Uneducated Police

[Bendira]

Cat-Tribe's facts are usually section of laws or court cases too. Some of those laws are usually Federal or State laws, so that it could be more applicable. Tell me, which federal/state law or court case require a police officer to follow an ethical code of conduct?

None. I am not an advocate for "ethics laws" or whatever you would call it for police, but you don't see anything wrong with somebody who is trained to kill people and imprison them not knowing why their actions are justified? Whats the difference between a cop and a serial killer?

None. Because their situation fluctuates when they do their jobs. Their victims can become suspects. Their suspects can become victims. Their suspects can be the kindest old man in the world. Their victims can be an evil old witch (not wiccan). If they follow what you would call "ethics" or to follow an "ethical" law, they would have to do their jobs with extreme prejudice. Not to mention if they have "ethics" that it would conflict with the most basic laws.

Ethics actually aren't as "relative" as you would think. I know that its extremely difficult to prove that statement without referencing you a book to read. But the fact is that systems built on unethical practices end in failure (soviet union). Natural Law is a universal code of ethics.

That's why police officers don't have "ethics" when doing their jobs. They can have such things when they're not wearing a uniform, but when they have a badge on, they require quick-thinking. Not ethics. Also, this is why we have a judicial system. To see if the law they are enforcing is just. That's why we have judges in courtrooms. If you want police officers to use their "ethics", that means you want a judge as police officers, followed by a group of jury following them around to see if their ethics is just or not.

What makes a cop different than a serial killer then if there are no ethical considerations involved in murder and imprisonment?

[Farnhamia]

If growing the plant is against the law, then that's what's going to happen. If you do not like it, and I cannot stress this enough, in the United States you have every right to work to change that law. The "military grade weapons" become necessary because often enough the police find themselves confronting criminals who are armed to the teeth.

Do you really think that all the police do is break into people's homes and shoot them and imprison them? I know you're young but your "anarcho-capitalist" blinders cannot be that thick. You know perfectly well that the police do much, much more than that.

Whats with this "young" argument? You realise that there are 80 year old men who are anarcho-capitalists right? You know that anarcho-capitalists aren't the same anarchists that bomb shit and destroy private property at the G20? Seriously, rid yourself of this ignorant stigma of anarchism.

Yes, all police do is break into peoples homes, shoot them and imprison them. Thats their job. What the hell else do they do?

Edit: Also, electoral politics and voting is immoral. And so is the idea of democracy. So even though I have a "right" to make a change in that way, id prefer not to.

I suspect the 80-year-old men don't try to wrap yet another "anarcho-capitalism is the only way" argument in tawdry wrappings like "how uneducated can the police get, if they have not considered the ethical and moral implications of the job they do?"

I'm not even going to dignify your last paragraph with an answer.

Since you edited your reply, I'll edit mine:

Edit: Also, electoral politics and voting is immoral. And so is the idea of democracy. So even though I have a "right" to make a change in that way, id prefer not to.

Cop-out. The old Bartleby the Scrivener ploy. I prefer not to. That, my friend, is what I referred to earlier as "adolescent pomposity." If you aren't willing to bestir yourself to work for your own principles, please do not waste other people's time scribbling about it here.

[Norstal]

Cat-Tribe's facts are usually section of laws or court cases too. Some of those laws are usually Federal or State laws, so that it could be more applicable. Tell me, which federal/state law or court case require a police officer to follow an ethical code of conduct?

None. I am not an advocate for "ethics laws" or whatever you would call it for police, but you don't see anything wrong with somebody who is trained to kill people and imprison them not knowing why their actions are justified? Whats the difference between a cop and a serial killer?

Sorry I don't much time today, so I won't have a chance to reply until the next 5 hours I think.

No, I don't see why I should worry about that. Because, everything in the outside world can kill us. Cars, birds, dogs. Everything. That includes cops. And yes, I know cops can shoot me. There are several incidence where a cop mistakenly kills someone. But the chances of that is low. IMO, when I think about it, police officers DO follow ethics even if they don't say they do. They won't shoot people who do not have weapons on them.

Damn, seems like I had less time than I thought I did. Sorry, gtg.

[Bendira]

Whats with this "young" argument? You realise that there are 80 year old men who are anarcho-capitalists right? You know that anarcho-capitalists aren't the same anarchists that bomb shit and destroy private property at the G20? Seriously, rid yourself of this ignorant stigma of anarchism.

