Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: citizen question

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166

    citizen question

    Say a citizen is the body politic that owes it's allegiance to a country, then likewise the country is suppose to protect the citizen.

    Now as most know, the police have no obligation to protect the citizenry, likewise the U. S. had no obligation to protect the citizens.


    What do you think about this? Let me know. There are some on here I have the utmost respect to here their opinions.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The US gov't has the obligation to protect the US see Art. IV, Sec. IV ... does not say "citizens" specifically but protecting the country from foreign invaders would likely have that effect.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166
    every state. It says nothing about citizens. Read what I wrote, and dig deeper.
    Last edited by marine77; 04-29-2013 at 03:12 AM.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by marine77 View Post
    Say a citizen is the body politic that owes it's allegiance to a country, then likewise the country is suppose to protect the citizen.

    Now as most know, the police have no obligation to protect the citizenry, likewise the U. S. had no obligation to protect the citizens.


    What do you think about this? Let me know. There are some on here I have the utmost respect to here their opinions.
    Your assumptions are flawed. It is not the responsibility of government to protect the citizen. When you think it is, that's when you get guys like Bloomberg trying to protect your individual butt from assault sodas.

    Governments are formed when citizens look to have their collective (not individual) butt protected from internal and external threats. When a government is properly formed to protect that collective butt, it is best formed to that purpose only if it is formed also to protect the Rights of the People, otherwise it can too easily become that threat to the collective butt.

    So governments should properly provide for a national defense, conduct international affairs, pass laws that restrict behaviors that would violate the most basic rights of others, and a handful of other tasks, none of which includes (or should include) protecting the individual you from anything.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    The body politic does not owe allegiance to the country! Unfortunately there is now way I can explain that without Godwining this thread. (Hey! Maybe I just did without Godwining anything. You think?)

    I grant that the body politic owes allegiance to the form of government (I plege allegiance to ... and to the republic for which it stands ....").

    The government's job is to protect the form of government from overthrow by foreign invaders or internal insurrectionists. And a couple of other mundane housekeeping chores. The body politic's job is to maintain that form of government while trying out various notions of how to do such things as promoting the general welfare.

    The police, as hired agents of the government, are duty-bound to prevent harm to the body politic as a cohesive whole; they have, as you and SCOTUS have mentioned, not duty to the individual. And by the way, that protection of the body politic extends to non-citizens as well. "Populace" possibly better describes who you were trying to describe than does "citizenry".

    A note to Eye95: Those are not "assault" sodas, they are "stealth" sodas. Bloomie never said just one would kill you - he's afraid they will sneak up on you one by one until, like Ninjas, they can overwhelm you.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Skid and Eye95, have nailed it.
    I believe that they said better than I could have.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Skid and Eye95, have nailed it.
    I believe that they said better than I could have.
    About the role of government or about the sodas?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by dmatting View Post
    About the role of government or about the sodas?
    Hey, put one of those Mentos (sp?) in a soda and you'll have an assault soda.

    I assume that Bloomberg has nightmares, wakes up after a bad dream (like giant soda bottles chasing him around) and comes up with his ideas this way.

    New Yorkers obviously love the guy ... which is why, if NYC fell into the ocean, I would not shed a tear.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I'm confident that the below organizations do not speak for all, but I am confident that they hold sentiments that many also hold.

    http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceService...0/Default.aspx

    http://www.sheriffs.org/content/lega...fs-oath-office

    No, the "cops" do not have a legal duty to "protect" a individual citizen, protect the citizenry? It seems that that question is and will likely remain unresolved. Some hold the view that the "state" via the cops do not have a legal duty to "protect" the citizenry. I hold the view that the state does have a legal duty to protect the citizenry. Unfortunately the state has ventured into protecting the citizenry from "threats" that are imaginary.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I'm confident that the below organizations do not speak for all, but I am confident that they hold sentiments that many also hold.

    http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceService...0/Default.aspx

    http://www.sheriffs.org/content/lega...fs-oath-office

    No, the "cops" do not have a legal duty to "protect" a individual citizen, protect the citizenry? It seems that that question is and will likely remain unresolved. Some hold the view that the "state" via the cops do not have a legal duty to "protect" the citizenry. I hold the view that the state does have a legal duty to protect the citizenry. Unfortunately the state has ventured into protecting the citizenry from "threats" that are imaginary.
    Let me try to help you out regarding this topic.

    Some hold the view that the "state" via the cops do not have a legal duty to "protect" the citizenry.
    "Citizenry" usually means all y'all - each and every one of you when taken and considered as a single entity. The whole bunch of folks. Cops have a duty to protect them. As a matter of fact, cops were invented so that the rest of us did not have to drop what we were doing and go chase after some criminal (the hue and cry) and so we did not have to give up one night a year/month/week walking around looking out for burglars trying to break into homes or businesses, holding a bell or ratchet to use to wake the rest of the community to come out and chase them down.

    This is not unsettled. It was settled in the 1800's when Robert Peele invented cops (for which he became Sir Robert), and has been settled ever since. SCOTUS has settled it, and then four (4) more times reminded folks that it was and remains a settled matter. Cops protect the citizenry, but have no duty towards any specific individual.

    Then we get to
    I hold the view that the state does have a legal duty to protect the citizenry. Unfortunately the state has ventured into protecting the citizenry from "threats" that are imaginary.
    The state is not the cops. Cops are agents of the state, with specific duties and responsibilities. Generally, those are described as enforcing the laws that the state has declared. Cops are supposed to be neutral about the whole thing - the law says do-not-X, you do-X, the cops arrest you so the state can prove you X'd in violation of do-not-X and then punish you for violating do-not-X.

    Bringing the cops into the discussion of the state as nanny is both misleading and unfair to the cops.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by dmatting View Post
    About the role of government or about the sodas?
    About the government.
    Just hope they don't spill their sodas all over you.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Let me try to help you out regarding this topic.



    "Citizenry" usually means all y'all - each and every one of you when taken and considered as a single entity. The whole bunch of folks. Cops have a duty to protect them. As a matter of fact, cops were invented so that the rest of us did not have to drop what we were doing and go chase after some criminal (the hue and cry) and so we did not have to give up one night a year/month/week walking around looking out for burglars trying to break into homes or businesses, holding a bell or ratchet to use to wake the rest of the community to come out and chase them down.

    This is not unsettled. It was settled in the 1800's when Robert Peele invented cops (for which he became Sir Robert), and has been settled ever since. SCOTUS has settled it, and then four (4) more times reminded folks that it was and remains a settled matter. Cops protect the citizenry, but have no duty towards any specific individual.

    Then we get to


    The state is not the cops. Cops are agents of the state, with specific duties and responsibilities. Generally, those are described as enforcing the laws that the state has declared. Cops are supposed to be neutral about the whole thing - the law says do-not-X, you do-X, the cops arrest you so the state can prove you X'd in violation of do-not-X and then punish you for violating do-not-X.

    Bringing the cops into the discussion of the state as nanny is both misleading and unfair to the cops.

    stay safe.
    I guess it all depends on how many individuals it takes to transition from "individual" to "all ya'll." It's a practical application/jurisdictional thing I guess.

    State "via" the cops.....it's right in there.

    The state is the citizenry.....that whole government of the people, by the people, for the people thing comes to mind. So, when the state comes to no-knock on your front door let us know how they are dressed.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by marine77 View Post
    Say a citizen is the body politic that owes it's allegiance to a country, then likewise the country is suppose to protect the citizen.

    Now as most know, the police have no obligation to protect the citizenry, likewise the U. S. had no obligation to protect the citizens.


    What do you think about this? Let me know. There are some on here I have the utmost respect to here their opinions.


    OK, was wanting to see how this led from posters. Skidmark, don't mean to single you out, but your one of the ones I respect your opinion on. I've read a lot of your posts.


    Now, if the U. S. had no obligation to protect its citizens, then wouldn't we then "not" be citizens, since we are the body politic, then there would not be a body politic, hence no town, city, state, U. S. government. Hence no state, or United States per se?

    Thoughts.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    citizen question

    It depends on what you mean by government protecting the citizens. If you mean providing for a national defense, writing laws that prohibit one person from taking life, Liberty, or property of another, or generally actions that put into place broad protections of life, Liberty, and property of the public as a whole, then yes, the government has a responsibility to protect the citizens.

    If you mean passing laws that protect us from ourselves, then no.

    If you mean passing laws that "prevent crime" by making the exercise of Liberty by individual citizens harder, then no.

    If you mean that the government has a responsibility to protect all the citizens individually, then no.

    The problem with the last three is that, when attempted, all three will actually abridge our rights. The last three are the kind of protection that the Obamas, Bidens, Feinsteins, and Bloombergs of the world want to provide.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •