Inside the mind of a "law and order" Republican

[phill4paul]

This kid is comic gold here on RPFs.

I want an armed society but not everyone is proficient in the use of arms.

Just gotta shift some words...

I want everyone to drive cars but not everyone is proficient in the use of cars.

What the $#@! does what he said mean? Anyone? Anyone?

[Swordsmyth]

What do you think of Romans 13?

Paul was a Heretic who defied god on at least one occasion after his conversion, reading his writings requires one to "eat the meat and spit out the bones".
Romans 13 is a bone.

[Swordsmyth]

This kid is comic gold here on RPFs.



Just gotta shift some words...

I want everyone to drive cars but not everyone is proficient in the use of cars.

What the $#@! does what he said mean? Anyone? Anyone?

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
I want an armed society but not everyone is proficient in the use of arms.

It means not everyone is capable of defending his rights from the evil among us by him/herself.
My Grandmothers come to mind.

[Anti Federalist]

Paul was a Heretic who defied god on at least one occasion after his conversion, reading his writings requires one to "eat the meat and spit out the bones".
Romans 13 is a bone.

See, common ground.

I agree.

[Ender]

I want an armed society but not everyone is proficient in the use of arms.

So. What. AND most used to be until .gov started taking rights away.

[Ender]

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
I want an armed society but not everyone is proficient in the use of arms.

It means not everyone is capable of defending his rights from the evil among us by him/herself.
My Grandmothers come to mind.

My grandma can whip the tar outta most users- and she's pretty good with a sword too.

[Swordsmyth]

My grandma can whip the tar outta most users- and she's pretty good with a sword too.

Good for her, millions of people are too old or too sick or too clumsy.

[TheTexan]

It's pretty rude to call someone an anarchist.

Have some manners.

[Ender]

Good for her, millions of people are too old or too sick or too clumsy.

So, you want more gov to handle this? Makes no sense. Freedom is the only answer.

Here's a good article on the Not-So-Wild-West:

http://www.independent.org/publicati...icle.asp?a=803

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.

This is REAL anarchy.^^^^

And the REAL cause of violence in the west was the government:

The Real Cause of Violence in the American West

The real culture of violence in the American West of the latter half of the nineteenth century sprang from the U.S. government’s policies toward the Plains Indians. It is untrue that white European settlers were always at war with Indians, as popular folklore contends. After all, Indians assisted the Pilgrims and celebrated the first Thanksgiving with them; John Smith married Pocahontas; a white man (mostly Scots, with some Cherokee), John Ross, was the chief of the Cherokees of Tennessee and North Carolina; and there was always a great deal of trade with Indians, as opposed to violence. As Jennifer Roback has written, “Europeans generally acknowledged that the Indians retained possessory rights to their lands. More important, the English recognized the advantage of being on friendly terms with the Indians. Trade with the Indians, especially the fur trade, was profitable. War was costly” (1992, 9). Trade and cooperation with the Indians were much more common than conflict and violence during the first half of the nineteenth century.

Terry Anderson and Fred McChesney relate how Thomas Jefferson found that during his time negotiation was the Europeans’ predominant means of acquiring land from Indians (1994, 56). By the twentieth century, some $800 million had been paid for Indian lands. These authors also argue that various factors can alter the incentives for trade, as opposed to waging a war of conquest as a means of acquiring land. One of the most important factors is the existence of a standing army, as opposed to militias, which were used in the American West prior to the War Between the States. On this point, Anderson and McChesney quote Adam Smith, who wrote that “‘[i]n a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character.’” (1994, 52). A standing army, according to Anderson and McChesney, “creates a class of professional soldiers whose personal welfare increases with warfare, even if fighting is a negative-sum act for the population as a whole” (52).

The change from militia to a standing army took place in the American West immediately upon the conclusion of the War Between the States. The result, say Anderson and McChesney, was that white settlers and railroad corporations were able to socialize the costs of stealing Indian lands by using violence supplied by the U.S. Army. On their own, they were much more likely to negotiate peacefully. Thus, “raid” replaced “trade” in white–Indian relations. Congress even voted in 1871 not to ratify any more Indian treaties, effectively announcing that it no longer sought peaceful relations with the Plains Indians.

[Swordsmyth]

So, you want more gov to handle this? Makes no sense. Freedom is the only answer.

