Police Brutality

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:
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.

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]

I’m not arguing in favor of drug prohibition. I’m arguing that Crack dealers (and other socially destructive drugs) are scum, evil, immoral, what have you. I’m not a liberaltarian.

[Mikeyali]

[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]

Can you back that statement up Lifty? I’m all for decriminalization but I find the idea of Caffeine and nicotine being literally the two most addictive substances a bit of a tough one to swallow. You don’t see smokers and pepsi drinkers losing their minds in boot camp the way a junkie does when going through withdrawls.

mike

[Inner_Hulk]

I think this is what it comes down to…

Not all cops are bad, the problem is the bad cops aren’t prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law when they’re caught breaking the law or abusing their power. They’re given slaps on the wrist, they’re put on desk work until the “investigation” is over, they’re demoted, they’re fired, whatever. They’re not put in jail like they should be.

Here’s a great example of what it is to be a cop in America… You can raid a 92 year old woman’s house with a NO KNOCK warrant based on false evidence, put 5 bullets in her from 39 shots, killing her of course… and only do 5-10 years in prison! http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2009/02/23/johnston_sentencing.html

Sweet deal! I don’t understand why people who want to murder other people don’t just become cops, that way they can avoid that whole annoying “life sentence” thing.

Of course I can provide other similar instances of cops murdering people and getting slaps on the wrist, or no jail time at all. This is what this entire discussion is about, the US government treating cops like citizens above the law, instead of citizens.

Oh, and of course, in a police thread, I have to always mention that the US imprisons more people than any other country on the planet. This is not the “land of the free”, and this is one of the reasons why I am completely distrustful of police. They are an occupying force waging war against the citizenry of this country.

Police arresting drug users is a blatant violation of a citizen’s rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States of America.

[snipeout]

[quote]Mikeyali 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?

Can you back that statement up Lifty? I’m all for decriminalization but I find the idea of Caffeine and nicotine being literally the two most addictive substances a bit of a tough one to swallow. You don’t see smokers and pepsi drinkers losing their minds in boot camp the way a junkie does when going through withdrawls.

mike[/quote]

I read an article in newsweek maybe 8 years ago that stated dipping tobacco is the hardest addicition to kick due to the nicotines direct infusion to the blood stream, even harder than heroin or crack. Heroin is a nastier kick because it is a nastier drug.

[snipeout]

[quote]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. [/quote]

They are not evil because they sell drugs. What do drug dealers do when you don’t pay them? Go on their merry way? I don’t think so. These same people would move onto other methods of crime and easy money if drugs were legalized.

[orion]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
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.

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.

I’m not arguing in favor of drug prohibition. I’m arguing that Crack dealers (and other socially destructive drugs) are scum, evil, immoral, what have you. I’m not a liberaltarian.[/quote]

You seem to think that libertarianism means approving of everything.

That is entirely wrong though.

Libertarianism is really mastering one trick and applying it often, namely that what you think privately is not necessarily something you want to have enforced with organized violence.

[orion]

[quote]snipeout 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.

They are not evil because they sell drugs. What do drug dealers do when you don’t pay them? Go on their merry way? I don’t think so. These same people would move onto other methods of crime and easy money if drugs were legalized.
[/quote]

Really?

How many opportunities to make money illegally are there if the government sponsored crimes are gone?

If you take away drugs, prostitution and gambling, what is left really?

Loan sharking, sexual slavery and things of that nature and those are the sort of crimes that are not tolerated by most people- the cops would have the chance to be the good guys again.

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:

You seem to think that libertarianism means approving of everything.

That is entirely wrong though.

Libertarianism is really mastering one trick and applying it often, namely that what you think privately is not necessarily something you want to have enforced with organized violence.[/quote]

Yet, I made a moral judgement about dealers of a highly addictive, extreme personality altering, socially and self destructive drug, and was taken to task. Do you personally approve of dealing crack? They’re just business men to you?

[PB_Crawl]

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
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.

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.

I’m not arguing in favor of drug prohibition. I’m arguing that Crack dealers (and other socially destructive drugs) are scum, evil, immoral, what have you. I’m not a liberaltarian.

You seem to think that libertarianism means approving of everything.

