Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 165

Thread: Inside the mind of a "law and order" Republican

  1. #1

    Exclamation Inside the mind of a "law and order" Republican

    To briefly rebut every one of his five points:

    1 - No, it is not. In any given year roughly half the cops killed "in the line of duty" are due to traffic accidents or illness. Cop killings by violence remain at record low levels, and being a cop is not even close to being in the top ten of dangerous jobs. Being a roofer or taxi driver is more dangerous.

    2 - The MSM and pop culture fawns over police and cop shows of all stripes abound, almost all universally portray police in a false positive light.

    3 - The democrat party is pandering to it's constituencies. They are as much in love with cops as anybody else in power, as they realize it is the cops that keep them from the people. Case in point, Miriam Carey's killing.

    4 - Because of #2. But every time they kill a Jeremy Mardis, or Justine Damond or Kelly Thomas or someone's dog, more of that support goes out the window.

    5 - What happens when cops are going house to house to enforce democrat laws?

    I would say that the GOP needs to get it's head out of it's ass on this, but honestly, they are so close to being clinically retarded as to make that pointless. You cannot claim to hate big government and then love big government's enforcement arm.



    Virgil: Five Points About the Politics of Police Work in America Today

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...america-today/

    by Virgil

    20 Jul 2017

    Third in a series…

    In Part One of this series, we considered the changing politics of the blue-collar suburb of Macomb County, Michigan, just outside of Detroit. In Part Two, we noted that the Thin Blue Line—that is, our nation’s police forces—is mostly blue collar, both by background, and by current salary income.

    Now, let’s take a look at the politics of policing in 2017. Yes, let’s consider these men and women, these “New Centurions,” as they engage in a real-time sacrament of service and sacrifice. So the five points to make:

    1. Policing is dangerous;
    2. The mainstream media, and the popular culture, don’t like cops;
    3. The Democratic Party, too, is increasingly anti-cop;
    4. The American people, on the other hand, support the police;
    5. This gap between the elites and the people is an opportunity for Republicans.

    Let’s look at each of these points in turn:

    First, policing is dangerous. As we remember, there have been many cold-blooded multiple-cop-assassinations in recent years: two killed in New York City in 2014, two more in Iowa in 2016, and then, that same year, three dead in Baton Rouge, and five slain in Dallas.

    Indeed, in 2016, a total of 145 cops died in the line of duty; of these, 63 were killed by gunfire, another 17 died from other kinds of assault.

    Moreover, this year, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, deaths among federal, state, and local police have risen 30 percent.

    Second, the MSM, and the popular culture, are anti-cop. Here’s a typical CNN headline, from June 23: “Racial bias permeates law enforcement.” (Virgil could pile on more such headlines, but what’s the point? We all have been witness to this relentless anti-cop animus.)

    We can step back and add that there’s a reason why the likes of Michael Brown, or of Freddie Gray, have become well known after their deaths. They were the guilty victims of police action, and yet the MSM has had a way of turning them into heroes of a kind, or at least martyr-like household names. By contrast, slain police officers are consigned to obscurity. That’s media bias at work.

    And the popular culture, is, of course, even worse. We might consider, for example, the case of the rapper Ice Cube, who first came to prominence back in 1988 with his song, “F__ tha Police.” Today, some three decades later, he’s still trashing the police, still idolized by the pop culture, and still making money.

    We might further note that these anti-police attitudes have extended beyond journalism and “art” into the lofty precincts of the law itself. Just last month, we learned that courts in Washington state “have developed a novel method to try and root out trustworthy feelings associated with police officers.” That method is the production of a video, courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union, aimed at teaching juries not to trust the police. Fortunately, in one instance, a presiding judge in a case involving a police-related killing ruled against showing the video to potential jurors; the judge declared that the video was “simply too prejudicial.” Needless to say, this legal setback notwithstanding, the ACLU will never give up on its tax-exempt mission of fomenting anti-police attitudes.

    Third, Democrats are now the anti-police party. Once upon a time, the Democrats, as the political home to Irish-Americans, were the natural hub of pro-police sentiment. That is, if Officer O’Hara was Irish, and the Irish were Democrats, then the Democrats were naturally supportive of Officer O’Hara and all the other men of the Emerald Society.

    Yet since then, Democrats have done a 180. The 2016 Democratic Party platform, for example, includes four lines of vague praise for the police, followed by 13 lines of specific criticism, including a demand for sweeping new powers for the Justice Department to intervene in local incidents that might catch the eye of Al Sharpton & Co.: “We will require the Department of Justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings.” In other words, each incident would, literally, become a federal case.