Yes, all police do is break into peoples homes, shoot them and imprison them. Thats their job. What the hell else do they do?

Edit: Also, electoral politics and voting is immoral. And so is the idea of democracy. So even though I have a "right" to make a change in that way, id prefer not to.

I suspect the 80-year-old men don't try to wrap yet another "anarcho-capitalism is the only way" argument in tawdry wrappings like "how uneducated can the police get, if they have not considered the ethical and moral implications of the job they do?"

I'm not even going to dignify your last paragraph with an answer.

What makes a police officer different than a murderer or a kidnapper?

[Lauchlin]

If growing the plant is against the law, then that's what's going to happen. If you do not like it, and I cannot stress this enough, in the United States you have every right to work to change that law. The "military grade weapons" become necessary because often enough the police find themselves confronting criminals who are armed to the teeth.

Do you really think that all the police do is break into people's homes and shoot them and imprison them? I know you're young but your "anarcho-capitalist" blinders cannot be that thick. You know perfectly well that the police do much, much more than that.

Whats with this "young" argument? You realise that there are 80 year old men who are anarcho-capitalists right? You know that anarcho-capitalists aren't the same anarchists that bomb shit and destroy private property at the G20? Seriously, rid yourself of this ignorant stigma of anarchism.

Yes, all police do is break into peoples homes, shoot them and imprison them. Thats their job. What the hell else do they do?

Edit: Also, electoral politics and voting is immoral. And so is the idea of democracy. So even though I have a "right" to make a change in that way, id prefer not to.

The idiots who smash windows during protests are more respectable than you are. They, at least, have the courage of their convictions.

Once again, you have every right to think the democratic process is unjust and every right to refuse to participate. If you exercise those rights, however, you don't get to complain that the system doesn't represent you. You can't have it both ways.

[Bendira]

The idiots who smash windows during protests are more respectable than you are. They, at least, have the courage of their convictions.

Lmao, im not for personal destruction of property, because its against right-anarchist philosophy. So please, stop with the ignorant comments.

Once again, you have every right to think the democratic process is unjust and every right to refuse to participate. If you exercise those rights, however, you don't get to complain that the system doesn't represent you. You can't have it both ways.

What the hell are you smoking? How the hell does that make any sense whatsoever? Your saying that for me to be able to call it an unjust system, I have to participate in the unjust system?

[Lauchlin]

The idiots who smash windows during protests are more respectable than you are. They, at least, have the courage of their convictions.

Lmao, im not for personal destruction of property, because its against right-anarchist philosophy. So please, stop with the ignorant comments.

I'm saying that they're working to accomplish their goals. You're just whining on the internet.

Once again, you have every right to think the democratic process is unjust and every right to refuse to participate. If you exercise those rights, however, you don't get to complain that the system doesn't represent you. You can't have it both ways.

What the hell are you smoking? How the hell does that make any sense whatsoever? Your saying that for me to be able to call it an unjust system, I have to participate in the unjust system?

No. But this thread is about how agents in the government are behaving in ways you find to be morally repugnant. If you actually gave a shit, you have the option to work to change that. If you don't want to put in the effort, you should stop complaining.

You can choose to be outside the system, but then you don't get to complain when the system refuses to take your views into account.

[Farnhamia]

The idiots who smash windows during protests are more respectable than you are. They, at least, have the courage of their convictions.

Lmao, im not for personal destruction of property, because its against right-anarchist philosophy. So please, stop with the ignorant comments.

Once again, you have every right to think the democratic process is unjust and every right to refuse to participate. If you exercise those rights, however, you don't get to complain that the system doesn't represent you. You can't have it both ways.

What the hell are you smoking? How the hell does that make any sense whatsoever? Your saying that for me to be able to call it an unjust system, I have to participate in the unjust system?

I believe Lauchlin meant that the window smashers are better than you because at least they get off their duffs and smash windows. All you do is post on the internet, and refuse to work to change the system you think is unjust.

[Bendira]

Cop-out. The old Bartleby the Scrivener ploy. I prefer not to. That, my friend, is what I referred to earlier as "adolescent pomposity." If you aren't willing to bestir yourself to work for your own principles, please do not waste other people's time scribbling about it here.

So please explain to me how my ethical belief that tyranny by majority is wrong makes me a pompous adolescent? (im 19 by the way, so you could please stop with the age discrimination, considering im pretty certain im older than you).

