| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2005 04:31:24 AM |
| Object: |
Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:
http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-archives/
http://www.fear.org/
Could it be that the cops have nothing to do with protecting average
citizens? Probably so.
------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/peters3.html
To Serve and Protect - Itself
by John M. Peters
On November 18, 2001, a woman was shot to death in her suburban Detroit
home by her distraught husband. He then turned the gun on himself and
died instantly.
Unfortunately, this scenario is played out all too often across the
nation. If these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy and
ask yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was
different.
In this case, the police were present - not following the
murder/suicide - but before and during it.
Following threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her
children, the woman went directly to the local police. She informed
them that she was in fear for her life and the lives of her children if
she tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police that
her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that day,
and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.
The police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the end -
the end of her life and her husband's.
Despite encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all the
facts which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police
never questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even
bothered to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as the
husband followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car with
her personal belongings.
As the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed his
wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then shot
himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police to protect
her from, and what they had agreed to do.
If these police officers had been private security officers instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of law
under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they are
government employees. The result is that they are not accountable for
their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.
Another government branch - the courts - has decided that police
are not legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan, the
state's highest court has decided that individual police officers may
not be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death. This
special treatment is not available to those in the private sector. In
every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence is
assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government - the Michigan legislature - passed a
statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.
Faced with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued a
claim against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that
she was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for the
dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an individual
against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the
Due Process Clause." Coming from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the
law in every state. This outrage is compounded by the government's
simultaneous efforts to prevent citizens from taking any steps to
protect themselves, and punishing them when they do.
How do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the deceased?
It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.
Writers such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded the
alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of
accountability, but the truth is that most citizens actually believe
that the police are under some legal duty to come to your aid.
In oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that if
this is the state of the law in this country the courts should require
that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label which reads:
Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then, I explained, we will
at least know the truth, and be able to take steps to protect
ourselves.
The next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police
vehicle, remember that this is government's motto about itself, not
you.
June 24, 2004
John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in Michigan.
Copyright =A9 2004 LewRockwell.com
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
28 Jan 2005 03:49:55 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:dhrKd.4147$G31.66@okepread05...
Cops are the people that stop average citizens from getting pissed
off and
lynching scum bag criminals.
Cops are the people who ensure baby rapers get to attend their fair
trial.
Cops are the people who ensure the leeches in society are afforded
their
"civil rights".
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106908284.359124.134250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to
abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops
steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act
like
it:
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Go cry to mommy, little man. Calling the double standard for what it
is is not "whining."
Any solutions in mind?
Read the article?
Didn't think so.
Of course you don't think. Your response proves you're incapable of
doing so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
28 Jan 2005 02:45:48 PM |
|
|
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 AM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Zarkov" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 09:23:59 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Subscribe to private protection services and finally get some real
protection. Or provide our own protection if we choose. This was the way
things were done until around 1850. There were no police departments in the
U.S. until around that time.
The abuses and inefficiency of public policing are well documented. Only
about 1% of crimes overall and 2% of violent crimes are ever solved (where
someone is convicted of the crime). See, for example, Malcolm C Young, Marc
Mauer: "...ultimately, only about 2 percent of violent crimes result in a
conviction." (In: _Crime_, P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press,
1998) or Ernest van de Haag, _Fair And Certain Punishment_, McGraw Hill,
New York.
Nor is there any evidence that the police have a major impact on crime.
"Over 30 years of criminological research has shown that the ability of
police to influence crime is extremely limited....Cleveland and San Diego
had comparable crime rates even though Cleveland had twice as many police
officers per capita. And in 1992, the District of Columbia had both the
highest homicide rate and the most metropolitan police per square foot of
any city in the nation...The most thorough study ever done, a 1981 analysis
of police beats in Newark, NJ, found virtually no effect on crime
rates."--Richard Moran, professor of criminology and sociology at Mount
Holyoke College. Community Policing Strategies Do Little to Prevent Crime.
In: _Crime_ P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998.
Add to that the hundreds of innocent people abused, killed, or framed by the
police each year, and it's doubtful whether they do any net good at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 07:09:22 PM |
|
|
"Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com> wrote in message
news:CsidnRCn195HN2bcRVn-sg@rcn.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Subscribe to private protection services and finally get some real
protection. Or provide our own protection if we choose. This was the way
things were done until around 1850. There were no police departments in
the
U.S. until around that time.