    Furthermore, how many times last year did we hear Hillary Clinton declare that she would force the police to undergo mandatory “implicit bias training”?

    Yet even since their 2016 electoral debacle, the Democrats are still going at it. Just this month, after a New York City cop, Miosotis Familia, a mother of three, was shot and killed by a paroled thug-lifer, Mayor Bill DeBlasio abandoned his grieving city for a foreign jaunt. Why? Because it was more important to him to protest Donald Trump at the G-20 meeting in Hamburg, Germany. DeBlasio thus snubbed the swearing-in ceremony for 524 new NYPD recruits.

    Supporters of the NYPD at the funeral of slain New York City Police Officer Miosotis Familia (Associated Press)

    In the words of an exasperated Ed Mullins, head of the Sergeant’s Benevolent Association,“We have a very anti-police atmosphere … where we are failing is in political leadership.” He later tweeted, “Whose side are you on Mr. Mayor??” Of course, we all know the answer to that question.

    The irony of the Democrats’ anti-police stance is that it’s Democratic constituencies that are suffering the most from the resulting crime spree. Across the nation, the murder rate is increasing, especially in Democratic big cities; last year in Chicago, for example, there were 762 murders. Elsewhere in 2016, murder spiked in San Antonio, up 61 percent; in Memphis, up 56 percent; in Louisville, up 44 percent. Importantly, of the almost 16,000 murders in the U.S. in 2015, according to the FBI, 52 percent of the victims were black.

    In the words of former Chicago police chief Garry McCarthy, anti-police groups such as Black Lives Matter are part of the problem:

    A movement with the goal of saving black lives … is getting black lives taken, because 80 percent of our murder victims here in Chicago are male blacks.

    And crime is worsening yet again in 2017: On July 1, 28 people were shot in a Little Rock, Arkansas, night club. And over the Fourth of July weekend in Chicago, a total of 102 people were shot, 15 fatally. Meanwhile, other places, too, are suffering greater carnage, from Prince George’s County, Maryland, to Albany, New York. In all of these instances, African-Americans were the most victimized.

    Fourth, despite the anti-cop media blitz, the country stands by the police. According to Gallup, 57 percent of Americans have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the police—up five points in the last two years. (We might note that the other highly rated professions are also typically drawn from the working and middle classes, including nurses and pharmacists.)

    We might also pause over the success of the CBS TV series, Blue Bloods, about an NYPD family. Without a doubt, it must grind the teeth of CBS executives to let star Tom Selleck pay tribute to the police every Friday night, but out in the heartland, people are watching—the show is now in its eighth season. Thus we see that for enough money, MSM-ers will put their personal ideology aside.

    To be sure, not everyone admires the cops; at the high end of the income scale, there’s an aristocratic disdain for the blue, and at the low end, there’s outright hostility. So it would be a challenge to stage a “Support Your Local Police” rally in either Beverly Hills or Brooklyn. Furthermore, as we all know, through a strange kind of high-low alchemy, angry anti-cop groups find their popular muscle in the ‘hood, even as they find their financial support in haughtier zip codes.

    In the meantime, in the middle, sandwiched between the high and the low, are the police. Every day, we send them out into the mean streets; we ask them to risk their lives in situations that most Americans would probably consider to be impossible.

    For instance, we might start with the basic vagary of many criminal situations; that is, information is often fragmentary, and yet the police must react and do their job, knowing that gunmen could be lying in wait.

    And it’s not just bullets that the cops must fear; it’s also legal action, possibly based on some sort of allegation of racial discrimination. Thus we can quickly see how cops can find themselves in a near-impossible situation. In that vein, here’s a July 4 tweet from the D.C. Police Department:

    We might note that “B/M’s” is an abbreviation of “black males.” In other words, per this tweet, everyone—starting, of course, with the police—should be on the lookout for two black males; as the alert indicated, that’s all that there was to be known.

    So now let’s ask: How could a police officer possibly do anything with that information that would not potentially put him or her in legal jeopardy? Even in attempting to fulfill the cops’ responsibility to the public—by at least closely scrutinizing any pair of black males in the area—they could be doing great harm to their career.

    They are thus put in a no-win situation: Good police work could mean checking up on black men in the area, with all the possible repercussions, while bad police work—not doing anything—leaves criminals roving free.

