforce those laws, whether knowingly or not, are aiding and abetting theft.

That said, if I know the person personally, I usually think of them as a person who happens to be a police officer (and thus I take them at their individual merits rather than view them in light of their profession), rather than as a cop who I will somewhat dislike and be nervous around.

Am I inconsistent? Maybe. Trying to be 100% logically consistent... I try but its hard.

I feel hatred. I won't lie about that. My parents and most of my family are the same way on your point about the speeding thing, and I generally agree with that paragraph.

I have a few family members and associates who are either cops, ex-cops, are seeking to become cops. I don't bring up the issue around them. Save for one of them, who I genuinely don't have issue with, they are the parts of the family I abhor due to the way they behave around others and the believes that they hold. So personal experience once again doesn't help with my thoughts on cops.

I'm sure I'm logically consistent most of the time. But we live in a world where logic is just about dead in many areas, so having a bit of inconsistency isn't a huge minus, at least to me.


I support abolishment of all coercion. I think its likely that people will want to hire other people to protect them rather than do it themselves, and that's fine. But I don't think having a certain profession gives you a special set of rights. The same applies for "police."

Actually, this mirrors my views pretty closely. I was more speaking from a viewpoint of working within the system we have right now. I'd rather there at the very least be punishment for the police, who are American citizens just like us, when they commit the exact same crimes that get us life behind bars.

[Christian Liberty]

Sorry, I'm just sick of it, especially since I'm surrounded by it.

Oh, me too. Believe me, I'm sick of what I have to deal with, which seems less bad than what you deal with, most of the time.

That said, my sample size is really, really small. I don't usually have stories on hand. My dad usually agrees with me when I mention abuses, but then, he's more awake than the average American, probably somewhere in Rand Paul's ballpark and maybe even a little bit better. The rest of my family seems to feel like some cops are "good" and others aren't.


I have a few family members and associates who are either cops, ex-cops, are seeking to become cops. I don't bring up the issue around them. Save for one of them, who I genuinely don't have issue with, they are the parts of the family I abhor due to the way they behave around others and the believes that they hold. So personal experience once again doesn't help with my thoughts on cops.

Just out of curiosity, why are you cool with the one?

I personally know only one police officer, specifically, a police captain. I'm confident he wouldn't deliberately abuse his power, but I also get that he's conservative and not libertarian, so he doesn't totally agree with me on politics. He's very, very chill. I've honestly never even heard him talk about his job. He's helped our family out with issues we've had with other cops, but generally he doesn't even really get into those types of issues. So... I know some people here have said that people they know who are cops also acted pompous in their personal relations... not this guy. Which is probably why I like him individually as well, even though I don't agree with all of his views (And thus, I presume, everything he did/does "on the job.")

[Spikender]

Oh, me too. Believe me, I'm sick of what I have to deal with, which seems less bad than what you deal with, most of the time.

That said, my sample size is really, really small. I don't usually have stories on hand. My dad usually agrees with me when I mention abuses, but then, he's more awake than the average American, probably somewhere in Rand Paul's ballpark and maybe even a little bit better. The rest of my family seems to feel like some cops are "good" and others aren't.



Just out of curiosity, why are you cool with the one?

I personally know only one police officer, specifically, a police captain. I'm confident he wouldn't deliberately abuse his power, but I also get that he's conservative and not libertarian, so he doesn't totally agree with me on politics. He's very, very chill. I've honestly never even heard him talk about his job. He's helped our family out with issues we've had with other cops, but generally he doesn't even really get into those types of issues. So... I know some people here have said that people they know who are cops also acted pompous in their personal relations... not this guy. Which is probably why I like him individually as well, even though I don't agree with all of his views (And thus, I presume, everything he did/does "on the job.")

Well see, perhaps that what's I need, is more people in this new area to talk with. Luckily, I've got a lot of friends from my old neighborhood who I've been waking up, and they're former Obama supporters. I've actually had more luck with them than the types who supported Romney, McCain, or are just straight Republican. Perhaps it's because I can illustrate so easily how Obama broke all of his promises and is just a puppet. I'm not sure.

I'm cool with that one because I've known her since I was a kid and she's dealt with police abuse herself when she was younger. Now, granted, this is a case where I know she has to enforce unjust laws, but at the same time, she's not a violent person and when she speaks about it, she usually isn't celebrating pulling over someone or something like that. So I'm for the most part cool with her. She's a case where her profession is what disgusts me and not necessarily her. The others... I've known them just as long, but they're just toxic people. I hope she doesn't have to deal with people like that, but I know she does, and that saddens me.

Your relationship with that police captain sounds similar, so I can see where you're coming from. And I won't deny that there are cops that are probably decent people, I know one after all, but when the majority of experiences are negative, it paints a picture. I really do have more of a problem with the profession in general, but it does seem to attract a lot of sociopaths. I just pray that she doesn't fall into the same trap, or isn't being coerced by other police to cover anything up. That would hurt me in more ways than one.

