[quote]pushharder wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I have had a Colorado cop between Denver and Colorado Springs insist on following me to a US mailbox and watch me drop the cash in an envelope in the mailbox before he would release me. Just a simple speeding ticket on I-25, nothing more.
Lucky you weren’t running a red light on a bicycle in Denver:
That is an absolute abomination. The officer should be prosecuted.
Really? But, but, but…you have lived in Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Hawaii, New Jersey and PA and have traveled consistently from Georgia to NJ for a 2 year period as well as Western PA to east NJ and have never encountered what was described in that news report…
So it probably didn’t really happen…
[/quote]
What sucks about that incident is that automatically the victim is charged with assault on the officers. LOL. It’s like Automatic. No matter how he would have fought he would have lost and been imprisoned with a damaging record for life.
We live in a time where only actual video tape freed him and exposed the truth. If it wasn’t for that, he would be victimized for life, Just like Rodney King.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The thing is, I don’t believe a cop sports a halo and wings simply because they’re cops. They have to recruit from my fellow angelic citizens, after all.
But, the repeated over-exagerration of goose-stepping, police-state, for fear of walking out the front door and running into homicidal/brutal cops, USA, is ridiculous. If the low statistics of police brutality is enough to make one hate cops, surely one must be a racist. Or, anti-male (which some feminists are). The stats regarding such prejudices are a bit heavier than rampaging cops, no?
I agree there are no rampaging cops; on the other hand there are few rampaging criminals. The majority of police work revolves around the war on drugs. We have so many cops out there beating the bushes for drugs, that they are harassing good citizens.
I tried to do a survey once on this web sight, and the people that disagree with your point will sabotage it. But the moderators should figure out a way to survey everybody. I would be curious how many people on this sight have been wrongly harassed by the police.
Just out of curiosity have you ever had a bad experience with a doctor or dentist? If you have would you complain about all doctors and dentists?
Wouldn’t a bad experience with an MD or DMD be more of a critical situation due to your vulnerability at the time?
[/quote]
I had an experience with a dentist while I was a kid that took the money for check ups, said I had no cavities and was lying, after he retired and we found a new dentist my bother and I had many cavities.I would complain if the treatment warranted it, I fail to see the correlation,though
[quote]snipeout wrote:
With out laws and regulations how do you keep ownership. If I want your ‘property’ all I need is to hire 2 someones to take it. Since there are no laws, there are no reprecussions for your dead body in a pig trough.
Do you see how the inherently evil drug dealer would now just go into the property acquisition trade? There is just a large enough portion of the population that wants something for nothing, thats why there are laws and people to enforce them.[/quote]
How do you figure , Right now you have an industry (drug Trade) that is large and lucrative enough where they can afford to go out and recruit soldiers , If you do away with the drug trade there will be no profit to recruit with. You may have a small fraction of career criminal?s move on to something else, but I believe it would be a small amount.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
With out laws and regulations how do you keep ownership. If I want your ‘property’ all I need is to hire 2 someones to take it. Since there are no laws, there are no reprecussions for your dead body in a pig trough.
Why do you keep bringing up this strawman? No one is talking about “no laws”.
What you say is true regardless of whether there are laws that make this example illegal or not. You, as an enforcer of laws, cannot stop someone from taking anything they want from me. Only I or someone within direct striking distance can do that.
Laws don’t stop people from acting. Defensiveness does.
Seriously man, you do not lend any credit to your brethren.
Who would enforce the laws? Carry out the the due process? Maybe you are looking for a true democracy as opposed to our presidential system(republic)? Even in an instance like this people still vote about laws, regulations and who would carry out due process.
You would still be subject to the will of the mass. You could not have different laws for every other acre of property.
[/quote]
No one is saying do away with the cops, with on the war on drugs you would need a fraction of what you have to day, even %50, they could be kind to everyone except the predators. I would volunteer for that job.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Why assume the drug dealer is inherently Evil?
What drugs does he or she sell? Drug dealers sell to buyers like any business. Victimless crime. You have a war on drugs mentality.
What make it evil are the extreme profits, and the competition for that profit[/quote]
Really, it isn’t the profits that makes them evil it is the lack of competition that allows these entrepreneurs resort to violence to get their way.
We don’t see this is other legal industries precisely because everyone is free to compete. There would be repercussions if a Ford salesman tried to use violence to intimidate me to buy from only him. This happens with street drugs because a) I cannot report the crime without incriminating myself and b) who else am I going to buy from?