    This is the sort of unsolvable puzzle that the cops have to put up with every single day. And as we know, there is a huge posse of activists, litigators, and reporters eager to pounce on any incident where the cops can be said to have made a wrong judgment.

    In such a hostile legal and media environment, it would be understandable if the cops chose to just sit in their squad cars and eat donuts. And some do. But most don’t.

    In fact, the vast majority of police officers are doing their best, standing precariously on the ramparts of our civilization, even as the Sharpton/ACLU complex can’t wait to clobber them with their twisted version of the law.

    Yet speaking of the use and abuse of the law, here’s something interesting: In the extreme cases where bullets are fired and blood is shed, prosecutors have found that they are having a hard time securing convictions against cops.

    We might consider some recent cases in which juries have rejected prosecution claims. On June 23, a judge ordered a mistrial in the case of a former University of Cincinnati police officer, Ray Tensing, in the 2015 shooting of a black motorist, Sam DuBose. After 31 hours of deliberations, the jury could not reach a verdict—this was actually the second mistrial in the case.

    Two days earlier, on June 21, a Milwaukee jury acquitted former police officer Dominique Heaggen-Brown in the 2016 shooting of Sylville Smith. National Review’s David French summarized a terrible situation that is all too typical:

    Smith ran from a traffic stop, approached a chain-link fence, and turned to face the pursuing officers, gun in hand. Heaggan-Brown fired his first shot — a shot the prosecution conceded was lawful—and then fired the second, fatal shot less than two seconds later, just after Smith had thrown away his pistol. The prosecution claimed that the second shot constituted reckless homicide.

    In other words, this was a tough situation: Every cop knows that a wounded suspect can be plenty dangerous—and might have more than one gun. French added:

    We can’t impute god-like perception to police officers, and the split-second reasonable decision to fire on an armed suspect isn’t something that has to be reconsidered with every pull of the trigger … the jury reached the just result. [emphasis added]

    Five days earlier than that, on June 16, another jury acquitted St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer Jeronimo Yanez in the shooting death of Philando Castile. And in May, Tulsa police officer Betty Jo Shelby was acquitted in the shooting death of Terence Crutcher. Also in May, federal prosecutors announced that they would be filing no charges against Baton Rouge police officers Howie Lake and Blane Salamoni in the shooting death of Alton Sterling.

    Perhaps even better known than any of these cases was the politically inspired effort by Baltimore prosecutors to target six Baltimore police officers in the accidental 2015 death of Freddie Gray. (We might note that even at the tender age of 25, Gray had already had 20 brushes with the law and had spent two years in jail.) Nevertheless, the prosecutors went after those BPD officers, three of whom were themselves black. All six prosecutions failed.

    We might note that it’s hardly the case that cops are never convicted of abuse; since 2005, 82 U.S. law enforcement officers have been charged with murder or manslaughter for on-duty shootings. Of these, 29 were convicted, five of them for murder.

    Still, the the pattern is clear: Unlike the trifecta of the MSM, the popular culture, and the Democratic Party, ordinary folks—the kind of people who end up on juries—are disinclined to convict cops.

    Fifth, because of this gap between the elites and the populace, Republicans have a big opportunity. For half a century, Republicans have been the mostly “law and order” party, and that righteous stance has won them many elections.

    And yet in the last decade or two, a new strain has come into Republican thinking—libertarianism on crime and policing. Notably, the hydra-headed Koch Brothers operation has formed an alliance with the ACLU and other left-wing outfits on behalf of “criminal justice reform.” And at the same time, of course, the Kochs and other libertarians have been working to accelerate immigration into the U.S., legal and illegal.

    Such efforts have given some on the libertarian end of the Republican Party a distinctly anti-police caste of mind. For example, in 2014, in the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Sen. Rand Paul chose to criticize the supposed “militarization” of the police. That is, the cops were monitoring angry protests with armor and heavy weapons, and this was somehow a bad thing—a manifestation, maybe, of blue-uniformed authoritarianism.

    This anti-cop critique, of course, is a familiar libertarian talking point. Indeed it’s one of many areas where the thinking of libertarians and liberals converges, and so that’s why, in 2014, Paul was bannered on the cover of Time magazine as “The most interesting man in politics.”

    Of course, all this liberal-libertarian admiration didn’t do Paul much good in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, where his candidacy fizzled quickly. Why this flameout? Perhaps because most Americans, and the overwhelming number of Republicans, are quickly seeing that “demilitarization” of the police is a code-word for an anti-police stance. That is, if the bad guys have high-powered weapons, the cops don’t stand a chance; so they, too, must be armored up.