The abuses and inefficiency of public policing are well documented. Only
about 1% of crimes overall and 2% of violent crimes are ever solved (where
someone is convicted of the crime). See, for example, Malcolm C Young,
Marc
Mauer: "...ultimately, only about 2 percent of violent crimes result in a
conviction." (In: _Crime_, P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven
Press,
1998) or Ernest van de Haag, _Fair And Certain Punishment_, McGraw Hill,
New York.
Nor is there any evidence that the police have a major impact on crime.
"Over 30 years of criminological research has shown that the ability of
police to influence crime is extremely limited....Cleveland and San Diego
had comparable crime rates even though Cleveland had twice as many police
officers per capita. And in 1992, the District of Columbia had both the
highest homicide rate and the most metropolitan police per square foot of
any city in the nation...The most thorough study ever done, a 1981
analysis
of police beats in Newark, NJ, found virtually no effect on crime
rates."--Richard Moran, professor of criminology and sociology at Mount
Holyoke College. Community Policing Strategies Do Little to Prevent Crime.
In: _Crime_ P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998.
Add to that the hundreds of innocent people abused, killed, or framed by
the
police each year, and it's doubtful whether they do any net good at all.
Well, this is compelling, but I would have to do more research. An appeal to
the "good old days" is always deeply suspect in my book. Especially if it
contravenes what little I know of human nature.
Your numbers are interesting, but I suspect there's another side to the
issue.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 11:27:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:23:59 -0500, "Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Subscribe to private protection services and finally get some real
protection. Or provide our own protection if we choose. This was the way
things were done until around 1850. There were no police departments in the
U.S. until around that time.
1845 for the NYPD. Of course, before that, the city had a force of
constables hired by the boroughs.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Zarkov" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 05:56:27 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote ...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:23:59 -0500, "Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Subscribe to private protection services and finally get some real
protection. Or provide our own protection if we choose. This was the
way
things were done until around 1850. There were no police departments in
the
U.S. until around that time.
1845 for the NYPD. Of course, before that, the city had a force of
constables hired by the boroughs.
There were constables, but it's an exaggeration to imply they were a "force"
or anything like a police force. The American system after the revolution
followed the British, who had no public police (or prosecutors) until the
19th century.
See: Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the 18th Century by David
Friedman
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/England_18thc./England_18thc.html
"England in the 18th century had no public officials corresponding to either
police or district attorneys. Constables were unpaid and played only a minor
role in law enforcement. A victim of crime who wanted a constable to
undertake any substantial effort in order to apprehend the perpetrator was
expected to pay the expenses of doing so. Attempts to create public
prosecutors failed in 1855 and again in 1871; when the office of Director of
Public Prosecution was finally established in 1879, its responsibilities
were very much less than those of an American district attorney, now or
then. In 18th century England a system of professional police and
prosecutors, government paid and appointed, was viewed as potentially
tyranical and, worse still, French."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 02:22:58 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Live his life without being harassed, I'd imagine. Does freedom scare
you that much?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 07:02:25 PM |
|
|
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107030178.329231.283360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Live his life without being harassed, I'd imagine. Does freedom scare
you that much?
Ah, anarchy. Of course, that ALWAYS works.
Are you really that stupid?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
30 Jan 2005 07:14:56 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107030178.329231.283360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Live his life without being harassed, I'd imagine. Does freedom
scare
you that much?
Ah, anarchy. Of course, that ALWAYS works.
It's never been tried.
Are you really that stupid?
I know you are, but what am I? Pee Wee.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
31 Jan 2005 01:40:58 PM |
|
|
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107090896.081150.59560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107030178.329231.283360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Live his life without being harassed, I'd imagine. Does freedom
scare
you that much?
Ah, anarchy. Of course, that ALWAYS works.
It's never been tried.
Oh, come ON! It's the single most obvious method of organization for small
groups. The reason you don't see it as the organizing principle for large
groups is that it doesn't work for large groups.
Are you really that stupid?
I know you are, but what am I? Pee Wee.
Hey, you're the one that thinks anarchy might work. If you think that, then
you know nothing about human nature.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
03 Feb 2005 04:55:59 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107090896.081150.59560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107030178.329231.283360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet
said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies
in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Live his life without being harassed, I'd imagine. Does freedom
scare
you that much?
Ah, anarchy. Of course, that ALWAYS works.
It's never been tried.
Oh, come ON! It's the single most obvious method of organization for
small
groups. The reason you don't see it as the organizing principle for
large
groups is that it doesn't work for large groups.
It's never been tried because nobody in charge wants it to happen.
Read any elitist text (by elitist, I mean one which advocates that a
small minority should rule over the "masses.") All basically say
"People are stupid and wicked, but us, the annoited and Chosen ones
aren't, so let's rule them for their own good."
Are you really that stupid?
I know you are, but what am I? Pee Wee.
Hey, you're the one that thinks anarchy might work. If you think
that, then
you know nothing about human nature.
Actually, *you* are the one who knows nothing about human nature nor
anarchism.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA2.html#seca215
A.2.15 What about "human nature"?
Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political
theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often,
"human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument
against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is
not the case, however. First of all, human nature is a complex thing.
If, by human nature, it is meant "what humans do," it is obvious that
human nature is contradictory -- love and hate, compassion and
heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed
by people and so are all products of "human nature." Of course, what is
considered "human nature" can change with changing social
circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of "human
nature" and "normal" for thousands of years. Homosexuality was
considered perfectly normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of
years later the Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only
become part of "human nature" once states developed. Hence Chomsky:
"Individuals are certainly capable of evil . . . But individuals are
capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of
realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which
ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional
structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers
free rein, they'd be running the place. The only way to survive would
be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves.
"If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human
beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions
and commitments, we're going to have a society based on greed, with all
that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that
human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support,
sympathy become dominant. Then you'll have different aspects of human
nature and personality revealing themselves." [Chronicles of Dissent,
pp. 158]
Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what "human
nature" is, how it develops and what aspects of it are expressed.
Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we
think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is
inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent
on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society
will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a "human
nature" radically different from a libertarian one. So "when we hear
men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much
better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people
can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means
of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less
ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those
conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of
slavishness and ambition?" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83]
As such, the use of "human nature" as an argument against anarchism is
simply superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse not to
think. "Every fool," as Emma Goldman put it, "from king to policemen,
from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science,
presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the
mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness
and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day,
with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and
maimed?" Change society, create a better social environment and then we
can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of
an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism "stands for the
liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the
liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation
from the shackles and restraint of government." For "[f]reedom,
expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can
teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its
wonderful possibilities." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73]
This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each
individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by
"society" (which in practice means those who run it). As Noam Chomsky
argues, "I don't think its possible to give a rational account of the
concept of alienated labour on that assumption [that human nature is
nothing but a historical product], nor is it possible to produce
something like a moral justification for the commitment to some kind of
social change, except on the basis of assumptions about human nature
and how modifications in the structure of society will be better able
to conform to some of the fundamental needs that are part of our
essential nature." [Language and Politics, p. 215] We do not wish to
enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not
"innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability
to think and learn -- that much is obvious, we feel -- and that humans
are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete
and to prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose
injustice and oppression (Bakunin rightly considered "the power to
think and the desire to rebel" as "precious faculties." [God and the
State, p. 9]).
These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist
society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes
all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social
relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep
unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the
centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state is
denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for
the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in
anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. That modern society
calls such people "savages" or "primitive" is pure arrogance. So who
can tell whether anarchism is against "human nature"? Anarchists have
accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may not be.
As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human nature," it
is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For "while
our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth -- the
rulers, the employers, the leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent
those bad men -- the ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming
still worse than they are" we anarchists "maintain that both rulers and
ruled are spoiled by authority" and "both exploiters and exploited are
spoiled by exploitation." So "there is [a] difference, and a very
important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make
no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes
unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we
are dreamers." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83] If human
nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping
this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.
Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations
bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the
oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian relationships so
produced. "It is a characteristic of privilege and of every kind of
privilege," argued Bakunin, "to kill the mind and heart of man . . .