That is entirely wrong though.

Libertarianism is really mastering one trick and applying it often, namely that what you think privately is not necessarily something you want to have enforced with organized violence.[/quote]

police are the only thing stopping me from flying to Austria and stealing all your property, duh.

[orion]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

You seem to think that libertarianism means approving of everything.

That is entirely wrong though.

Libertarianism is really mastering one trick and applying it often, namely that what you think privately is not necessarily something you want to have enforced with organized violence.

Yet, I made a moral judgement about dealers of a highly addictive, extreme personality altering, socially and self destructive drug, and was taken to task. [/quote]

By my statement that they have every right to be scum?

I though that the meaning of the word scum was pretty clear in English.

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

You seem to think that libertarianism means approving of everything.

That is entirely wrong though.

Libertarianism is really mastering one trick and applying it often, namely that what you think privately is not necessarily something you want to have enforced with organized violence.

Yet, I made a moral judgement about dealers of a highly addictive, extreme personality altering, socially and self destructive drug, and was taken to task.

By my statement that they have every right to be scum?

I though that the meaning of the word scum was pretty clear in English.

[/quote]

I’m asking your judgement, not if they should or shouldn’t have the right to be scum. Or, am I right and liberaltarian is more accurate?

[orion]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

You seem to think that libertarianism means approving of everything.

That is entirely wrong though.

Libertarianism is really mastering one trick and applying it often, namely that what you think privately is not necessarily something you want to have enforced with organized violence.

Yet, I made a moral judgement about dealers of a highly addictive, extreme personality altering, socially and self destructive drug, and was taken to task.

By my statement that they have every right to be scum?

I though that the meaning of the word scum was pretty clear in English.

I’m asking your judgement, not if they should or shouldn’t have the right to be scum. Or, am I right and liberaltarian is more accurate?[/quote]

Well yes, they are scum. And idiots. I mean, if they cannot make it as small time weed dealers, they really must be the residue at the bottom of the barrel.

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:

Well yes, they are scum. And idiots. I mean, if they cannot make it as small time weed dealers, they really must be the residue at the bottom of the barrel. [/quote]

It was a serious question. Come on, you can be honest here.

[pittbulll]

[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]

Same with the people that supply an alcoholic, or an addicted gambler

[Sloth]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
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.

Same with the people that supply an alcoholic, or an addicted gambler[/quote]

I won’t argue that.

[pittbulll]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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

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]

Maybe I am out of the loop, but I would think that people would be chasing some one off of their corner if it was a good corner to sell drugs on. Same as they would want to be the main supplier for big city. If some one mistreated the customer it would be grounds to find a new dealer.

[pittbulll]

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

You seem to think that libertarianism means approving of everything.

That is entirely wrong though.

Libertarianism is really mastering one trick and applying it often, namely that what you think privately is not necessarily something you want to have enforced with organized violence.

Yet, I made a moral judgement about dealers of a highly addictive, extreme personality altering, socially and self destructive drug, and was taken to task.

By my statement that they have every right to be scum?

I though that the meaning of the word scum was pretty clear in English.

I’m asking your judgement, not if they should or shouldn’t have the right to be scum. Or, am I right and liberaltarian is more accurate?

Well yes, they are scum. And idiots. I mean, if they cannot make it as small time weed dealers, they really must be the residue at the bottom of the barrel. [/quote]

I know some very nice people that deal weed

[orion]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

You seem to think that libertarianism means approving of everything.

That is entirely wrong though.

Libertarianism is really mastering one trick and applying it often, namely that what you think privately is not necessarily something you want to have enforced with organized violence.

Yet, I made a moral judgement about dealers of a highly addictive, extreme personality altering, socially and self destructive drug, and was taken to task.

By my statement that they have every right to be scum?

I though that the meaning of the word scum was pretty clear in English.

I’m asking your judgement, not if they should or shouldn’t have the right to be scum. Or, am I right and liberaltarian is more accurate?

Well yes, they are scum. And idiots. I mean, if they cannot make it as small time weed dealers, they really must be the residue at the bottom of the barrel.

I know some very nice people that deal weed
[/quote]

Well yes, I do too.