    If Republicans wish to improve their relationship with the police, and all that the Thin Blue Line stands for, they could start by unabashedly supporting the cops, and their safety. And that’s actually a win-win, for the cops and the citizenry, because if the police are secure, it’s more likely that they can help keep the rest of us secure as well.

    Interestingly, libertarian Republican politicians have a way of coming to this realization, eventually; after all, if the bad guys have heavy weapons, then Members of Congress, too, don’t stand a chance.

    A case in point is the shooting last month in Alexandria, Virginia, in which a left-wing lunatic started shooting at Republican lawmakers as they practiced for a charity baseball game, wounding several. It was only the presence of two well-armed police officers that saved the GOPers; as the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre would say, The good guys shot the bad guy.

    Indeed, in the wake of that shooting, Paul himself was sounding a much different tune:

    Without Capitol Hill police, it would have been a massacre—we had no defense, we had no defense at all. We were like sitting ducks.


    Since then, Congressional Republicans have realize that their instinctive desire to cut government budgets ought not to apply to the police that save their lives; the Hill GOP has quickly moved to increase the funding of the Capitol Police.

    So we can quickly see: What’s good for Members of Congress ought to be good for the rest of us, too. The proper strategy for the GOP is to find other budgets to cut—not the cops’.

    So as a matter of strategy, let’s resolve that Republicans will always be known as the party of law and order, up and down the line—putting their money where their mouth is.

    And this “Centurion Strategy” can also be applied to the consequences for shooting victims—on both sides of the law. For instance, in the wake of the 2014 Ferguson shooting that left Michael Brown dead after he attacked a cop, Darren Wilson, the reaction of the authorities was revealing in its political correctness: Wilson was put on trial, although he was acquitted; he subsequently left the Ferguson police department. And in the meantime, Michael Brown’s parents got a $1.5 million settlement.

    So let’s summarize this outrageous situation: Wilson does the right thing and gets tried in court, and then, even though he was acquitted, is pushed out of his job. Brown does the wrong thing, and his family gets rich.

    So shouldn’t this sort of PC idiocy be a juicy campaign issue for Republicans? GOPers might ask, loudly, where’s the justice here? How much money do the families of slain cops get? And why are we giving the families of nogoodniks so much as a single penny?

    In the meantime, the trend of unfairness to the cops is continuing: Just recently, Jeronimo Yanez, the Minnesota officer who shot Philando Castile and was acquitted of doing anything wrong, has nevertheless left the St. Anthony department.

    Once again, if the GOP truly wants to be the law-and-order party, it must have the cops’ back, period.

    Interestingly, the GOP is already moving in this direction—and it’s paying off. For example, in Louisiana, police chief Clay Higgins, the “Cajun John Wayne,” went from creating Gen. Patton-esque videos about law enforcement in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, to the U.S. Congress, where he keeps up the good fight. No doubt many other aspiring political leaders will seek to follow Higgins’ no-nonsense path.

    It must be said, of course, that it would be good for the country if the Democrats, too, were to seek out the law-and-order mantle. Such a role is, after all, in their political heritage—the ghost of Officer O’Hara would be pleased.

    Yet here’s not much evidence that the Democrats are thinking this way—just the opposite, in fact—and so that should encourage the GOP to double down on its winning strategy. After all, it could give Republicans an opening in crime-afflicted minority areas where the familiar GOP message of tax- and budget-cuts doesn’t play well at all.

    So there it is: The Centurion Strategy. It’s a winning strategy for Republicans, sure, but even more, it’s a winning strategy for America.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 07-21-2017 at 11:36 AM.
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Meanwhile, Eric Peters gets an earful from a less eloquent example of the GOP law and order crowd.



    The Opposition

    https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2017...he-opposition/

    By eric - July 20, 2017

    I think we could all use a pick-me-up. Something to make us feel a little better about the state of things. Submitted for your consideration:



    Now, if this is what we are up against, we have a shot.

    And this is pretty typical, actually, of the “fan mail” that arrives here. It makes me glad. To know that we are up against such people. Barely literate. 8th grade level imputations of homosexuality for having written an article critical of the practice of armed government workers literally stealing people’s property prior to conviction of any crime. It slays me that there are people out there who countenance such – and who defend those who perform such.

    But then, I re-read the “fan mail.”