Here's a good article on the Not-So-Wild-West:

http://www.independent.org/publicati...icle.asp?a=803



This is REAL anarchy.^^^^

And the REAL cause of violence in the west was the government:

NOT more government, I want less, but not none, those miners courts etc. that Anarchists are so fond of were known as Kangaroo courts in Australia, they were quite often tyrannical and unjust, and the people of the west wanted sheriffs and deputies in addition to their "armed society", As population and wealth rose so did crime and the need for law enforcement.

[Ender]

NOT more government, I want less, but not none, those miners courts etc. that Anarchists are so fond of were known as Kangaroo courts in Australia, they were quite often tyrannical and unjust, and the people of the west wanted sheriffs and deputies in addition to their "armed society", As population and wealth rose so did crime and the need for law enforcement.

You didn't even read this did you?

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.

Get out of The Matrix and read some real truth.

[Swordsmyth]

You didn't even read this did you?



Get out of The Matrix and read some real truth.

Private agencies, like Blackwater? or Pinkertons?
Land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains, were often Tyrannical and unjust, frequently little better than mob rule at one extreme and feudalism at the other.
I have read plenty of western history.

[devil21]

I had to look it up. I think it was Virgil47.

I, too, remember Virgil to be alright.

(didnt read whole thread)

I remember Virgil. Came off as an Israel hasbara type. Regarding AF's quoted post full of profanity and misspellings (#2), I've found that most of the use of homosexual epithets, gratuitous profanity and generally poor grasp of english are, in fact, foreign hasbara trolls. It's a calling card of sorts. Deflection from the substance of the topic with gratuitous profanity and personal attacks is a sure sign.

In case anyone missed it, the cities in the US are being slowly turned into IDF style Gaza-esque urban concentration camps so it makes sense that the overt defenders of the police state being implemented would be those most intimately familiar with the concept.

[tod evans]

NOT more government, I want less, but not none, those miners courts etc. that Anarchists are so fond of were known as Kangaroo courts in Australia, they were quite often tyrannical and unjust, and the people of the west wanted sheriffs and deputies in addition to their "armed society", As population and wealth rose so did crime and the need for law enforcement.

Your court system is breaking down at the national level and it will continue to do so.

When people no longer have a say in their own governance the government can't last.

There are factions in these United States that are diametrically opposed and trying to govern them from one set of laws with one all powerful police force while imprisoning scofflaws in one homogeneous universal gulag is a recipe for disaster.

Throw in the lifetime bureaucrat and his pension who are unaffected by such mundane things as elections and you find yourself with the government we all suffer under now..

One I can't in good conscience fight to protect.

Now before you start sputtering 'anarchist' or some other silly misnomer this morning, see if you can figure out how to rid the host society of the cancer this government has become and then describe the minimal government you envision that could co-exist with the differing factions that comprise the country today...

[enhanced_deficit]

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

.....

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.
...

Have not read the the whole article to be able to do justice in commenting on this. But one observation I would add that there is significant overlap in "support the cops" and "support the troops" sentiments within much of GOP as well as sizeable "blue-dog" hawkish segments among Dems sometimes charcterized as neocons.

On a sidenote, read interesting freedom news about this police chief recently:

"This is why homeland security must be squared away, why our military must be invincible," says Higgins, a former law enforcement officer who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee. "The world's a smaller place now than it was in World War II. The United States is more accessible to terror like this, horror like this.

"It's hard to walk away from the gas chambers and ovens without a very sober feeling of commitment -- unwavering commitment -- to make damn sure that the United States of America is protected from the evils of the world."
The video was posted Saturday (July 1) to YouTube channel of Lee Johnson Media, "A Conservative Podcast looking at America of Today!" It was first reported by Convenant Spotlight, a magazine that describes itself as "your resource for hope and direction through the Bible."

From Auschwitz, Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins has a message for America

[Ender]

Private agencies, like Blackwater? or Pinkertons?
Land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains, were often Tyrannical and unjust, frequently little better than mob rule at one extreme and feudalism at the other.
I have read plenty of western history.

I seriously doubt it.

If you had, then you would know that local communities handled their own problems. Blackwater etc are Big Corps that are gov supported, stealing tax-payer's money and NOT concerned about locals. BTW- originally, police were exactly what you just described- Blackwater types that took from so-called criminals and were paid for it.

The Wild West was NOT that wild- only when the Big Corp railroads moved in with fed gov support, did stuff start escalating.

[Madison320]

I feel very strongly that the biggest problem in almost all democracies/republics is allowing parasites to vote. Only people that pay more in taxes than they get in benefits should be allowed to vote.

And yet there is a campaign to red bar Zippy. LMAO.

What's wrong with what I wrote? Someone help me out here.