That is a social law which admits no exceptions . . . It is the law of
equality and humanity." [God and the State, p. 31] And while the
privileged become corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become
servile in heart and mind (luckily the human spirit is such that there
will always be rebels no matter the oppression for where there is
oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As such, it
seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists justify hierarchy
in terms of the (distorted) "human nature" it produces.
Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this day. For
example, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim (with very little
real evidence) that capitalism is a product of our "nature," which is
determined by our genes. These claims are simply a new variation of the
"human nature" argument and have, unsurprisingly, been leapt upon by
the powers that be. Considering the dearth of evidence, their support
for this "new" doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to
those in power -- i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an
"objective" and "scientific" basis to rationalise inequalities in
wealth and power (for a discussion of this process see Not in Our
Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature by Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin
and Leon J. Kamin).
This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As scientist
Stephen Jay Gould notes, "the range of our potential behaviour is
circumscribed by our biology" and if this is what sociobiology means
"by genetic control, then we can scarcely disagree." However, this is
not what is meant. Rather, it is a form of "biological determinism"
that sociobiology argues for. Saying that there are specific genes for
specific human traits says little for while "[v]iolence, sexism, and
general nastiness are biological since they represent one subset of a
possible range of behaviours" so are "peacefulness, equality, and
kindness." And so "we may see their influence increase if we can create
social structures that permit them to flourish." That this may be the
case can be seen from the works of sociobiologists themselves, who
"acknowledge diversity" in human cultures while "often dismiss[ing] the
uncomfortable 'exceptions' as temporary and unimportant aberrations."
This is surprising, for if you believe that "repeated, often genocidal
warfare has shaped our genetic destiny, the existence of nonaggressive
peoples is embarrassing." [Ever Since Darwin, p. 252, p. 257 and p.
254]
Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by
first projecting the dominant ideas of current society onto nature
(often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly consider the ideas
in question as both "normal" and "natural"). Then the theories of
nature produced in this manner are transferred back onto society and
history, being used to "prove" that the principles of capitalism
(hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are eternal laws, which are
then appealed to as a justification for the status quo! Amazingly,
there are many supposedly intelligent people who take this
sleight-of-hand seriously.
This can be seen when "hierarchies" in nature are used to explain, and
so justify, hierarchies in human societies. Such analogies are
misleading for they forget the institutional nature of human life. As
Murray Bookchin notes in his critique of sociobiology, a "weak,
enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape is hardly likely to become an 'alpha'
male, much less retain this highly ephemeral 'status.' By contrast, the
most physically and mentally pathological human rulers have exercised
authority with devastating effect in the course of history." This
"expresses a power of hierarchical institutions over persons that is
completely reversed in so-called 'animal hierarchies' where the absence
of institutions is precisely the only intelligible way of talking about
'alpha males' or 'queen bees.'" ["Sociobiology or Social Ecology",
Which way for the Ecology Movement?, p. 58] Thus what makes human
society unique is conveniently ignored and the real sources of power in
society are hidden under a genetic screen.
The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to "human nature" (or
sociobiology at its worse) are natural, of course, because every ruling
class needs to justify their right to rule. Hence they support
doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite
power -- be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc.
Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now, of
course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to "human
nature" and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific
priesthood!
The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped.
One thousand years from now, society will be completely different from
what it is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in
place at the moment will still be around, and the current economic
system will not exist. The only thing that may remain the same is that
people will still be claiming that their new society is the "One True
System" that completely conforms to human nature, even though all past
systems did not.
Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that
people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the
same facts -- conclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to
capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists
may be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they
live in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that
scientists working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution
based on cooperation within species, quite unlike their counterparts in
capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on competitive
struggle within and between species. That the latter theory reflected
the dominant political and economic theories of British society
(notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of course.
Kropotkin's classic work Mutual Aid, for example, was written in
response to the obvious inaccuracies that British representatives of
Darwinism had projected onto nature and human life. Building upon the
mainstream Russian criticism of the British Darwinism of the time,
Kropotkin showed (with substantial empirical evidence) that "mutual
aid" within a group or species played as important a role as "mutual
struggle" between individuals within those groups or species (see
Stephan Jay Gould's essay "Kropotkin was no Crackpot" in his book Bully
for Brontosaurus for details and an evaluation). It was, he stressed, a
"factor" in evolution along with competition, a factor which, in most
circumstances, was far more important to survival. Thus co-operation is
just as "natural" as competition so proving that "human nature" was not
a barrier to anarchism as co-operation between members of a species can
be the best pathway to advantage individuals.