    And feel better.

  4. #3
    Even with super majorities of liberal progressives, even mild mannered police "reform" dies.

    Proving point 3 of the OP is bull$#@!.



    Gutting of Oversight Bill Puts Kibosh on Police Reform in California

    http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/2...puts-kibosh-on

    Assembly Bill 284 had little chance of passage because it dealt with an actual problem and was getting pushback from some muscular lobbies.

    Steven Greenhut | July 21, 2017

    There are two rules of thumb to keep in mind when following the California legislature.

    First, lawmakers love to prattle about pie-in-the-sky issues, such as halting global warming, but steadfastly avoid tackling nuts-and-bolts issues (pension liabilities, infrastructure repairs) that cry out for attention but run up against powerful special-interest groups.

    Second, you always know it's a cop-out when legislators promise to "study" something.

    The gutting of a police-reform bill last week combined both of those realities. Assembly Bill 284 had little chance of passage because it dealt with an actual problem and was getting pushback from some muscular lobbies. Instead of killing the measure and getting a bad rap among their minority constituents, legislators turned it into a meaningless study bill.

    The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) following an incident captured on a disturbing video. Last July, Sacramento police tried to run over a knife-wielding, mentally ill man with their police cruiser, then fired 18 shots and killed him. The city in February settled a lawsuit with the man's family for $719,000, but the district attorney cleared the officers of wrongdoing. Police said the man was a danger to the neighborhood.

    Obviously, several "use of force" incidents have been in the news, so the Sacramento situation wasn't unusual. What was unusual is that a legislator proposed something substantive in response. The legislation would have created statewide teams to investigate officer-involved shootings. This would provide outside involvement in the currently incestuous oversight system. The revised bill now merely requires the state Department of Justice to produce a report of times officers shoot people or when people shoot them.

    Let's deal with a few little-discussed realities. No matter how egregious any killing appears, officers are cleared by their own departments and district attorneys, who work closely with the same police departments they oversee. In the rare instance they do prosecute an officer, a jury will side with the cop. Police unions shield even the worst officers, who always claim their lives were in danger. I've covered a number of these cases, and the result is usually the same.

    Here are some more realities. Liberals see these police killings through an entirely racial lens. There is, of course, a strong racial element to many of them, but most of the ones I've covered have had white people as the victims. It's more a policing problem that centers on an insular paramilitary culture that downplays the value of "civilian" lives.


    Conservatives—you know, the folks who prattle about government overreach—instinctively side with the government's agents. Would they be OK with letting the IRS or the Environmental Protection Agency or the California Air Resources Board investigate themselves when there are accusations of abusive behavior? Should we always side with government because, well, it's responsible for protecting us and its employees often have tough jobs?

    The gutting of AB284 also reminds us of this reality: Union-allied Democrats are as hostile to police reforms as Republicans. Democratic state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, for instance, opposed the bill in its original state but backed it after it was watered down into meaninglessness. I'm glad that civil-rights groups spoke out at the Capitol against the amended version. Perhaps they will realize that there's virtually no chance any substantive police reform will move forward, even with Democratic legislative dominance.

    Whenever there's a troubling incident, we're faced with a false choice. We can trust the process or get upset that the officers don't face criminal sentences. But there is a third option. We can analyze current policies, training, job protections and strategies—and institute reforms to improve the way those agencies operate. After the Sacramento shooting, the city instituted some reforms. Why is that a verboten idea in the legislature?

    Government officials are supposed to work for us. There's nothing anti-police about questioning the way the current system operates. Police policy has been dominated for decades by law-enforcement unions, which exist solely to protect officers. Lawmakers from both parties are deathly afraid of their power—and of being portrayed in the next election as "soft on crime."

    As a result, public concerns are given short shrift. Meanwhile, the drug war (and all that surplus military equipment) has led to increased militarization of local police forces, even though crime rates have fallen to levels not seen since the days of "The Andy Griffith Show." Instead of a community policing model, we often get one that seems more like something from an occupying army.

    Liberals, in particular, forget that all the new rules and regulations they promote ultimately will be enforced by police officers. Some of the most disturbing police incidents involve cops enforcing picayune regulations.

    It's unclear whether McCarty's original idea would have made any difference, but it is clear the current bill punts on a serious problem—and that the new studies will be meaningless. We can do better than this.

