Defund the Police?

[muppy]

14 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

Trust me friend. This is a road to #windowlickerville that you just don't want to travel down.

that you would even use such a despicable # speaks volumes about you Jaraxxus.  I googled what t meant. wow.

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

As an engineer, I agree wholeheartedly 

 

There is only one professional that drives me crazier than lawyers.  Engineers....................

[muppy]

1 minute ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

My shame is palpable. No, really. I don't know how I can go on.

 

Oh I know........shame is not a part of your game. More than that you're proud of it . You being You reveals volumes.

[Cinga]

3 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

Not a big fan of librarians myself.

 

All those fines.

 

 

Too much like a cops huh? 

 

#Defund Librarians!

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Cinga

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

What lots of reasons? In the late 1700s and early 1800s in England you basically had to pay for police services and/or you had to hire your own muscle to keep you safe. After that, it got worse as many would have to stand the cost of the prosecution if you wanted someone who personally harmed you prosecuted for the crime, but I did not mean my comment to go that far. If you took it to that extreme, my apologies as I only meant paying for your own police services (and/or muscle to keep you safe).

The mafia and gangs are also a way to keep someone safe (from other gangs or mafia). Some were pay (mafia got paid to allow you to not get hurt and your business to go on uninjured), some worked for the mob. The gangs protect you (generic you!) from other gangs.

All of this is, of course, simplistic. There is a history of what happens when you do not have a police force that is "free" for everyone equally under the law.

You’re aware that I offered multiple solutions, all of which could be implemented in concert; not just private security.  This included abolishing all gun laws, and a return to a sherrif and deputy system.

 

The state is violence, and America is a police state, and has been since SCOTUS ruled that the police have no legal duty to defend your rights, your property, or your life; but rather are agents of the state whose sole responsibility is to enforce the law, regardless of the justness of that law, or if it violates the rights of its citizens.

 

There is no “yeah but” which makes this acceptable.  As such I advocate for the abolition of the state as well.  The Constitution was put in place as a cage on the growth of government.  It has proved absolutely useless towards that purpose.

 

Its long past time to be done with it.  Abolish it all, and allow localism to dictate new alliances and structures of multiple governments for those who want them, and no governments at all for those who don’t.

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

You’re aware that I offered multiple solutions, all of which could be implemented in concert; not just private security.  This included abolishing all gun laws, and a return to a sherrif and deputy system.

 

The state is violence, and America is a police state, and has been since SCOTUS ruled that the police have no legal duty to defend your rights, your property, or your life; but rather are agents of the state whose sole responsibility is to enforce the law, regardless of the justness of that law, or if it violates the rights of its citizens.

 

There is no “yeah but” which makes this acceptable.  As such I advocate for the abolition of the state as well.  The Constitution was put in place as a cage on the growth of government.  It has proved absolutely useless towards that purpose.

 

Its long past time to be done with it.  Abolish it all, and allow localism to dictate new alliances and structures of multiple governments for those who want them, and no governments at all for those who don’t.

You are firm in your libertarian convictions, I will say that.

Let's just say we will agree to disagree on this.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

13 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

You are firm in your libertarian convictions, I will say that.

Let's just say we will agree to disagree on this.

 

The United States is far too large, and has large political groups whose philosophies are completely incompatible with each other.  This inevitably leads to political violence as national politics becomes a constant struggle over the gun that is government, such that one group can point it at the other, and force them to live a specific  way which violates the principals of that group.

 

This doesn’t even begin to speak to ideologies which are intentionally marginalized by the Two Party system.
 

Why should it be this way?  It doesn’t make any sense that California should either dictate to, or be dictated to by, the rest of the nation.  Let them go.

 

And if we are being consistent, let anyone else who wants to go, go as well.

 

Government is only just with the consent of the governed, and that’s not how America operates any more.

 

One could easily argue, if one agrees with Greg on the state of corruption and malfeasance entrenched in our government, that it actively does none of the things it was chartered to do, and instead simply now exists to feather the nests of the politically connected.

 

Power corrupts, and there is nothing more powerful than the US government.  
 

What sort of individuals are drawn to that sort of power?  Not peaceful people who simply wish to leave others alone; but rather men and women who would seek to harness that monopoly on violence in order to bend others to their own preferences, and have the will to do so at massive costs of human lives.  There were no gentle hearted plantation overseers.  Elected office attracts sociopaths.  That’s who leads us.

 

What I am proposing doesn’t leave you without government, if government is what you desire, but rather allows you to have the government you want without imposing it on others who reject your philosophy.

 

As for disagreeing with my assessment of America as a police state, that’s not my opinion, but rather the legal dictate of the Supreme Court.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

The United States is far too large, and has large political groups whose philosophies are completely incompatible with each other.  This inevitably leads to political violence as national politics becomes a constant struggle over the gun that is government, such that one group can point it at the other, and force them to live a specific  way which violates the principals of that group.

 

This doesn’t even begin to speak to ideologies which are intentionally marginalized by the Two Party system.
 

Why should it be this way?  It doesn’t make any sense that California should either dictate to, or be dictated to by, the rest of the nation.  Let them go.

 

And if we are being consistent, let anyone else who wants to go, go as well.

 

Government is only just with the consent of the governed, and that’s not how America operates any more.

 

One could easily argue, if one agrees with Greg on the state of corruption and malfeasance entrenched in our government, that it actively does none of the things it was chartered to do, and instead simply now exists to feather the nests of the politically connected.