To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against "human
nature" for two main reasons. Firstly, what is considered as being
"human nature" is shaped by the society we live in and the
relationships we create. This means a hierarchical society will
encourage certain personality traits to dominate while an anarchist one
would encourage others. As such, anarchists "do not so much rely on the
fact that human nature will change as they do upon the theory that the
some nature will act differently under different circumstances."
Secondly, change "seems to be one of the fundamental laws of existence"
so "who can say that man [sic!] has reached the limits of his
possibilities." [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, pp. 360-1 and
p. 360]
For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of
which refute the idea that anarchists think human beings are naturally
good, see Peter Marshall's "Human nature and anarchism" [David Goodway
(ed.), For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice, pp. 127-149] and
David Hartley's "Communitarian Anarchism and Human Nature". [Anarchist
Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 145-164]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
03 Feb 2005 05:49:12 PM |
|
|
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107428159.619314.233240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107090896.081150.59560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107030178.329231.283360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet
said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies
in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Live his life without being harassed, I'd imagine. Does freedom
scare
you that much?
Ah, anarchy. Of course, that ALWAYS works.
It's never been tried.
Oh, come ON! It's the single most obvious method of organization for
small
groups. The reason you don't see it as the organizing principle for
large
groups is that it doesn't work for large groups.
It's never been tried because nobody in charge wants it to happen.
That sounds like complete *****. There's nothing preventing a group of
100 people from governing themselves via anarchy, except the fact that it
won't work.
Read any elitist text (by elitist, I mean one which advocates that a
small minority should rule over the "masses.") All basically say
"People are stupid and wicked, but us, the annoited and Chosen ones
aren't, so let's rule them for their own good."
And how does that work? Why do the "masses" allow themselves to be ruled by
the "elite"?
Are you really that stupid?
I know you are, but what am I? Pee Wee.
Hey, you're the one that thinks anarchy might work. If you think
that, then
you know nothing about human nature.
Actually, *you* are the one who knows nothing about human nature nor
anarchism.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA2.html#seca215
Well, that's certainly some guy's opinion. Some would call it a rant.
When you show me a large group that self governs via anarchy, I'm ready to
eat my words.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
04 Feb 2005 03:54:00 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107428159.619314.233240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107090896.081150.59560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107030178.329231.283360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet
said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that
applies
in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Live his life without being harassed, I'd imagine. Does
freedom
scare
you that much?
Ah, anarchy. Of course, that ALWAYS works.
It's never been tried.
Oh, come ON! It's the single most obvious method of organization
for
small
groups. The reason you don't see it as the organizing principle
for
large
groups is that it doesn't work for large groups.
It's never been tried because nobody in charge wants it to happen.
That sounds like complete *****. There's nothing preventing a
group of
100 people from governing themselves via anarchy, except the fact
that it
won't work.
In your faulty opinion. Do you lord over your family and treat them
like you are their superior? If they do that which you don't like, do
you put them in bondage? If so, then the statistics show that people
in your family will more likely be violent people to others in return.
You obviously have no clue as to what a libertarian society is all
about. Part of it, of course, stems from your belief in the myth that
once a government collapses, society ends. If that was the case, human
society would have ended long ago. *All* governments eventually
collapse. Humans will endure without them when they do like they have
since the dawn of history.
Read any elitist text (by elitist, I mean one which advocates that
a
small minority should rule over the "masses.") All basically say
"People are stupid and wicked, but us, the annoited and Chosen ones
aren't, so let's rule them for their own good."
And how does that work? Why do the "masses" allow themselves to be
ruled by
the "elite"?
Partially because the elites push the message that they need overlords.
That's what "public education" is about. It spreads certain myths
that the government wants you to believe. Look at you: buying hook,
line, and sinker into the myth that human society needs a coercive
social hierarchy in order to survive. You even go so far as to argue
that it's the "best" type of society to have!
So why not answer why *you* personally choose people to rule you by
force?
Are you really that stupid?
I know you are, but what am I? Pee Wee.