  5. #4
    I know I'm part of a tiny minority here (maybe of one?), but I think the root cause of the problem are the laws that politicians pass, not the cops enforcing them. If the only laws were for actual crimes (murder, theft, etc) I think the police would be considered to be "on our side". Instead most laws are for non crimes against the state like drug laws for example. These bad laws make police the enemy of normal law abiding citizens. I'm not an anarchist and I believe a police force is necessary, but only to enforce real crime.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I believe a police force is necessary, but only to enforce real crime.
    Well, I happen to agree...

    Seriously, no.

    It is a manner of policing, heavy handed, over armed, and with the demeanor of an occupying army that is the problem.

    And it would remain a problem if enforcing laws against murder and property theft or drugs, vice and petty regulations.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    by Virgil20
    Wasn't there a neocon douchebag here a few years ago by that name?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by sparebulb View Post
    Wasn't there a neocon douchebag here a few years ago by that name?
    There was a "Virgil" but a quick search reveals he was pretty pro Paul.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    There was a "Virgil" but a quick search reveals he was pretty pro Paul.
    I had to look it up. I think it was Virgil47.

    I, too, remember Virgil to be alright.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I know I'm part of a tiny minority here (maybe of one?), but I think the root cause of the problem are the laws that politicians pass, not the cops enforcing them. If the only laws were for actual crimes (murder, theft, etc) I think the police would be considered to be "on our side". Instead most laws are for non crimes against the state like drug laws for example. These bad laws make police the enemy of normal law abiding citizens. I'm not an anarchist and I believe a police force is necessary, but only to enforce real crime.
    Prevention and reaction to "real crime" is possible without slavery.
    A free market with competition promotes liberty. A monopoly of force does not promote liberty.

    Fear of man will prove to be a snare...
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by bunklocoempire View Post
    Prevention and reaction to "real crime" is possible without slavery.
    A free market with competition promotes liberty. A monopoly of force does not promote liberty.

    Fear of man will prove to be a snare...
    A free market in force is oxymoronic.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    A free market in force is oxymoronic.
    Your fears allow for slavery.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I know I'm part of a tiny minority here (maybe of one?), but I think the root cause of the problem are the laws that politicians pass, not the cops enforcing them. If the only laws were for actual crimes (murder, theft, etc) I think the police would be considered to be "on our side". Instead most laws are for non crimes against the state like drug laws for example. These bad laws make police the enemy of normal law abiding citizens. I'm not an anarchist and I believe a police force is necessary, but only to enforce real crime.
    It is the cops and the laws, police are a legitimate function of government but our cops have been warped beyond recognition for generations.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #13
    Just try to imagine how horrible life would be without law makers, law enforcers, law punishers....

    One needs only look at all of the children not addicted to marijuana or LSD.....

    Guns? Look at how Chicago protected it's citizenry.

    Without laws, lawyers, courts-n-prisons the children would be ruined! Baby rapers would be handing out heroin filled hypodermics at the local day-care!

    Children would be ground up like hamburger on the roadsides if not for DWI laws!

    Law-n-Order has been such a success we obviously need more! And we need it faster.....

  16. #14
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Once police became political appointees, the end result was obvious.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It is the cops and the laws, police are a legitimate function of government but our cops have been warped beyond recognition for generations.
    Cops have become a function of government only because big business lobbied for them in the 1800's under the premise that they were for the "public good." Cops were warped from inception. Taxpayer funded protection for the elite.

  18. #16
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    The more undisciplined and immoral a society becomes, the more laws and police it needs. This phenomenon is very unsettling when you think about it. If you had an entire society composed of true libertarians who practiced personal responsibility, then the law enforcement footprint would be minuscule nationwide. A debased society gives the centralized law enforcement industry a perfect excuse to encroach upon more freedoms.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Cops have become a function of government only because big business lobbied for them in the 1800's under the premise that they were for the "public good." Cops were warped from inception. Taxpayer funded protection for the elite.
    Nonsense, they have been expanded (and that may have been a bad thing) but governments have had law enforcement officers for centuries.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Nonsense, they have been expanded (and that may have been a bad thing) but governments have had law enforcement officers for centuries.
    For your edification: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-United-States

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    The more undisciplined and immoral a society becomes, the more laws and police it needs. This phenomenon is very unsettling when you think about it. If you had an entire society composed of true libertarians who practiced personal responsibility, then the law enforcement footprint would be minuscule nationwide. A debased society gives the centralized law enforcement industry a perfect excuse to encroach upon more freedoms.
    I'll argue counterpoint....