 

Power corrupts, and there is nothing more powerful than the US government.  
 

What sort of individuals are drawn to that sort of power?  Not peaceful people who simply wish to leave others alone; but rather men and women who would seek to harness that monopoly on violence in order to bend others to their own preferences, and have the will to do so at massive costs of human lives.  There were no gentle hearted plantation overseers.  Elected office attracts sociopaths.  That’s who leads us.

 

What I am proposing doesn’t leave you without government, if government is what you desire, but rather allows you to have the government you want without imposing it on others who reject your philosophy.

 

As for disagreeing with my assessment of America as a police state, that’s not my opinion, but rather the legal dictate of the Supreme Court.

Not engaging. ?

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

15 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

Borderline anarchist, that one. Some of his stuff is convincing, others not so much.

 

Philisophically I’m an AnCap, but don’t believe that to be practical in application.  Functionally I’m a minarchist, as some legal structure is needed for the enforcement of contracts. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Not engaging. ?

 

You’re clearly entitled to that.

 

I’m sure someone else will, however.

1 minute ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

It's funny that you and I sometimes come to the same conclusion for different reasons.

 

I believe aggression to be immoral.

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

I believe that history proves multiculturalism to be a failed ideology.

 

Nearly every multicultural empire in history had a very short shelf life. America is proving no different.

 

I don’t disagree with this.

 

I simply recognize that America is far to large, and far too ideologically diverse to remain a single nation.

 

It is unjust as it cannot be maintained without the application of force.

Edited June 11, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[Chef Jim]

15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I believe aggression to be immoral.

 

If you want to do away with aggression (not insinuating you're saying that just in case you're not) you're going to have to do an awful lot of human reprogramming.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

17 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

If you want to do away with aggression (not insinuating you're saying that just in case you're not) you're going to have to do an awful lot of human reprogramming.  

I don’t propose that aggression can be stopped, I simply think we should stop institutionalizing it and giving political activists a gun to point at everyone else In order to steal from them and force them to live a certain way.

 

I also don’t equate violence with aggression.  Using violence to stop someone from aggressing you is perfectly moral.

2 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

Mind DMing me a list of good resources which drive your philosophy? A lot of free time on my hands lately, could use a good read. Also, you once mentioned a book written by a historian about the Articles of Confederation vis a vis the Constitution and how the Constitution was basically a document legalizing theft. I'd be really interested in that one.

 

Gladly.  I’ll tag you shortly.

Edited June 11, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[BuffaloHokie13]

@TakeYouToTasker this you? Lotta similar vibes... admittedly long watch (30 mins) but he does make some interesting points. He's a self-proclaimed anarchist, fwiw.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

36 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

@TakeYouToTasker this you? Lotta similar vibes... admittedly long watch (30 mins) but he does make some interesting points. He's a self-proclaimed anarchist, fwiw.

 

LOL, no.  
 

I am not Eric July, though I do speak with him reasonably frequently.  Eric is a prominent and powerful advocate for libertarian philosophy 

Edited June 11, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[KRC]

18 hours ago, Margarita said:

that you would even use such a despicable # speaks volumes about you Jaraxxus.  I googled what t meant. wow.

 

He didn't mean that definition. He meant something completely different.

[muppy]

3 hours ago, KRC said:

 

He didn't mean that definition. He meant something completely different.

such as?

 

haha touche'.....points for cuteness.

[GregPersons]

20 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I don’t propose that aggression can be stopped, I simply think we should stop institutionalizing it and giving political activists a gun to point at everyone else In order to steal from them and force them to live a certain way.

 

I also don’t equate violence with aggression.  Using violence to stop someone from aggressing you is perfectly moral.

Gladly.  I’ll tag you shortly.

 

Which political activists have guns, specifically? What is being stolen, and what certain way of life is being forced?

 

Should Black people take the Christopher Dorner approach to the aggressions from police and White America, would that be perfectly moral in your view?

[Reality Check]

1 hour ago, GregPersons said:

 

Which political activists have guns, specifically? What is being stolen, and what certain way of life is being forced?

 

Should Black people take the Christopher Dorner approach to the aggressions from police and White America, would that be perfectly moral in your view?

 

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/10/2020 at 6:02 PM, billsfan1959 said:

 

I think the issue here, Margarita is that the word "defund" literally means to cease funding. If somebody says "defund the police" and they do not mean that funding for the police should be withdrawn and stopped, then they should use another word or phrase that more accurately represents what they mean.

 

If we start to apply arbitrary meanings and endless interpretations, the word itself then becomes meaningless.

 

Words do have meanings and should be used accordingly. 

 

This is such an important point you’ve made, billsfan1959 (and thank you for doing so while being respectful to Margarita). I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the nature of modern American political discourse and why it’s apparently collapsing all around us. I could list many reasons, but two that I’ll mention have to do specifically with how we use language. We all seem to be talking over and around each other because of our propensity for making sweeping and hasty generalizations, as well as for the reason you mentioned: using words with arbitrary definitions and loose interpretations.

 

In order to avoid confusion, we should all develop habits of specifying beforehand the meaning of a word we’re using if it differs from Webster’s dictionary, if it’s a commonly misused one, if it has multiple definitions, or if the definition has recently changed within the culture. “Defund,” “racism,” “fascism,” and even “abolish” are the most recent culprits. For me, my pet peeve has always been “socialism.”