Hey, you're the one that thinks anarchy might work. If you think
that, then
you know nothing about human nature.
Actually, *you* are the one who knows nothing about human nature
nor
anarchism.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA2.html#seca215
Well, that's certainly some guy's opinion. Some would call it a rant.
Never bothered to look at it, I see. Since it is almost all parts of
classical political science texts, calling it a rant is *moronic* on
your part. And it answers all of your objections and dismantles them.
When you show me a large group that self governs via anarchy, I'm
ready to
eat my words.
Doubt it. A specific example pointed at on the webpage refered to
Swiss farmers back in the 1800's and several "primitive" tribes who
don't have a government to speak of, but yet, have no crime. Amazing
how our society, who treats people like they're resources to be used up
and thrown out as trash when it's done, generates all sorts of violent
and alienated people while societies based on equality of rights (with
no overlords ruling by force) has virtally none.
Furthermore, families with domineering and abusive heads of the
household tend to turn out violent and alienated people far more often
than families which truly respect each other. Is this a coincidence?
Of course not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
05 Feb 2005 07:38:23 PM |
|
|
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107554040.945628.292850@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107428159.619314.233240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107090896.081150.59560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107030178.329231.283360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet
(snip)
Allow me to argue like you for a moment:
And how does that work? Why do the "masses" allow themselves to be
ruled by
the "elite"?
Partially because the elites push the message that they need overlords.
Ah, but you are superior to everyone else because you don't fall for that
message, do you?
That's what "public education" is about. It spreads certain myths
that the government wants you to believe.
Ah, but from your elite position, you can see through the lies to the
absolute truth! What a guy!
Look at you: buying hook,
line, and sinker into the myth that human society needs a coercive
social hierarchy in order to survive.
Yes, inferior old me. Hey, I have an idea, why don't you tell everyone how
to live! You're superior to everyone else, so you could do it, and everyone
would have to listen to you!
You even go so far as to argue
that it's the "best" type of society to have!
That's only because I don't share your obvious superiority! Your untried
ideas of anarchy are absolutely perfect! All lesser beings must live the way
you say.
So why not answer why *you* personally choose people to rule you by
force?
Because you haven't come down from your mountain yet with the tablets you've
written showing everyone else how to live their inferior lives in perfect
peace and harmony.
(snip)
There, that's a productive exchange of ideas! Right?
Actually, the answer to the last question is: So that I can have the
benefits of a division of labor that allows me to do what I do best, and
provides a reasonable expectation that I'll be alive to do it.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rump Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 11:47:06 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107554040.945628.292850@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107428159.619314.233240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107090896.081150.59560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107030178.329231.283360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis
Loubet
(snip)
Allow me to argue like you for a moment:
Go ahead and try, but you'll fail.
And how does that work? Why do the "masses" allow themselves to be
ruled by
the "elite"?
Partially because the elites push the message that they need
overlords.
Ah, but you are superior to everyone else because you don't fall for
that
message, do you?
Did I say that? No. Fucking. Moron.
That's what "public education" is about. It spreads certain myths
that the government wants you to believe.
Ah, but from your elite position, you can see through the lies to the
absolute truth! What a guy!
I can see through the lies, but then again I'm against *anyone* ruling
over their fellow man. How is that "elite"?
Try again, padawan.
Look at you: buying hook,
line, and sinker into the myth that human society needs a coercive
social hierarchy in order to survive.
Yes, inferior old me. Hey, I have an idea, why don't you tell
everyone how
to live! You're superior to everyone else, so you could do it, and
everyone
would have to listen to you!
You're no doing good at this.
You even go so far as to argue
that it's the "best" type of society to have!
That's only because I don't share your obvious superiority! Your
untried
ideas of anarchy are absolutely perfect! All lesser beings must live
the way
you say.
Except anarchism doesn't imply "superiors" or "inferiors." Basic
principle is to let people live and let live without exploitation of
those who are governed. Does a free society scare you that much?
You're so obviously *not* getting it. If you're going to argue "like
me" (I appreciate your attempts to flatter me), at least get it
*right.* I'll argue you point by point without going into deliberate
density. Ain't my fault you don't even understand the very basic
principle of human equality and how government is antithetical to it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 11:27:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
That sounds like complete *****. There's nothing preventing a
group of
100 people from governing themselves via anarchy, except the fact
that it won't work.
