How we got to here

[Anti Federalist]

You can thank "mad moms" and "protesting pussies", for a great deal of it, the likes of which are out in force around the world today.


How We Got To Here

http://ericpetersautos.com/2017/01/21/how-we-got-to-here/

By eric - January 21, 2017

America is in trouble because Americans got lazy. Not so much physically but morally. They began to care more about some passing thing than about the things that truly matter; the things that made America unlike other places.

Better than other places.

Things like principles; the plain meaning of words. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments, especially. Which were (past tense deliberate) laws written to articulate and protect principles that matter.

It gradually became more important to – as Thomas More’s character in the play, A Man For All Seasons put it – cut down all the “trees” (laws) that sheltered the individual for the sake of making things easier for the government.

For example, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches – defined in sane terms and plain English as any non-specific search of people at random, who’ve not done anything to suggest they may have committed a crime. Fishing expeditions, in other words.

The idea was that the government should have to – in the first place – substantiate suspicion. It wasn’t enough for a cop to say – I don’t like your looks. He had to be able to articulate some definite thing (evidence) that gave him reason to believe you had committed or were about to commit a crime.

Today, cops stop people at random, without any specific cause at all. Without even having to say they don’t like their looks. It is enough that they are cops. And that you are not.

It was once the case that prior to a physical search of your property, it was legally necessary to obtain a search warrant – a piece of paper issued by a judge, who was supposed to issue the thing only if the investigator asking for it could present some definite thing (evidence) that supported his asserted suspicion of criminal activity. And the warrant had to be specific, stating clearly who was to be searched and what and where. This was to prevent something that used to be routine in the colonies under the British – the general writ, which empowered King George’s minions to search anyone, anywhere for anything.

Today’s redcoats wear blue (and lately, black). They search whomever, whatever, whenever.

We are even coerced into witnessing against ourselves via threats that failure to do will bring down separate charges and punishments.

Is this America?

I do not recognize it as such.

How did we get to this point?

The change occurred gradually but has become a juggernaut for the simple reason that precedent becomes routine. Once accepted, an affront is forgotten. It not only becomes accepted – it becomes acceptable to do it again. (Which, as an aside, is why this Obamacare business is so important. If it stands, if Trump does not repeal – not replace – it, it is certain we will shortly be forced to also buy other forms of government-mandated insurance; for example gun insurance, if you want to own a gun.)

But when did it begin to become acceptable?

Probably when the Supreme Court gutted the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to placate “moms” who were “mad” about drunk driving. This was back in the ’80s, when it was still legally necessary for a cop to have specific probable cause – weaving across the double yellow, for instance – before he could turn on his lights and pull you over.

This of course made it inconvenient to arrest and cage people who may have had some drinks but were not “drunk.” Back then, you could drink and drive and – provided your driving gave no cause to suggest impairment – you were free to continue driving.

Apparently, competent driving aggravates people who are in fact much more opposed to drinking.

And so, checkpoints – dragnet style. At which every single driver would be (and is) forced to stop and – in blatant Fourth and Fifth Amendment rape – submit to a random (and thus, unreasonable) search and prove they are not drunk, according to an arbitrary standard (BAC level) without the cops having to even assert that their actual driving was somehow “impaired.”

It also became the legal obligation of the people forced to stop at these checkpoints to provide evidence to be used against themselves in a criminal prosecution. The court ruled that you must submit to various tests supposedly designed to establish drunkenness and that failure to provide evidence was (and is) a crime in itself. The burden of obtaining evidence was lifted off the shoulders of the accuser – who could now claim that failure to provide it amounted to proof of guilt.

Even if it is later determined – as a result of the various tests, which you may be forced to submit to (including forced blood draws) that you were not, in fact, “drunk” (and perhaps had not been drinking at all) you will still be prosecuted for your failure to assist in your own prosecution.

The court came up with a truly Orwellian concept they called implied consent – which is like sort-of rape.