Since undoubtedly, I cannot report this crime I am probably going to retaliate with some violence of my own. And that’s the way it is.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Why assume the drug dealer is inherently Evil?
What drugs does he or she sell? Drug dealers sell to buyers like any business. Victimless crime. You have a war on drugs mentality.
Of course, it varies with the addictive nature of the drug. But, if you’re selling crack cocaine, you’re evil.[/quote]
What does addiction have to do with anything!? Caffeine and nicotine are the two most addictive substance in existence. Are barristas and gas station attendants evil now?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Why assume the drug dealer is inherently Evil?
What drugs does he or she sell? Drug dealers sell to buyers like any business. Victimless crime. You have a war on drugs mentality.
Of course, it varies with the addictive nature of the drug. But, if you’re selling crack cocaine, you’re evil.
What does addiction have to do with anything!? Caffeine and nicotine are the two most addictive substance in existence. Are barristas and gas station attendants evil now?[/quote]
How about mentally destructive? Ever seen a crackhead?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Why assume the drug dealer is inherently Evil?
What drugs does he or she sell? Drug dealers sell to buyers like any business. Victimless crime. You have a war on drugs mentality.
Of course, it varies with the addictive nature of the drug. But, if you’re selling crack cocaine, you’re evil.
What does addiction have to do with anything!? Caffeine and nicotine are the two most addictive substance in existence. Are barristas and gas station attendants evil now?
How about mentally destructive? Ever seen a crackhead?[/quote]
You think someone who gets addicted to crack had much of a brain to begin with?
I know the Austrian school is happy with a wildly succesful private sector product and business. Since more and more customers leads to more and more production, no? More wealth and more jobs.
But, can you really say that about crack cocaine, as a product? Would you really feel a warm and tingly if more and more people become addicted to it, losing themselves in the process, because there might be some extra wealth and jobs? There is a socially destructive factor that is absent from having a cup of coffee, and then going to work or a walk in the park.
Now I know the private army, draw bridge up on the private fortress, type of Rothbardian could care less if society around him went to crap (at least until it started to cut into his own profit), but that’s just not me.
Forget the prohibition arguement for a second. If you’re selling something like crack, legal or not, you’re scum.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
How about mentally destructive? Ever seen a crackhead?
Crack is only destructive when I can’t get it.
Most people only have bad experiences with crackheads when they are “sober”.
And yes, I have been around crack users before that, believe it or not, were not addicts.[/quote]
Crack is destructive when they get it, too. You really want crackheads hanging out on public property? Driving buses, flying jetliners, driving taxis, doing your taxes, serving your lunch, instructing your children? Oh, please.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know the Austrian school is happy with a wildly succesful private sector product and business. Since more and more customers leads to more and more production, no? More wealth and more jobs.
But, can you really say that about crack cocaine, as a product? Would you really feel a warm and tingly if more and more people become addicted to it, losing themselves in the process, because there might be some extra wealth and jobs? There is a socially destructive factor that is absent from having a cup of coffee, and then going to work or a walk in the park.
Now I know the private army, draw bridge up on the private fortress, type of Rothbardian could care less if society around him went to crap (at least until it started to cut into his own profit), but that’s just not me.
Forget the prohibition arguement for a second. If you’re selling something like crack, legal or not, you’re scum.[/quote]
And as long as you do not force someone else to buy your product you have every right to be scum.
Crack is a cocaine derivative for poor people though who would probably use cocaine if it wasn´t so expensive.
So, what are those people who make cocaine unnecessarily expensive? Because, if you want to use utilitarian reasoning, the drug prohibition is infinitely worse than the drug trade in and of itself.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
How about mentally destructive? Ever seen a crackhead?
Crack is only destructive when I can’t get it.
Most people only have bad experiences with crackheads when they are “sober”.
And yes, I have been around crack users before that, believe it or not, were not addicts.
Crack is destructive when they get it, too. You really want crackheads hanging out on public property? Driving buses, flying jetliners, driving taxis, doing your taxes, serving your lunch, instructing your children? Oh, please.
[/quote]
No, but I do not need the government if a teacher hits the pipe while he is supposed to work.
In fact it is the government that makes teachers so incredibly hard to get rid off.
I also doubt that any company would let someone fly, drive or instruct people who has a serious drug problem. Not those who are in it to make money anyway.