In your faulty opinion. Do you lord over your family and treat them
like you are their superior? If they do that which you don't like, do
you put them in bondage? If so, then the statistics show that people
in your family will more likely be violent people to others in return.
You obviously have no clue as to what a libertarian society is all
about. Part of it, of course, stems from your belief in the myth that
once a government collapses, society ends. If that was the case, human
society would have ended long ago. *All* governments eventually
collapse. Humans will endure without them when they do like they have
since the dawn of history.
By creating a new government. Anarchy doesn't work because someone
always feels that they should lead and make things go their way.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cole Firearms Inc." |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 06:33:48 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
That sounds like complete *****. There's nothing preventing a
group of
100 people from governing themselves via anarchy, except the fact
that it won't work.
In your faulty opinion. Do you lord over your family and treat them
like you are their superior? If they do that which you don't like, do
you put them in bondage? If so, then the statistics show that people
in your family will more likely be violent people to others in return.
You obviously have no clue as to what a libertarian society is all
about. Part of it, of course, stems from your belief in the myth that
once a government collapses, society ends. If that was the case, human
society would have ended long ago. *All* governments eventually
collapse. Humans will endure without them when they do like they have
since the dawn of history.
By creating a new government. Anarchy doesn't work because someone
always feels that they should lead and make things go their way.
Once those people are identified, they will be appropriately dealt with.
--
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"
"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido,
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 11:39:45 AM |
|
|
Cole Firearms Inc. wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
That sounds like complete *****. There's nothing preventing a
group of
100 people from governing themselves via anarchy, except the fact
that it won't work.
In your faulty opinion. Do you lord over your family and treat them
like you are their superior? If they do that which you don't like, do
you put them in bondage? If so, then the statistics show that people
in your family will more likely be violent people to others in return.
You obviously have no clue as to what a libertarian society is all
about. Part of it, of course, stems from your belief in the myth that
once a government collapses, society ends. If that was the case, human
society would have ended long ago. *All* governments eventually
collapse. Humans will endure without them when they do like they have
since the dawn of history.
By creating a new government. Anarchy doesn't work because someone
always feels that they should lead and make things go their way.
Once those people are identified, they will be appropriately dealt with.
By whom? You? Who died and elected you God?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 12:28:42 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Cole Firearms Inc. wrote:
Once those people are identified, they will be appropriately dealt with.
By whom? You? Who died and elected you God?
Well, Shaun is a Reverend.... he says.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cole Firearms Inc." |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
09 Feb 2005 02:05:02 AM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cole Firearms Inc. wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
That sounds like complete *****. There's nothing preventing a
group of
100 people from governing themselves via anarchy, except the fact
that it won't work.
In your faulty opinion. Do you lord over your family and treat them
like you are their superior? If they do that which you don't like, do
you put them in bondage? If so, then the statistics show that people
in your family will more likely be violent people to others in return.
You obviously have no clue as to what a libertarian society is all
about. Part of it, of course, stems from your belief in the myth that
once a government collapses, society ends. If that was the case, human
society would have ended long ago. *All* governments eventually
collapse. Humans will endure without them when they do like they have
since the dawn of history.
By creating a new government. Anarchy doesn't work because someone
always feels that they should lead and make things go their way.
Once those people are identified, they will be appropriately dealt with.
By whom? You? Who died and elected you God?
By the people who have been opressed, who will rise up, and assert their
Rights.
--
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"
"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido,
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rump Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
09 Feb 2005 06:19:04 PM |
|
|
Cole Firearms Inc. wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cole Firearms Inc. wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
That sounds like complete *****. There's nothing preventing
a
group of
100 people from governing themselves via anarchy, except the
fact
that it won't work.
In your faulty opinion. Do you lord over your family and treat
them
like you are their superior? If they do that which you don't
like, do
you put them in bondage? If so, then the statistics show that
people
in your family will more likely be violent people to others in
return.
You obviously have no clue as to what a libertarian society is
all
about. Part of it, of course, stems from your belief in the
myth that
once a government collapses, society ends. If that was the
case, human
society would have ended long ago. *All* governments eventually
collapse. Humans will endure without them when they do like
they have
since the dawn of history.
