[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I imagine that you tend to disagree with crimes against the state/society, favoring the police prosecuting crimes when there is a true victim (ie assault, rape, robbery, theft).
Is there any crimes against the state/society that you do favor or would endorse that is not currently on the books?[/quote]
I do disagree with crimes against either the state or society; however, to be clear, I don’t think the police should ever be in the PROSECUTING business. Police should, in my opinion, be in the business of responding to in-progress crimes, as well as investigating crimes already committed. You are correct, I agree with police dealing solely with crimes with a victim(crimes dealing with damage or loss to or of one’s person, property, or liberty).
I don’t agree with any CRIMES against the state or society, but I can see people possibly agreeing to allowing police a “caretaker” role in the cases of a few “crimes” against society that are currently on the books. For instance, I can see people possibly agreeing to police taking them to a safe location to sober up, if they are drunk and causing a problem or presenting an obvious danger to themselves-I can even see people agreeing to pay for such help.
I can also see people voluntarily allowing themselves to be taken into custody and transported to psych centers when they feel like they are a danger to themselves(this one’s not currently a crime, but it is something police currently have to deal with, and for which police have to take custody of people).
Will our government fall as it tries to take more and more freedoms from the American people?
Absolutely!!
Current times reflect the previous Governments of the world. Greece and Rome for example fell because they tried to take power that was not theirs. Want to guess what started the slide?? A distinguishing characteristic between them was the acceptance of homosexuality. Barry went about the movement by simply changing the definition of a word that has over four millennia of history. Marriage is only between a woman and a man.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
A distinguishing characteristic between them was the acceptance of homosexuality. [/quote]
Jesus fucking Christ.
Keep this stupid bullshit in you’re own threads and out of productive ones please.
The idea that tyrants came to power and oppressed entire civilizations because of lesbians is fucking stupid. Reevaluate your perspective on history, because it sucks.
Your post doesn’t deserve a response without personal attacks. So don’t even bother bitching about it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
John Adams was wrong as rulers are fundamentally immoral.
[/quote]
See above. You already said men are not immoral - that only “actions” are immoral.
Police are “men” and you already said men are not immoral.
[/quote]
To clarify, the initiation of force is immoral.
The institution of the state police is just a monopoly on the initiation of force and is therefore immoral.
The policemen themselves are just humans like everyone else and there actions(the initiation of force) are immoral.
So the act of “ruling” is also the initiation of force under a different name.
This is a really brief part of the larger Non-aggression principal and also the model of Universally Preferable Behavior(the aforementioned secular proof of objective morality which is too big to post here, but you can look it up pretty easily.)
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
To clarify, the initiation of force is immoral.
[/quote]
That is not a clarification, it’s a separate unrelated statement. You claimed people are not immoral but rather actions are.
Based on what ethical system? Under a utilitarian ethical system it would not be immoral so long as the police prevent more harm than they cause.
Humans are indeed immoral which is why the state of nature is intolerable right? And that’s why men enter into a social contract and form states.
[quote]
So the act of “ruling” is also the initiation of force under a different name.
This is a really brief part of the larger Non-aggression principal and also the model of Universally Preferable Behavior(the aforementioned secular proof of objective morality which is too big to post here, but you can look it up pretty easily.)[/quote]
It’s your attempt to describe it yes. But the NAP has absolutely no tangible use does it? Because people will never agree to observe it unless they are forced to do so under threat of sanction right?
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The policemen themselves are just humans like everyone else and there actions(the initiation of force) are immoral.
[/quote]
Nazi’s would have loved your philosophy.
“Just following orders. I didn’t do anything wrong, I was told to put them in the oven.”
Even though Jonny Lawman certainly has 100% freedom to follow orders or not…
hmmm. Morality buck passing. Interesting 200 pages of notes you have there.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I imagine that you tend to disagree with crimes against the state/society, favoring the police prosecuting crimes when there is a true victim (ie assault, rape, robbery, theft).
Is there any crimes against the state/society that you do favor or would endorse that is not currently on the books?[/quote]
I do disagree with crimes against either the state or society; however, to be clear, I don’t think the police should ever be in the PROSECUTING business. Police should, in my opinion, be in the business of responding to in-progress crimes, as well as investigating crimes already committed. You are correct, I agree with police dealing solely with crimes with a victim(crimes dealing with damage or loss to or of one’s person, property, or liberty).
I don’t agree with any CRIMES against the state or society, but I can see people possibly agreeing to allowing police a “caretaker” role in the cases of a few “crimes” against society that are currently on the books. For instance, I can see people possibly agreeing to police taking them to a safe location to sober up, if they are drunk and causing a problem or presenting an obvious danger to themselves-I can even see people agreeing to pay for such help.
I can also see people voluntarily allowing themselves to be taken into custody and transported to psych centers when they feel like they are a danger to themselves(this one’s not currently a crime, but it is something police currently have to deal with, and for which police have to take custody of people).[/quote]
Interesting. I was going to bring up a whole different discussion on this, but I think I will create it’s own thread.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Interesting. I was going to bring up a whole different discussion on this, but I think I will create it’s own thread.[/quote]
I responded to your thread…also want to mention that I left out another legitimate(in my opinion) role of police: apprehension. I reread my previous post and realized that I left that out.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I imagine that you tend to disagree with crimes against the state/society, favoring the police prosecuting crimes when there is a true victim (ie assault, rape, robbery, theft).
Is there any crimes against the state/society that you do favor or would endorse that is not currently on the books?[/quote]
I do disagree with crimes against either the state or society; however, to be clear, I don’t think the police should ever be in the PROSECUTING business. Police should, in my opinion, be in the business of responding to in-progress crimes, as well as investigating crimes already committed. You are correct, I agree with police dealing solely with crimes with a victim(crimes dealing with damage or loss to or of one’s person, property, or liberty).
I don’t agree with any CRIMES against the state or society, but I can see people possibly agreeing to allowing police a “caretaker” role in the cases of a few “crimes” against society that are currently on the books. For instance, I can see people possibly agreeing to police taking them to a safe location to sober up, if they are drunk and causing a problem or presenting an obvious danger to themselves-I can even see people agreeing to pay for such help.
I can also see people voluntarily allowing themselves to be taken into custody and transported to psych centers when they feel like they are a danger to themselves(this one’s not currently a crime, but it is something police currently have to deal with, and for which police have to take custody of people).[/quote]
Based on the principles that the USA was founded on; it is difficult to argue that anything other than ‘firehouse’ policing was intended. Many nations/societies began with different intentions; and perhaps one could argue that ‘the people’ have campaigned for changes over time; but the original intention seems clear.