[GunnyFreedom]

we are at DEFCON 3. This latest 'murder' by cops of the 18 year old because ' we don't have time for this', has raised the Police State level warning.

As too your assertion, AND fear that because we at RPF reporting on the Police State, really, for myself...i don't give a rats ass if any political figure might object is fucking stupid. Look around, read these stories, and tell me everything is getting 'better'...well, it isn't.

I agree; but I wanted to add that there is another reason that the murder in NC is important for raising the stakes -- It is a departure from the norm for that kind of thing to happen in NC at all. In the last 30 years, NC has hosted these kinds of misconduct abuses for 1 out of 400-500 incidents nationwide; despite our being 1 out of 50 states, or 1 out of 30 population. I'm not arguing that NC is 'better' we have other terrible issues that make up for this former lack. I am simply saying that it is a departure from the norm for there to be something like this in this State.

It is not merely that the incident happened where an 18 year old kid was held down by 2 officers and shot by a third -- that is bad enough in and of itself -- but the fact that it is encroaching into areas that have not formerly been accustomed to such behavior demonstrates the police state on the march, and growing.

So it's not just the fact that the incident was horrible, although it certainly was horrible enough, but even more so the growth and the expansion of this kind of behavior demonstrates the growth and the expansion of the police state.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, for some reason the people here think that Muslim immigrants should just let be allowed to roam free after a major terrorist attack. Not saying that those immigrants had anything to do with that, but I trust our police and intelligence services to do the right thing. If that means to incarcerate some hundred or so immigrants from the lands of Islam to gather information, then that's a good use of authority.

Whoa, I am a "consensus builder" type, trying to fit diverse opinions together, so you'd probably have a more sympathetic ear in me than most of the posters on this forum, but this is patently absurd. You sound like you'd have been one of the first in line during WW2 to lock up the Japanese and steal all their homes and worldly goods in retribution for their being loyal to the United States.

[GunnyFreedom]

And the uniforms! Don't forget the uniforms. The Nazis may have been some of the most gratuitously despicable bastards ever to walk the earth, but I'll give them this: they had THE snazziest uniforms EVARRR!!

Hugo BOSS, baby.

http://www.cvltnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hugo.jpg

[Christian Liberty]

Well see, perhaps that what's I need, is more people in this new area to talk with. Luckily, I've got a lot of friends from my old neighborhood who I've been waking up, and they're former Obama supporters. I've actually had more luck with them than the types who supported Romney, McCain, or are just straight Republican. Perhaps it's because I can illustrate so easily how Obama broke all of his promises and is just a puppet. I'm not sure.

I'm cool with that one because I've known her since I was a kid and she's dealt with police abuse herself when she was younger. Now, granted, this is a case where I know she has to enforce unjust laws, but at the same time, she's not a violent person and when she speaks about it, she usually isn't celebrating pulling over someone or something like that. So I'm for the most part cool with her. She's a case where her profession is what disgusts me and not necessarily her. The others... I've known them just as long, but they're just toxic people. I hope she doesn't have to deal with people like that, but I know she does, and that saddens me.

Your relationship with that police captain sounds similar, so I can see where you're coming from. And I won't deny that there are cops that are probably decent people, I know one after all, but when the majority of experiences are negative, it paints a picture. I really do have more of a problem with the profession in general, but it does seem to attract a lot of sociopaths. I just pray that she doesn't fall into the same trap, or isn't being coerced by other police to cover anything up. That would hurt me in more ways than one.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing any aggression, ever. I'm just saying that my personal experience with this guy is that he's a nice guy, and he doesn't agree with me completely on politics so I don't know what to expect. I can understand how most of the police you've met are jerks and how that paints a picture. I don't even really doubt that the guy I know is a minority on this, but they do exist.

I can't approve of the profession either, ATM. If someone could do it and refuse to enforce the victimless "crimes" I'd be OK with it, but I don't think its really possible all the time.


Whoa, I am a "consensus builder" type, trying to fit diverse opinions together, so you'd probably have a more sympathetic ear in me than most of the posters on this forum, but this is patently absurd. You sound like you'd have been one of the first in line during WW2 to lock up the Japanese and steal all their homes and worldly goods in retribution for their being loyal to the United States.

He absolutely would have been.

[Spikender]

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing any aggression, ever. I'm just saying that my personal experience with this guy is that he's a nice guy, and he doesn't agree with me completely on politics so I don't know what to expect. I can understand how most of the police you've met are jerks and how that paints a picture. I don't even really doubt that the guy I know is a minority on this, but they do exist.