I was dead serious, if you do not want to work and and to sell drugs, sell weed or ecstasy.

If the competition is too fucking tough for someone so that he absolutely, positively has to sell crack to make a living I guess he must be from the shallow end of the gene pool.

[SkyzykS]

[quote]AdamLaw wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
AdamLaw wrote:
You usually never see the events leading up to the few seconds of video you use as a step-stool to get up on your soapbox. In the matter of a few cops being overly aggressive and brutal versus not having them around to protect us from the worst of the scum, I’ll go with the “lesser of two evils,” thanks.

So you justify the act of beating down some of the citizenry as “lesser of two evils”?

What part of serve and protect did you miss?

I don’t give a rats ass about what a cop did yeasterday, who he stopped or what a hero he might be to his co-workers if he goes off the rails and beats the shit out of someone.

It’s the schmuck cops who get overly aggressive and brutal that are making your job harder and making it alot easier to distrust law enforcement.

A cop who abuses the power that has been entrusted to him and brutalizes someone is not the lesser of two evils, he is on par with the criminals. By commiting a criminal act, he has become a criminal.

It’s realy very simple, but let me guess- you don’t know the laws, you just enforce them?

If you can conclusively show me any profession where every person is absolutely free of corruption and does not deviate from the rules one iota, then I will withdraw my argument.

Also I never attempted to justify any beatings. I just stated that I’d take the police force with a few bad apples over a world in which there’s no law to protect and serve.

Also bud, I’m not a cop. But you pretty much showed how much you actually read what I had to say before attacking what you thought I said. Feel free to immolate yourself further by replying using such gross exaggerations and hyperbole. G’day.
[/quote]

Bad form on my part to have assumed, but where are the gross exagerations and hyperbole? If anybody is using that it would be you with yours.

I’d rather you didn’t withdrawl your arguement. It’s kind of fun watching you put forth more and more fallacies of reason.

You lead off this one with- Everybody does it. Realy? Everybody else in every other profession abuses their power and inflict harm upon others? Well, I feel bad for anybody in your neighborhood who calls a plumber or painter. They must randomly end up with a wrench upside the head for asking a mechanic what is wrong with their car, huh?

And trying to reframe it as an all or none situation is weak on your part. At what point did it become-accept all cops with the bad cops or none at all? If you have to go to such an extreme to try to be right, then you are trying way too hard.

The only scenario in which your “lesser of two evils” works is when that is the only condition which exists, which is not reality.

[AdamLaw]

[quote]If you can conclusively show me any profession where every person is absolutely free of corruption and does not deviate from the rules one iota, then I will withdraw my argument.

Also I never attempted to justify any beatings. I just stated that I’d take the police force with a few bad apples over a world in which there’s no law to protect and serve.

Also bud, I’m not a cop. But you pretty much showed how much you actually read what I had to say before attacking what you thought I said. Feel free to immolate yourself further by replying using such gross exaggerations and hyperbole. G’day.

Bad form on my part to have assumed, but where are the gross exagerations and hyperbole? If anybody is using that it would be you with yours.

I’d rather you didn’t withdrawl your arguement. It’s kind of fun watching you put forth more and more fallacies of reason.

You lead off this one with- Everybody does it. Realy? Everybody else in every other profession abuses their power and inflict harm upon others? Well, I feel bad for anybody in your neighborhood who calls a plumber or painter. They must randomly end up with a wrench upside the head for asking a mechanic what is wrong with their car, huh?

And trying to reframe it as an all or none situation is weak on your part. At what point did it become-accept all cops with the bad cops or none at all? If you have to go to such an extreme to try to be right, then you are trying way too hard.

The only scenario in which your “lesser of two evils” works is when that is the only condition which exists, which is not reality.
[/quote]

The point I was trying to make was that, in the real world, every profession has people who should not be doing what they do, be it for reasons of ego, temperment, or just lacking the skills to fufill their job requirements optimally. If you like, you can misconstrue what I’ve just said to make yourself feel like you’re superior. I’m sure you will. I myself am finished; no matter what I say, you will ignore it and repeat what you believe. When you outgrow the mental maturity of a 6th grader (IMHO, of course), feel free to restart our debate.