Why is it so difficult to understand that when you give someone the job of locking people up, and then make that the standard of their success and advancement, then that’s what you’ll get? And, you’ll get it where the most important and overriding consideration is whether you can lock them up and whether you can ultimately keep them there. No other facts are really relevant. This is the greatest evil in our entire "civil" society and it is being perpetuated upon us by thugs in blue uniforms, investigators, prosecutors, judges, and good-German juries
I was just saying it the other day.
I really don’t understand this
propensity to excuse people who chooses to actively destroy someone
else, their property, their livelihood, or their freedom for the
express purpose of "doing a job," which is to say, to advance themselves. To me, this is the absolute incarnation of evil. Man created evil. The only sort of evil that exists.
And that’s not even all of it. I can look the other way when one predator (police) goes after another predator (criminal). It’s really just like mobsters and gangsters eating one-another, and there are no important distinctions to make; none whatsoever. What I can not suffer, at all, is when criminals are manufactured–by the mere definition and interpretation of a statute, and when they haven’t harmed anyone else and don’t seem very likely to do so.
Why do we manufacture them? We do so because there are those among us with a mandate to lock people up, and locking up people who do harm others and who are a real and present risk to peaceful people is difficult, for one, and dangerous, for another. It’s so much easier, less risky, the pay is the same, and they even hand out bullshit commendations for locking up plain old ordinary folks who aren’t harming anyone.
Don’t believe me? Try this.
And do me a favor; sneer the next time someone tells you how great the cops are.
Join Over 5,000 Subscribers!
Get exclusive content sent directly to your inbox.
And you see only one possible alternative for who that "someone" should be? Not to mention which rules should be enforced? Was your initial question entirely rhetorical, or did you seriously think about the possible answers before asking it?
What I'm proposing is that you really think about some answers to these questions. Brainstorm a bit, do a little "what if?" instead of just regurgitating what you've been fed. I'm too weary of your kind of naivete to offer much help beyond that. Read the archives here, read my blog, read anything, anything at all that offers a different kind of answer than the ones you've blindly accepted all your life.
Fair enough. But it's a big topic, hard to explain from the ground up in a series of comments.
To be very brief, I (and others here, but I won't speak for them) am above all else an individualist. I am as fully consistent with that as I know how to be, even to the point of applying it to all levels of politics. I believe that the responsibility and authority for *everything*, including self-defense, rests on each individual.
That responsibility cannot be delegated to any outside authority. Any individual may, at his sole discretion, hire others to assist in carrying out his responsibilities. But the authority still rests with him. He may terminate that relationship at any time, subject only to contractual obligations he voluntarily and *explicitly* agrees to.
Everything else (mostly) flows from that, but working it all out is the time consuming part. Now, if you haven't retreated from some knee jerk reaction of "B.. B… But… that would be… anarchy!!?!?!?", and all kinds of subsequent unfounded assumptions, then we can talk. But be prepared to do some of that reading on your own anyway, I'm not in a hand-holding mood lately.
And it doesn't sound like Richard is either.
How about private companies providing short term police functions. If they get aggressive, cancel the contract and get another company.
Citizens would still be protected, the companies would compete by being fair and reasonable.
That is just one solution.
Another is to eleminate a lot of laws and officers that have a job enforcing silly regulations.
Ah well, there are lots of better options than what we have.
As Kyle said;
Think about it rather than regurgitate what you have been told.
"It actually looks like I landed in the middle of an ongoing 'conversation'…"
Yeah, I joined in about 1997. I've just about got my bearings.
How much worse would things be in our society if we didn't have law enforcement? Sure, there are cops who abuse their authority, but I'll bet even you would be afraid to set foot outside your door if we didn't have someone enforcing the rules.
Either I'm being dense or you're being entirely too vague. What do you propose as a solution? We have laws for a reason. And someone has to enforce them. What laws do we need? And who should enforce them? Apparently, those are the questions at hand here.
You're making the assumption that I just blindly regurgitate anything I've been 'taught'. I was genuinely asking a question here, because this isn't a topic I've faced or had reason to think much about before today. And unfortunately, due to my busy life right now, I can't just drop everything and spend a lot of time doing research (at least not until after the New Year, when things settle down a bit). Believe it or not, I greatly enjoy researching 'new' topics and issues, but as stated before, this one is relatively new to me.
You've primed the pump, for which I thank you.
Fair enough. Just knowing the basis of your worldview puts it into better perspective for me and gives me a little more grounding for understanding where you're coming from. When I get more than a few minutes of free time (half my apartment is packed in boxes in preparation for an impending move), I'll take a deeper look into this particular issue and see what to make of it. It actually looks like I landed in the middle of an ongoing 'conversation'…