And why can't you answer a simple question? You claim you're not an anarchist, yet you can't even list one example of something government should do?

[nikcers]

What's wrong with what I wrote? Someone help me out here.

And why can't you answer a simple question? You claim you're not an anarchist, yet you can't even list one example of something government should do?

A free society is not a lawless society. Libertarians are not anarchists, this is a progressive talking point.

[Madison320]

A free society is not a lawless society. Libertarians are not anarchists, this is a progressive talking point.

But what was wrong with my statement that only net taxpayers should vote? Why does phill4paul think that is worse than Zippy? I'm confused.

[nikcers]

But what was wrong with my statement that only net taxpayers should vote? Why does phill4paul think that is worse than Zippy? I'm confused.

Progressives tend to want to change the rule of law instead of following the rule of law.

[tod evans]

Progressives tend to want to change the rule of law instead of following the rule of law.

Which of the 100's of thousands of laws and edicts should one follow?

I'm not a progressive although some of my politics are to the left of Gandhi...

Nor am I a conservative even though most of my politics are to the right of Attila the Hun....

[nikcers]

Which of the 100's of thousands of laws and edicts should one follow?

I'm not a progressive although some of my politics are to the left of Gandhi...

Nor am I a conservative even though most of my politics are to the right of Attila the Hun....

You know where I feel safe, where there is private security. There is private security everywhere I go nowadays. I go to walgreens and there is a security guard greeting me and telling me to have a good day. You know where I feel safe, where I can conceal carry, because I know that no one is going to protect my life the way I will. Cops scare the $#@! out of me, they shoot more innocent people then criminals do in my eyes. Do you call that law and order?

[TheCount]

That is a very complex question, but I will try to give some simplistic rough answers.

Min: The Old west, not including progressive cities like Dodge where the citizens were denied their 2nd amendment rights.
Max: This one is harder but it would probably be somewhere around the 1900s and 1910s.

How does ICE fit into this?

Were there immigration agents in the old west?

[tod evans]

You know where I feel safe, where there is private security. There is private security everywhere I go nowadays. I go to walgreens and there is a security guard greeting me and telling me to have a good day. You know where I feel safe, where I can conceal carry, because I know that no one is going to protect my life the way I will. Cops scare the $#@! out of me, they shoot more innocent people then criminals do in my eyes. Do you call that law and order?

Certainly not.

Now how about answering the question I asked you?

[nikcers]

Certainly not.

Now how about answering the question I asked you?

I think we should legalize more liberty before we can repeal a lot of laws that perpetuate the Marxist PC culture. I don't think we need a TSA for our local law enforcement and that's where I see this going.

[tod evans]

I think we should legalize more liberty before we can repeal a lot of laws that perpetuate the Marxist PC culture. I don't think we need a TSA for our local law enforcement and that's where I see this going.

What?

WTF does "legalize more liberty" actually mean?

And how could anyone be against repealing laws?

[nikcers]

What?

WTF does "legalize more liberty" actually mean?

And how could anyone be against repealing laws?

I don't even understand if you are arguing against my argument or the phrasing or both? I think if I got articulate enough- wrote paragraphs out- you would be pedantic to criticize my spelling.

[tod evans]

I don't even understand if you are arguing against my argument or the phrasing or both? I think if I got articulate enough- wrote paragraphs out- you would be pedantic to criticize my spelling.

I'm not arguing against anything, I'm trying to understand the point you're making...

[nikcers]

I'm not arguing against anything, I'm trying to understand the point you're making...

These systemic problems in society can't be fixed by government because they are caused by government. You can't remove the law though without removing the government otherwise there will be tyranny.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

One problem I observe is that many people don't even bother to separate the two words "law" and "order." People put them together, as if they're inseparable. I don't hear people digging deep enough to discuss the differences. Most of today's new legislation and regulation is about order, not about law.

Laws occur naturally; Law has been around for eons. Do not murder. Do not steal. Man doesn't invent laws. Law precedes man. You don't need people who think they are so smart as to declare eureka, and then pretend they came up with something the rest of us did not know about.

Order code that has nothing to do with law:

consensual drug use and purchasing
smoking in a restaurant
occupational licensing
home schooling regs
Obama "Care"
minimum wage
seatbelt & helmet code
police roadblocks
marriage
gambling
gun statutes
rent stabilization/control
eminent domain
paid work family leave
blue "laws"
happy hour legislation
assisted suicide
firework selling restrictions
asset forfeiture
campaign contribution statutes
cable TV regulation
raw milk selling
trans-fat food bans
Etc, etc, etc, etc