By creating a new government. Anarchy doesn't work because
someone
always feels that they should lead and make things go their way.
Once those people are identified, they will be appropriately dealt
with.
By whom? You? Who died and elected you God?
By the people who have been opressed, who will rise up, and assert
their
Rights.
That's what they can't understand. When people are oppressed, they
will fight back. And win in the end. The mistake people keep making
is assuming that their movement is fit to rule. A movement ceases to
be a rights movement when it has the power, and uses it, to rule
others. There's no such thing as a "benign" ruler who uses coercion to
enforce their will on others. And I'm not saying that the government
got us to this place because they're evil and they know it. They think
their policies will "help" people when they make problems worse and
create new ones. Moral busybodies blinded to the harm they cause in
the name of their crusade. America has truly become a tyranny of good
intentions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rump Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 12:41:27 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
That sounds like complete *****. There's nothing preventing a
group of
100 people from governing themselves via anarchy, except the fact
that it won't work.
In your faulty opinion. Do you lord over your family and treat
them
like you are their superior? If they do that which you don't like,
do
you put them in bondage? If so, then the statistics show that
people
in your family will more likely be violent people to others in
return.
You obviously have no clue as to what a libertarian society is all
about. Part of it, of course, stems from your belief in the myth
that
once a government collapses, society ends. If that was the case,
human
society would have ended long ago. *All* governments eventually
collapse. Humans will endure without them when they do like they
have
since the dawn of history.
By creating a new government. Anarchy doesn't work because someone
always feels that they should lead and make things go their way.
And until that trend ends, humanity will have hell to pay. I'd say
when government collapses, all those who decide they should "lead"
should be shot or exiled. Their leadership "for the greater good" will
lead to disaster. Too bad most people never learn that lesson.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 02:14:46 AM |
|
|
"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107715287.237720.314590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
That sounds like complete *****. There's nothing preventing a
group of
100 people from governing themselves via anarchy, except the fact
that it won't work.
In your faulty opinion. Do you lord over your family and treat
them
like you are their superior? If they do that which you don't like,
do
you put them in bondage? If so, then the statistics show that
people
in your family will more likely be violent people to others in
return.
You obviously have no clue as to what a libertarian society is all
about. Part of it, of course, stems from your belief in the myth
that
once a government collapses, society ends. If that was the case,
human
society would have ended long ago. *All* governments eventually
collapse. Humans will endure without them when they do like they
have
since the dawn of history.
By creating a new government. Anarchy doesn't work because someone
always feels that they should lead and make things go their way.
And until that trend ends, humanity will have hell to pay. I'd say
when government collapses, all those who decide they should "lead"
should be shot or exiled.
I'm curious, who will have the authority to do so?
You?
Their leadership "for the greater good" will
lead to disaster.
Odd, you're the one talking about shooting people who don't think like you.
That's what tyrants do.
Too bad most people never learn that lesson.
So you're NOT trying to bring about the greater good?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 12:06:21 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107715287.237720.314590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
That sounds like complete *****. There's nothing preventing a
group of
100 people from governing themselves via anarchy, except the
fact
that it won't work.
In your faulty opinion. Do you lord over your family and treat
them
like you are their superior? If they do that which you don't
like,
do
you put them in bondage? If so, then the statistics show that
people
in your family will more likely be violent people to others in
return.
You obviously have no clue as to what a libertarian society is
all
about. Part of it, of course, stems from your belief in the
myth
that
once a government collapses, society ends. If that was the
case,
human
society would have ended long ago. *All* governments eventually
collapse. Humans will endure without them when they do like
they
have
since the dawn of history.
By creating a new government. Anarchy doesn't work because
someone
always feels that they should lead and make things go their way.
And until that trend ends, humanity will have hell to pay. I'd say
when government collapses, all those who decide they should "lead"
should be shot or exiled.
I'm curious, who will have the authority to do so?
You?
The people.
Duh!
Their leadership "for the greater good" will
lead to disaster.
Odd, you're the one talking about shooting people who don't think
like you.
If their "thinking", which is put into action, is a danger to me and my
family's life, yup.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 03:43:36 PM |
|
|
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107799581.108872.23550@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
D | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