I can't approve of the profession either, ATM. If someone could do it and refuse to enforce the victimless "crimes" I'd be OK with it, but I don't think its really possible all the time.

Exactly, it's really the profession that irks me the most. Humans have people of all stripes, including violent ones, and having a profession where violent acts are protected with either paid vacation or "the officer acted lawfully" will naturally attract those people. If police were punished to the full extent of the fucked up laws that they enforce, they wouldn't be so ready to whip out the popper and peel them some caps.

Not to say that excuses the cops themselves just because the profession allows it. For all the cops that I have personally met that were jerks to me, my friends, and my family, it really just boils down to this:

Fuck em.

As for the few decent people in their ranks, I hope they wake up at some point and realize the profession is toxic.

[Christian Liberty]

I owe you a rep, have to spread some around... but yeah, pretty much that's how it is. The thing is, this person, as well as most other people I know, are simply not libertarians. So, for instance, he wouldn't realize that arresting someone on a drug charge is wrong, because he doesn't realize that those laws are immoral. And the same goes for almost everyone else I know too... so its not just him... its everyone. Statist indoctrination has been working really well for a really long time.

[UWDude]

Anybody ever watch the television series "Hunter"?
He killed a guy at the end of every show.
Never even got put on paid administrative leave, much less disciplinary action.
Dude killed at least 150 people. Never even got put under investigation.
A porn always ends in a facial, and Hunter always ended with him shooting off his gun too.
And all the little sycophantic badge suckers would jerk off furiously.
Same shit today too, 100 cop shows on tv, all of them with lots of killin'.

[Travlyr]

Anybody ever watch the television series "Hunter"?
He killed a guy at the end of every show.
Never even got put on paid administrative leave, much less disciplinary action.
Dude killed at least 150 people. Never even got put under investigation.
A porn always ends in a facial, and Hunter always ended with him shooting off his gun too.
And all the little sycophantic badge suckers would jerk off furiously.
Same shit today too, 100 cop shows on tv, all of them with lots of killin'.

Yeah, 'Bones' can find the killer of some obscure killer of a nobody anyone cares about but no one can figure out who killed JFK. His killer is classified.

[pcosmar]

Yeah, 'Bones' can find the killer of some obscure killer of a nobody anyone cares about but no one can figure out who killed JFK. His killer is classified.

Oh,, don't get me started.
CSI (my wife likes) can differentiate between a .357 and 9mm holes based on a visual examination.
or determine that a bruise was caused by a 9mm 1911 (as opposed to a .38 super).

give me a break. :(

[Zevrey]

This thread is shameful. Anti-cop for no reason. I hope not all of Rand's supporters are like this. Rand needs to voice support of our law enforcement agencies and their training by Israelis.

You can read about that here:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.../homeland.html (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/homeland.html)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/0...of-u-s-police/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/04/report-israeli-model-underlies-militarization-of-u-s-police/)

The training of our brave police forces by Israeli trainers needs to highlighted by Rand because I'm sure most of the voting population does not know that. But when they do, they can take comfort that our police will now know how to deal with Muslims because Israel knows how to deal with Muslims.

[pcosmar]

This thread is shameful. Anti-cop for no reason.
Oh no,,
There are a great many good reasons.



Zevrey

Banned


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

Quite sure he has been banned before,, and under several names.
will likely be back under another.

[Anti Federalist]

:rolleyes:


This thread is shameful. Anti-cop for no reason. I hope not all of Rand's supporters are like this. Rand needs to voice support of our law enforcement agencies and their training by Israelis.

You can read about that here:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.../homeland.html (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/homeland.html)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/0...of-u-s-police/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/04/report-israeli-model-underlies-militarization-of-u-s-police/)

The training of our brave police forces by Israeli trainers needs to highlighted by Rand because I'm sure most of the voting population does not know that. But when they do, they can take comfort that our police will now know how to deal with Muslims because Israel knows how to deal with Muslims.

[Henry Rogue]

Um, it's pretty simple for me. I think that both big government and anarchism are opposite extremes and are both bad for our country, and I oppose both. I support limited government. I think the government should only do the things that it absolutely has to do.
I believe you are a peaceful and well intended person TC, as are most (I believe) on this forum. I posted your signature because I noticed you seem to think certain people in this thread are anarchist because they believe police are not a necessary government function. Yet you felt it was necessary to correct other peoples' view of you as a statist in your signature. Nothing wrong with that I would probably do the same.

I can't help but think that the typical obama voter would view you as an anarchist. That they would perceive the differences as subtle. Personally I don't find the label as offensive, but it does distract from the discussion of whether police are necessary or not.
For clarification purposes: What is your definition of anarchy? What do you believe would be the result of anarchy?

Regarding the police debate, I have to ask, are we governed by people and the rule of the majority? Or are we governed by laws?