You either consented – or you didn’t.

The courts saying you have given implied consent to be stopped and searched at random by dint of driving, or because you got a driver’s license (which you had to get) is an outrage upon words as much as it is upon rights. How is it any different than asserting a woman who has gone out on a date with a man has consented to have sex with him? If anything, it’s even more outrageous in the case of driving and implied consent, because in the case of the couple, they both agreed to the date part of the thing.

No court would enforce a contract upon you whose terms you had not freely consented to. A contract agreed to under duress – that is, under coercion – or which contains codicils you, the signer, are not made aware of prior to signing, is by definition not binding.

Except when the court decrees otherwise – because “moms” were “mad.” And also because it opened the door to more and worse, which I am certain was the true purpose. Have you been to an airport recently? I assume you know that literally every keystroke you make, every site you surf, every search, your emails and Skypes and phone calls and texts are all of them recorded, the “data” used to profile and keep track of quite literally everything you do, even though you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant it.

It had to begin somewhere.

Arguably, it began some thirty years ago, when it became ok to stop motorists at random in the name of apprehending drunk drivers.

Henceforth, all drivers would be presumed drunk until they proved otherwise.

Is it really surprising that we are now also presumed to be terrorists until proved otherwise? At the airport, online.

Everywhere.

Voila, we find ourselves living in an authoritarian state in which making it easier for the government to arrest and successfully prosecute people for something, for anything is considered desirable. As opposed to the old American idea that people ought to be free to be left alone unless they have given damn good reason to suspect they’ve committed a crime of some kind. That the burden of proof ought to be on the government rather than proving one’s innocence the obligation of the citizenry.

But these are ideas that seems as quaint today as free association or using cash to pay for things and being allowed to actually own things without having to pay taxes in perpetuity to maintain the fiction that we own those things.

Maybe one day our children will recover the sense we appear to have lost.

[Zippyjuan]

Today, cops stop people at random, without any specific cause at all. Without even having to say they don’t like their looks. It is enough that they are cops. And that you are not.

It was once the case that prior to a physical search of your property, it was legally necessary to obtain a search warrant – a piece of paper issued by a judge, who was supposed to issue the thing only if the investigator asking for it could present some definite thing (evidence) that supported his asserted suspicion of criminal activity. And the warrant had to be specific, stating clearly who was to be searched and what and where. This was to prevent something that used to be routine in the colonies under the British – the general writ, which empowered King George’s minions to search anyone, anywhere for anything.

Black people will tell you this is nothing new. Even in the "good old days".

[Anti Federalist]

Black people will tell you this is nothing new. Even in the "good old days".

Yup, so will poor white trash and greasy bikers.

It is not black vs. blue it is blue vs. us.

[Zippyjuan]

Nobody cared until it was "their group". https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Anti Federalist]

Nobody cared until it was "their group".

And now everybody should know why "the system" pushes "identity politics" so much.

Just when it looked like there might have been some serious pushback against the police state, system funded groups like BLM were able to parse the terms of police abuse, and the larger question of police and government policy, into a "black vs white" narrative, and got everybody back to their corners and on the plantation and nicely under control.

Just like all these women squalling in DC today.

"Keep your laws off my uterus!"

They have no problem with laws on my wallet, or freedoms.

[Zippyjuan]

Black Lives Matters has the right idea- that cops were going way to far. But many dismiss it because it is BLACK lives. They should have been supported more.

[Anti Federalist]

Black Lives Matters has the right idea- that cops were going way to far. But many dismiss it because it is BLACK lives. They should have been supported more.

Had they not phrased it as black lives only, they might have gotten more support.

As it stands, I have special, hot, hatred of the whole BLM movement for being responsible for deflating and derailing the effort to reign in out of control cops because they insisted on making it racial, instead of an issue that should matter to everybody, even granting the fact that just by being black you are more likely to be the victim of unwanted police attention.

[CPUd]

BLM made it easier to rally the authoritarians:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0pJ0BrbuwE

[donnay]

It also doesn't help when people like George Soros puts up millions to deliberately cause chaos to require an order out of chaos crackdown.

[Anti Federalist]

Exactly.

The "law and order" crowd pounced at the chance.


BLM made it easier to rally the authoritarians:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0pJ0BrbuwE

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Nobody cared until it was "their group".

Nobody? Really? What about abolitionists speaking out against slavery? White people speaking out against Indian genocide? Straights speaking up for the gay? Some religious orders speaking up for the poor?

History is full of people speaking up for other groups.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Black Lives Matters has the right idea- that cops were going way to far. But many dismiss it because it is BLACK lives. They should have been supported more.


The old ZippyJuan never commented on cop threads. What did you do with the old ZippyJuan? Are you the British guy again?

[bunklocoempire]

But when did it begin to become acceptable?

From my own experience with my step-son who left the police department after a taste of what they're really all about, a lot of it was helped along by the D.A.R.E. program where cops were fused with school. "Why do you wanna be a cop?" "'Cause kids and drugs." Well meaning, but ignorant/brainwashed. He works with kids now, and doesn't violate NAP.

WIKI:
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) is a substance abuse prevention education program that seeks to prevent use of controlled drugs, membership in gangs, and violent behavior. It was founded in Los Angeles in 1983 as a joint initiative of then-LAPD chief Daryl Gates and the Los Angeles Unified School District[1] as a demand-side drug control strategy of the American War on Drugs.

"demand side", yeah, sure.:rolleyes:

Willfully ignoring the history and lessons of prohibition. Derp.

[nikcers]

The old ZippyJuan never commented on cop threads. What did you do with the old ZippyJuan? Are you the British guy again? Atleast think of a creative name to call him that is kind of British, UWdude called me Nigel Grimmer when he did it, he was way more creative.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Atleast think of a creative name to call him that is kind of British, UWdude called me Nigel Grimmer when he did it, he was way more creative.

There was a British ZippyJuan for awhile. Guess you're another one in the group. :rolleyes:

Anyway, a lot of you British seem really asexual. Makes sense since most all your women are bow wow. What do you call them? Munters, I think.

[sam1952]

you know, I don't know why I continue to read some of the threads here. After a long OP comment it immediately is turned into a race thread. This has nothing to do with race. Maybe that's the whole idea. Turn every topic into everything except what the threads about. Divert the topic, a common tactic used to derail the conversation.

Back on topic I regularly will tell someone I'm having a conversation with the quote "I'd rather deal with the inconveniences of to much liberty than deal with the inconveniences of not enough". Using the example of DUI roadblocks. People look at me and don't understand. Regularly saying we should get drunks off the road for the good of everyone. Not understanding that living in a fee society comes with risks. As long as someone is not "breaking" the law there is no reason to stop someone. That's a hard point to get across. Everyone is so conditioned thye can't grasp the concept of personal freedom.

But instead lets go back to blacks are stopped more than whites and dilute the topic. That will get us somewhere :rolleyes:

[Zippyjuan]

It takes all groups working together to try to change things. If you exclude support on one issue because you disagree on another issue, you will never get anywhere. Blacks cannot change police behavior without whites and vice versa.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Using the example of DUI roadblocks. People look at me and don't understand. Regularly saying we should get drunks off the road for the good of everyone.

I once did a lot of research on roadblocks. It should go without saying that randomness does not work much anywhere in life, but people actually think roadblocks are effective. Here's a couple of cites:


The FBI compared saturation to roadblocks in Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee. They found, "Overall, measured in arrests per hour, a dedicated saturation patrol is the most effective method of apprehending offenders."

Research in Accident Analysis and Prevention said, “States with infrequent checkpoints claimed a lack of funding and police resources for not conducting more checkpoints, preferred saturation patrols over checkpoints because they were more productive, and used large numbers of police officers at checkpoints.”

The Maryland anti-drunk driving campaign called Checkpoint Strikeforce was evaluated for deterrence. The
review found that there was no deterrent effect, whether for public perceptions, driving behaviors, or
alcohol related motor vehicle crashes and injuries.




Sources:

Greene, Jeffrey W.“Battling DUI: A Comparative Analysis of Checkpoints and Saturation Patrols.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 72.1 (2003) : 1-6.

Fell, James C., et al.“Why Are Sobriety Checkpoints Not Widely Adopted as an Enforcement Strategy in the United States?” Accident Analysis
and Prevention 35.6 (2003) : 897–903.

Beck, Kenneth.“Lessons Learned From Evaluating Maryland’s Anti-¬‐Drunk Driving Campaign: Assessing the Evidence for Cognitive, Behavioral, and Public Health Impact.” Health Promotion Practice 10.3 (2009) : 370-377.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It takes all groups working together to try to change things.

Really? Then why are you on this website? Practically all of your posts are contrary to what people say here and contrary to liberty.

[sam1952]

I once did a lot of research on roadblocks. It should go without saying that randomness does not work much anywhere in life, but people actually think roadblocks are effective. Here's a couple of cites:


The FBI compared saturation to roadblocks in Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee. They found, "Overall, measured in arrests per hour, a dedicated saturation patrol is the most effective method of apprehending offenders."

Research in Accident Analysis and Prevention said, “States with infrequent checkpoints claimed a lack of funding and police resources for not conducting more checkpoints, preferred saturation patrols over checkpoints because they were more productive, and used large numbers of police officers at checkpoints.”

The Maryland anti-drunk driving campaign called Checkpoint Strikeforce was evaluated for deterrence. The
review found that there was no deterrent effect, whether for public perceptions, driving behaviors, or
alcohol related motor vehicle crashes and injuries.




Sources:

Greene, Jeffrey W.“Battling DUI: A Comparative Analysis of Checkpoints and Saturation Patrols.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 72.1 (2003) : 1-6.

Fell, James C., et al.“Why Are Sobriety Checkpoints Not Widely Adopted as an Enforcement Strategy in the United States?” Accident Analysis
and Prevention 35.6 (2003) : 897–903.

Beck, Kenneth.“Lessons Learned From Evaluating Maryland’s Anti-¬‐Drunk Driving Campaign: Assessing the Evidence for Cognitive, Behavioral, and Public Health Impact.” Health Promotion Practice 10.3 (2009) : 370-377.


Here is a link to NorthCarolinaLiberty's full article;

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3293

Interesting part I found was how though roadblocks were less effective, saturation resulted in more arrests.. Making it seem the goal was to get more DUI arrests as opposed to just enforcing the law. The same could be said for more turn signal violations, speeding, burnt out tail lights, ect. Saturation will always result in more violations of every infraction of the law.

[heavenlyboy34]

There was a British ZippyJuan for awhile. Guess you're another one in the group. :rolleyes:

Anyway, a lot of you British seem really asexual. Makes sense since most all your women are bow wow. What do you call them? Munters, I think.
:Ohttp://www.quickmeme.com/img/36/36cab89416ead97eada08527ada5186950065f4cc47317d2ee 365b32e764c0ad.jpg

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

By the way, what is it with the seemingly disproportionate number of British posters here with either red bar reps or heading that way. There's Republican Guy, Dr No, ZippyJuan substitute, Cranston386, 56Ktarget (maybe), and some others.

[Dr.3D]

By the way, what is it with the seemingly disproportionate number of British posters here with either red bar reps or heading that way. There's Republican Guy, Dr No, ZippyJuan substitute, Cranston386, 56Ktarget (maybe), and some others.
It's a way to determine the value of this site. The more of them you see, the more important this site is.

[Anti Federalist]

you know, I don't know why I continue to read some of the threads here. After a long OP comment it immediately is turned into a race thread. This has nothing to do with race. Maybe that's the whole idea. Turn every topic into everything except what the threads about. Divert the topic, a common tactic used to derail the conversation.

Common because it is effective.

[heavenlyboy34]

By the way, what is it with the seemingly disproportionate number of British posters here with either red bar reps or heading that way. There's Republican Guy, Dr No, ZippyJuan substitute, Cranston386, 56Ktarget (maybe), and some others.

What's distinctly British about Zip? Honestly, none of those you named strike me as clever, witty, interesting, or British as the British people I've known...

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What's distinctly British about Zip? Honestly, none of those you named strike me as clever, witty, interesting, or British as the British people I've known...

Oh, definitely not witty or clever. This first Zip had a distinct British character in his writing. Sometimes he even used British spelling.

[Origanalist]

It's a way to determine the value of this site. The more of them you see, the more important this site is.

True dat.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's a way to determine the value of this site. The more of them you see, the more important this site is.


True dat.




"Fans don't boo nobodies."


--Reggie Jackson

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh, definitely not witty or clever. This first Zip had a distinct British character in his writing. Sometimes he even used British spelling.

True. But British spellings are used throughout Europe and occasionally in NE "educated" 'Murica. Zip (supposedly) has an econ degree, so he probably gets it from reading a lot of European and academic literature.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

True. But British spellings are used throughout Europe and occasionally in NE "educated" 'Murica. Zip (supposedly) has an econ degree, so he probably gets it from reading a lot of European and academic literature.


Yeah, I had this boss in the east who spent some time in England. Took on some British ways to try and be cosmopolitan. :rolleyes:

So anyway, this boss is a prick and actually pride's himself on being one. Him acting British made him more annoying. I had this co-worker friend who hated this boss. One time my friends says, "Hey NCL, I saw the boss while I was getting some ice cream at one of those small stands. I swear I was going to go over and kick that f*ckers ass."

I'm surprised he did not kick that bastard's ass. One time, I was sitting in a meeting with my friend. This smart ass employee (different guy than aforementioned boss) makes some mild remark about my friend. The friend took exception and was sort of a hot head. He practically jumps across the smart ass guy's desk to grab him and beat the f*ck out of him. We had to restrain him. That was when you weren't fired for such things. Ah, the good old days.

So that's my usual tangent and boring story. Back to the regularly scheduled thread. :D

[fisharmor]

But instead lets go back to blacks are stopped more than whites and dilute the topic. That will get us somewhere :rolleyes:

The race discussion stemmed from something in the article.
Eric Peters labors under the misapprehension that things today are somehow different from the way things used to be.
Whenever a self-professed libertarian speaks this complete gobshite, it is the duty of other libertarians to remind him (or in this case, the audience) that police have always, since the very first cop walked the very first beat, arrogated the power to stop, detain, and search at will.

Miranda v. Arizona happened in 1966. FIFTY YEARS AGO. Do you know why Miranda took Arizona to federal court? Hint: It wasn't because cops of the time were protecting the rights of the citizens.

It gets worse. Ever hear of The Wickersham Commission? It was a federal commission that made public, in 1931, for the first time, the fact that US Cops had been waterboarding suspects to get confessions for decades.

When we bring up the fact that blacks have known about this much longer, it's to point out that you only need to talk to a 70 year old black dude to get set straight on "the way things used to be". It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the fact that guys like Eric Peters, as much good as he's doing in the libertarian world, has his head so far up his ass on the "way things used to be" front that he can smell his own kidneys.

Cops have never been good guys. Black people know this.
Any statement to the contrary doesn't just put you at odds with black people. It puts you at odds with everyone else who knows what's up.

[fr33]

People want power and safety and we also belong to a species that is tribal by instinct. I don't know what the solution is. Without cops, your neighborhood will still discriminate and gossip against whoever is different.