[Bendira]

Lmao, im not for personal destruction of property, because its against right-anarchist philosophy. So please, stop with the ignorant comments.



What the hell are you smoking? How the hell does that make any sense whatsoever? Your saying that for me to be able to call it an unjust system, I have to participate in the unjust system?

I believe Lauchlin meant that the window smashers are better than you because at least they get off their duffs and smash windows. All you do is post on the internet, and refuse to work to change the system you think is unjust.

How do you know what I do?

[Lauchlin]

I believe Lauchlin meant that the window smashers are better than you because at least they get off their duffs and smash windows. All you do is post on the internet, and refuse to work to change the system you think is unjust.

How do you know what I do?

Call it an educated guess.

[Bendira]

I'm saying that they're working to accomplish their goals. You're just whining on the internet.

How the hell do you know anything about what I do for the voluntaryist movement?

No. But this thread is about how agents in the government are behaving in ways you find to be morally repugnant. If you actually gave a shit, you have the option to work to change that. If you don't want to put in the effort, you should stop complaining.

You can choose to be outside the system, but then you don't get to complain when the system refuses to take your views into account.

How do you know if I put in effort or not? And obviously the system isn't going to take my views into account, even if I work inside the system. My views are dangerous for the system.

[Bendira]

How do you know what I do?

Call it an educated guess.

Id call it an ignorant assumption based on no factual evidence whatsoever.

[Lauchlin]

Call it an educated guess.

Id call it an ignorant assumption based on no factual evidence whatsoever.

Call it what you like. We've all known people exactly like you. Maybe you'll buck the trend and surprise all of us.

Good luck, kiddo.

[Person012345]

Ooh, yay, we can live in a world of warfare between private armies. And those private armies totally wouldn't conscript anyone or anything. Who exactly is going to defend people from the private defence agencies? What is to stop these agencies dictating the rules that people in an area it has control over have to follow? What stops them from collecting taxes (this would be the same thing criminal "protection" rackets do, extorting money from people in return for not punishing them)? What stops them from becoming the dictatorship government in the area around it's headquarters (the bigger the army the company can afford the more area it could control presumably)?

Everyone will be joyously working for the common good. No, wait, that's ... I mean ... wait, give me a second ... Right, that won't happen because the people trying to take advantage know that the people they are trying to extort can just hire a different PDA. See, in Capitalism^TM, a company that provides an inferior service will go out of business as it loses customers. Yeah, that's it. *nod*

Whilst I sense sarcasm, to anyone who might make the point "hire someone else loose profit etc", I will reply here.

If one agency has control of an area, it will be hard for another to penetrate their zone of control. The people in the zone can be intimidated and forced to pay. If they try to call in outside help said help will either refuse involvement, be intimidated away by the force of PDA 1 or will get involved (which they wouldn't unless the victim can make it worth their while to fight the entirity of PDA 1, which in the case of individual businesses is likely beyond their capability) and you'll have a war on your hands just like war between any state, except confined to a city or whatever. One team will do what it takes to destroy the other. The only way to stop it is if PDA 2 is big enough to intimidate PDA 1 into leaving alone, but then who deals with PDA 2 (there will always be a biggest PDA)? They can continue their activities as they see fit.

[Bendira]

Id call it an ignorant assumption based on no factual evidence whatsoever.

Call it what you like. We've all known people exactly like you. Maybe you'll buck the trend and surprise all of us.

Good luck, kiddo.

Are you a racist too? Because thats the same logic they use. "I knew 3 black people, and they all stole shit. Therefor, all black people must be thieves!".

[Farnhamia]

Everyone will be joyously working for the common good. No, wait, that's ... I mean ... wait, give me a second ... Right, that won't happen because the people trying to take advantage know that the people they are trying to extort can just hire a different PDA. See, in Capitalism^TM, a company that provides an inferior service will go out of business as it loses customers. Yeah, that's it. *nod*

Whilst I sense sarcasm, to anyone who might make the point "hire someone else loose profit etc", I will reply here.

If one agency has control of an area, it will be hard for another to penetrate their zone of control. The people in the zone can be intimidated and forced to pay. If they try to call in outside help said help will either refuse involvement, be intimidated away by the force of PDA 1 or will get involved (which they wouldn't unless the victim can make it worth their while to fight the entirity of PDA 1, which in the case of individual businesses is likely beyond their capability) and you'll have a war on your hands just like war between any state, except confined to a city or whatever. One team will do what it takes to destroy the other. The only way to stop it is if PDA 2 is big enough to intimidate PDA 1 into leaving alone, but then who deals with PDA 2 (there will always be a biggest PDA)? They can continue their activities as they see fit.

Your sarcasm detector is functioning adequately. And I quite agree.

[Person012345]

Ooh, yay, we can live in a world of warfare between private armies. And those private armies totally wouldn't conscript anyone or anything. Who exactly is going to defend people from the private defence agencies? What is to stop these agencies dictating the rules that people in an area it has control over have to follow? What stops them from collecting taxes (this would be the same thing criminal "protection" rackets do, extorting money from people in return for not punishing them)? What stops them from becoming the dictatorship government in the area around it's headquarters (the bigger the army the company can afford the more area it could control presumably)?

You are describing a statist government. Conscription, taxes for protection in return for not punishing someone. Statism.

Exactly. Anarcho capitalism that bases itself off of having private agencies to enforce anything will not last as anarchy.

Conscription is slavery. PDAs do not have the power or rights for conscription.

Who's going to stop them?

Warfare is extremely expensive and not profitable.

The spanish conquistadors would like to disagree.

There would be no warfare between armies.

Yes there would. Profit can be obtained from extorting people. The more area you can control the more people you can extort from, the more profit. Look at protection rackets.

Furthermore, whilst a company's only goal may be profit, that is not the only goal of the people who control the corporation. They will be more than happy to give orders expanding their own power, they are human.

[Lauchlin]

Call it what you like. We've all known people exactly like you. Maybe you'll buck the trend and surprise all of us.

Good luck, kiddo.

Are you a racist too? Because thats the same logic they use. "I knew 3 black people, and they all stole shit. Therefor, all black people must be thieves!".

It's more like saying, "I knew three thieves, and they all stole shit! Therefore all thieves steal shit!"

Like I said, good luck.

[Bendira]

You are describing a statist government. Conscription, taxes for protection in return for not punishing someone. Statism.

Exactly. Anarcho capitalism that bases itself off of having private agencies to enforce anything will not last as anarchy.

Based on what?

Conscription is slavery. PDAs do not have the power or rights for conscription.

Who's going to stop them?

Anybody that dosn't want to be enslaved, and the insurance companies who has a vested interest in your wellbeing.

Warfare is extremely expensive and not profitable.

The spanish conquistadors would like to disagree.

Cost of warfare has changed a little bit since then

There would be no warfare between armies.

Yes there would. Profit can be obtained from extorting people. The more area you can control the more people you can extort from, the more profit. Look at protection rackets.

It would never come to this point, but even if it did, what would stop being from just leaving the area?

Furthermore, whilst a company's only goal may be profit, that is not the only goal of the people who control the corporation. They will be more than happy to give orders expanding their own power, they are human.

You need money to fuel a war machine, so no matter what the CEO's irrational whims are, he needs to make a profit somehow to achieve them.

[Bendira]

Are you a racist too? Because thats the same logic they use. "I knew 3 black people, and they all stole shit. Therefor, all black people must be thieves!".

It's more like saying, "I knew three thieves, and they all stole shit! Therefore all thieves steal shit!"

Like I said, good luck.

No, actually its not. Because anarchists aren't in support of not doing anything. The definition of anarchist isn't "One who does nothing". So there is no connection between anarchism and not doing anything. So yes, you are indeed wrong and your position is the logical equivalent to that of a racist.

[The Bleeding Roses]

Yes, all police do is break into peoples homes, shoot them and imprison them. Thats their job. What the hell else do they do?

I will take warning, but you are a fucking idiot.

[Bendira]

Yes, all police do is break into peoples homes, shoot them and imprison them. Thats their job. What the hell else do they do?

I will take warning, but you are a fucking idiot.

Care to provide evidence to support your claim that police's job isn't to kill people and imprison them?

[The Bleeding Roses]

I will take warning, but you are a fucking idiot.

Care to provide evidence to support your claim that police's job isn't to kill people and imprison them?

Real life is all the evidence I need kid, wake up from your fairy tale.

[Bendira]

Care to provide evidence to support your claim that police's job isn't to kill people and imprison them?

Real life is all the evidence I need kid, wake up from your fairy tale.

Care to provide evidence to support your claim that I live in a fairy tale?