    With less laws the idiots would actually fear retribution for their misdeeds, there would be no courts or lawyers to keep them from comeuppance.

    Every man/woman would face the very real threat of death for poor behavior, no back-n-forth in some courtroom to get a favorable plea-bargain because little-Johnny couldn't/wouldn't put 145 grains of lead in Bubba's brain... Either little-Johnny puts up or he shuts up..

    But noooooooooo! Equality and protection are the order of the day and heaven forbid one takes care of himself and his family...

    In today's world that too is afoul of some law.....Only the professionals are permitted to assure compliance....

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    The word "sheriff" is a contraction of the term "shire reeve". The term, from the Old English scīrgerefa, designated a royal official responsible for keeping the peace (a "reeve") throughout a shire or county on behalf of the king.[2] The term was preserved in England notwithstanding the Norman Conquest. From the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, the term spread to several other regions, at an early point to Scotland, latterly to Ireland and to the United States.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I'll argue counterpoint....

    With less laws the idiots would actually fear retribution for their misdeeds, there would be no courts or lawyers to keep them from comeuppance.

    Every man/woman would face the very real threat of death for poor behavior, no back-n-forth in some courtroom to get a favorable plea-bargain because little-Johnny couldn't/wouldn't put 145 grains of lead in Bubba's brain... Either little-Johnny puts up or he shuts up..

    But noooooooooo! Equality and protection are the order of the day and heaven forbid one takes care of himself and his family...

    In today's world that too is afoul of some law.....Only the professionals are permitted to assure compliance....
    Agreed. An armed society is a polite society, but only if those armed are permitted use without government retribution for doing what cops do everyday. Cops are allowed to keep "law and order" because they are given carte blanche use of their sidearms without recourse. Their word is greater in a court of their law than even the utmost law abiding citizen.

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The word "sheriff" is a contraction of the term "shire reeve". The term, from the Old English scīrgerefa, designated a royal official responsible for keeping the peace (a "reeve") throughout a shire or county on behalf of the king.[2] The term was preserved in England notwithstanding the Norman Conquest. From the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, the term spread to several other regions, at an early point to Scotland, latterly to Ireland and to the United States.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff
    On behalf of the King. I'll end it right there. Hardly proper in a free society. Obviously you don't care to be edified.
    Last edited by phill4paul; 07-21-2017 at 04:28 PM.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    On behalf of the King. I'll end it right there. Hardly proper in a free society.
    Because they had a king and not some other form of government, the point is they have been expanded (and that may have been a bad thing) but governments have had law enforcement officers for centuries.
    Even ancient pre-monarchic Israel had the Judges.
    Government is necessary, laws are necessary, law enforcement officers are necessary, all things can be distorted and abused.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    On behalf of the King. I'll end it right there. Hardly proper in a free society. Obviously you don't care to be edified.
    Which is, of course, yet another indication of why we are not a free society.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    The more undisciplined and immoral a society becomes, the more laws and police it needs. This phenomenon is very unsettling when you think about it. If you had an entire society composed of true libertarians who practiced personal responsibility, then the law enforcement footprint would be minuscule nationwide. A debased society gives the centralized law enforcement industry a perfect excuse to encroach upon more freedoms.
    And the more "Balkanized" and "diverse".

    Which is why, of course, "the powers that be" are intent upon importing half of the turd world here.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Government is necessary, laws are necessary, law enforcement officers are necessary, all things can be distorted and abused.
    Ok, so now that we have been distorted and abused into a rental serfdom/police state, what now?

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because they had a king and not some other form of government, the point is they have been expanded (and that may have been a bad thing) but governments have had law enforcement officers for centuries.
    Even ancient pre-monarchic Israel had the Judges.
    Government is necessary, laws are necessary, law enforcement officers are necessary, all things can be distorted and abused.


    We're living the death spiral of government and her laws...

    Child molesters get paroled and weed farmers get life, state actors operate with impunity while more than half the country literally exists off the other halfs production...

    I'm ready for the grande finale...

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because they had a king and not some other form of government, the point is they have been expanded (and that may have been a bad thing) but governments have had law enforcement officers for centuries.
    Even ancient pre-monarchic Israel had the Judges.
    Government is necessary, laws are necessary, law enforcement officers are necessary, all things can be distorted and abused.
    No. Read the $#@!ing thread I posted. Would that be so hard?

    Here's another for your edification. Law enforcement does not require government involvement.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-Wild-West

    A snip...