[fisharmor]

People want power and safety and we also belong to a species that is tribal by instinct. I don't know what the solution is. Without cops, your neighborhood will still discriminate and gossip against whoever is different.

With cops, everything boils down to exactly two tribes: one with the power to execute anyone in the other tribe for any reason whatsoever, and one that gets executed by members of the other tribe for any reason whatsoever.

[pcosmar]

Yup, so will poor white trash and greasy bikers.

It is not black vs. blue it is blue vs. us.

Long haired ex-cons as well.

Though I do find myself unexpectedly optimistic of late.
and hope it is not too much disappointment.

[pcosmar]

People want power and safety and we also belong to a species that is tribal by instinct. I don't know what the solution is. Without cops, your neighborhood will still discriminate and gossip against whoever is different.

Those who want power need to be kept in check by every other man in the street.
and every man in the street should have the power to do so.

it encourages polite society

Law enforcement is the duty of all civil humans.

[fr33]

Those who want power need to be kept in check by every other man in the street.
and every man in the street should have the power to do so.

it encourages polite society

Law enforcement is the duty of all civil humans.

It depends on what we and others consider power. There are people who think you owning property such as a farm/land, or making more money than them, needs to be kept in check. Another example would be an all white neighborhood not wanting blacks to buy a house there.

I really do think people tend to be tribal apes for the most part. I've heard about people (through rural gossip) that think I'm a lesser person for dressing a certain way and having a certain haircut. As much as I want to get rid of cops, I also understand why they exist. People are nuts.

[pcosmar]

I really do think people tend to be tribal apes for the most part.




People are nuts.

I have a different perspective.

People are fine,,in their many expressions. Government screws things up.
Though tribal is likely the best local government model.

[HVACTech]

You can thank "mad moms" and "protesting pussies", for a great deal of it, the likes of which are out in force around the world today.


How We Got To Here


Maybe one day our children will recover the sense we appear to have lost.

you turn me on AF.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv-34w8kGPM

[HVACTech]

I have a different perspective.

People are fine,,in their many expressions. Government screws things up.
Though tribal is likely the best local government model.

Sir,
just how many protesting pussies does it take to form a Gooberment?
have you ever licked a tootsie pop?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc1PHk9FhIk

[pcosmar]

^^ ah , yes

pointless posting.

[fr33]

I have a different perspective.
Yeah you have an religious ideology. It's like putting your head in the sand and imagining a utopia that never existed.


People are fine,,in their many expressions. Government screws things up.
Though tribal is likely the best local government model.
Government didn't force the first slave holders in America to buy the slaves. There was more than enough resources and opportunities available to do without. Society has never been polite. It has always been the opposite.

[sam1952]

The race discussion stemmed from something in the article.
Eric Peters labors under the misapprehension that things today are somehow different from the way things used to be.
Whenever a self-professed libertarian speaks this complete gobshite, it is the duty of other libertarians to remind him (or in this case, the audience) that police have always, since the very first cop walked the very first beat, arrogated the power to stop, detain, and search at will.

Miranda v. Arizona happened in 1966. FIFTY YEARS AGO. Do you know why Miranda took Arizona to federal court? Hint: It wasn't because cops of the time were protecting the rights of the citizens.

It gets worse. Ever hear of The Wickersham Commission? It was a federal commission that made public, in 1931, for the first time, the fact that US Cops had been waterboarding suspects to get confessions for decades.

When we bring up the fact that blacks have known about this much longer, it's to point out that you only need to talk to a 70 year old black dude to get set straight on "the way things used to be". It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the fact that guys like Eric Peters, as much good as he's doing in the libertarian world, has his head so far up his ass on the "way things used to be" front that he can smell his own kidneys.

Cops have never been good guys. Black people know this.
Any statement to the contrary doesn't just put you at odds with black people. It puts you at odds with everyone else who knows what's up.

I must have missed that in the article somewhere. The first reference to blacks I saw was from Zippy. But here we are talking about black vs white when the point is it's about abuse of the fourth fifth amendment regardless of color. It really doesn't matter to me if one has been disproportionately abused. The point is we are all abused...

[nikcers]

There was a British ZippyJuan for awhile. Guess you're another one in the group. :rolleyes:

Anyway, a lot of you British seem really asexual. Makes sense since most all your women are bow wow. What do you call them? Munters, I think.
Fine here I'll do it for you, I found this picture of Zippy.

Michael Steven Sandford The British national practiced firing 20 rounds at a gun range the day before the assassination attempt — the first time he used a firearm,


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2790996.1473803801!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/trump-attempted-attack.jpg

[pcosmar]

Yeah you have an religious ideology. It's like putting your head in the sand and imagining a utopia that never existed.



Either you misunderstand,or are thoroughly confused.

I have a Faith,,and yet am deeply irreligious.

it is you that are confused about my beliefs.

[pcosmar]

. The point is we are all abused...

too few understand that.

[Anti Federalist]

This is all very true, but with a couple caveats:

50 years ago there was not the volume of laws, rules, mandates, fatwas, orders, regulations, codes and ordinances that there are now, nor was the technology available to watch everybody, all the time, every time, to find out when they running afoul of one of these millions of unknowable and impossible to comply with laws.

50 years ago cops were not in every corner of society, all militarized, all itching to get their beating on, all armed with the laws above and the surveillance to nail you. There are so many cops now, I can't keep track of them of them all: local cops, county cops, state cops, national cops, homeland security cops, transit cops, housing cops, railroad cops, clam cops, environmental cops, trash cops, internet cops, aviation cops, marine cops, banking cops, park cops, border cops, tax cops, immigration cops, hospital cops, school cops...the list goes on and on...there are over 17,000 various branches of cops in the US today.

50 years ago you could, with just a reasonable amount of caution, do a great deal more every day than what you can possibly hope to get away with now, thereby rendering the cop issue fairly moot.

And I can speak fairly confidently about this as I've watched it all happen in my lifetime and have been "awake" and politically active the whole time.

What I could get away with as a young man would put my young man of a son in prison today.

Anybody of a similar age will say the same thing, I'm sure.


The race discussion stemmed from something in the article.
Eric Peters labors under the misapprehension that things today are somehow different from the way things used to be.
Whenever a self-professed libertarian speaks this complete gobshite, it is the duty of other libertarians to remind him (or in this case, the audience) that police have always, since the very first cop walked the very first beat, arrogated the power to stop, detain, and search at will.

Miranda v. Arizona happened in 1966. FIFTY YEARS AGO. Do you know why Miranda took Arizona to federal court? Hint: It wasn't because cops of the time were protecting the rights of the citizens.

It gets worse. Ever hear of The Wickersham Commission? It was a federal commission that made public, in 1931, for the first time, the fact that US Cops had been waterboarding suspects to get confessions for decades.

When we bring up the fact that blacks have known about this much longer, it's to point out that you only need to talk to a 70 year old black dude to get set straight on "the way things used to be". It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the fact that guys like Eric Peters, as much good as he's doing in the libertarian world, has his head so far up his ass on the "way things used to be" front that he can smell his own kidneys.

Cops have never been good guys. Black people know this.
Any statement to the contrary doesn't just put you at odds with black people. It puts you at odds with everyone else who knows what's up.

[Anti Federalist]

you turn me on AF.

Hey, looked who dropped by...glad I make you hard and all...wasn't my intention, but good for you.

On a serious note: you are one of the few people I know who knows Danke IRL.

We are all concerned about his well being, can you give us any kind of update?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Fine here I'll do it for you, I found this picture of Zippy.




Dude, I already saw his pic. He gives so much information here that people know his name and a lot of other stuff. It ain't brain surgery.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Got million person march?