    In contrast, an alternative literature based on actual history concludes that the civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was not very violent. Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier “was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today” (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “[t]he West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved” (1979, 10).

    What were these private protective agencies? They were not governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on keeping order. Instead, they included such organizations as land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains.

    So-called land clubs were organizations established by settlers before the U.S. government even surveyed the land, let alone started to sell it or give it away. Because disputes over land titles are inevitable, the land clubs adopted their own constitutions, laying out the “laws” that would define and protect property rights in land (Anderson and Hill 1979, 15). They administered land claims, protected them from outsiders, and arbitrated disputes. Social ostracism was used effectively against those who violated the rules. Establishing property rights in this way minimized disputes—and violence.

    The wagon trains that transported thousands of people to the California gold fields and other parts of the West usually established their own constitutions before setting out. These constitutions often included detailed judicial systems. As a consequence, writes Benson, “[t]here were few instances of violence on the wagon trains even when food became extremely scarce and starvation threatened. When crimes against persons or their property were committed, the judicial system . . . would take effect” (1998, 102). Ostracism and threats of banishment from the group, instead of threats of violence, were usually sufficient to correct rule breakers’ behavior.

    Dozens of movies have portrayed the nineteenth-century mining camps in the West as hot beds of anarchy and violence, but John Umbeck discovered that, beginning in 1848, the miners began forming contracts with one another to restrain their own behavior (1981, 51). There was no government authority in California at the time, apart from a few military posts. The miners’ contracts established property rights in land (and in any gold found on the land) that the miners themselves enforced. Miners who did not accept the rules the majority adopted were free to mine elsewhere or to set up their own contractual arrangements with other miners. The rules that were adopted were often consequently established with unanimous consent (Anderson and Hill 1979, 19). As long as a miner abided by the rules, the other miners defended his rights under the community contract. If he did not abide by the agreed-on rules, his claim would be regarded as “open to any [claim] jumpers” (Umbeck 1981, 53).

    The mining camps hired “enforcement specialists”—justices of the peace and arbitrators—and developed an extensive body of property and criminal law. As a result, there was very little violence and theft. The fact that the miners were usually armed also helps to explain why crime was relatively infrequent. Benson concludes, “The contractual system of law effectively generated cooperation rather than conflict, and on those occasions when conflict arose it was, by and large, effectively quelled through nonviolent means” (1998, 105).

    When government bureaucrats failed to police cattle rustling effectively, ranchers established cattlemen’s associations that drew up their own constitutions and hired private “protection agencies” that were often staffed by expert gunmen. This action deterred cattle rustling. Some of these “gunmen” did “drift in and out of a life of crime,” write Anderson and Hill (1979, 18), but they were usually dealt with by the cattlemen’s associations and never created any kind of large-scale criminal organization, as some have predicted would occur under a regime of private law enforcement.

    In sum, this work by Benson, Anderson and Hill, Umbeck, and others challenges with solid historical research the claims made by the “West was violent” authors. The civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was much more peaceful than American cities are today, and the evidence suggests that in fact the Old West was not a very violent place at all. History also reveals that the expanded presence of the U.S. government was the real cause of a culture of violence in the American West. If there is anything to the idea that a nineteenth-century culture of violence on the American frontier is the genesis of much of the violence in the United States today, the main source of that culture is therefore government, not civil society.
    Last edited by phill4paul; 07-21-2017 at 04:42 PM.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Ok, so now that we have been distorted and abused into a rental serfdom/police state, what now?
    The options are political reform (the mission of this website), or revolt (which if and when it is appropriate would be discussed elsewhere for obvious reasons), or submission (Not an option as far as I am concerned).
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    No. Read the $#@!ing thread I posted. Would that be so hard?

    Here's another for your edification. Law enforcement does not require government involvement.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-Wild-West
    At lower population levels less is required (which is why excessive urbanization was one of the worst things to happen to this country), but the wild west for all it's freedom still had and needed Sheriffs and U.S. Marshalls and the U.S. Cavalry.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Inside the mind of a SWAT cop
    By Anti Federalist in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 03-10-2019, 08:58 PM
  2. Inside a liberal mind
    By libertyjam in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-16-2014, 03:57 AM
  3. A Look inside the mind of Masonry
    By WarDog in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-19-2009, 10:02 AM
  4. Inside the Mind of a Sociopath
    By Truth Warrior in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 05:52 AM
  5. inside the Neocon Mind
    By garrettwombat in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-13-2008, 10:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •