• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Kop Busters

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

I agree with you that it should be that way, but I have to deal with the realities of Colorado law, which says I can't legally posses Cocaine. If we're talking hypotheticals, that's fine, but I'd like to know.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

The criminality of a drug dealer is a de facto reality. The criminality of the state who prosecutes him in violation of his constitutional and natural rights is no less real, but it is de jure rather than de facto. I personally find the latter to be in violation of the greater authority, and thus "criminal" to a greater degree.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
The criminality of a drug dealer is de facto, that of the LEO who arrests him de jure. Which violates the higher authority?
Compared and contrasted, briefly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure#De_jure

Not too far removed from the centralized distant tyrant vs. distributed tyrant-neighbors dilemma; the tyrant establishing de jure, while the community embraces de facto.

Again, there is an essential tension between freedom and community. I again recommend Ferdinand Toennies 1887: Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, since 2001 in English as Tönnies: Community and Civil Society (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought) (Paperback)http://www.amazon.com/T%C3%B6nnies-Community-Society-Cambridge-Political

Gemeinschaft being the de facto community of men and Gesellschaft often translated as civil de jure society of laws.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Indeed, the literal translation of de jure is "of law". It is commonly used to mean "by right". On the other hand, de facto means "of fact".

So, if you apply the literal translation, I am appealing to the higher authority of natural law. If you choose the common use, I am suggesting one is a "matter of fact", and the other a "matter of right".
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
Again, there is an essential tension between freedom and community.  I again recommend Ferdinand Toennies 1887: Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, since 2001 in English as Tönnies: Community and Civil Society (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought) (Paperback)http://www.amazon.com/T%C3%B6nnies-Community-Society-Cambridge-Political

Gemeinschaft being the de facto community of men and Gesellschaft often translated as civil de jure society of laws.
It took me a while to understand the context, but now I finally get this. There is an inherent tension between the freedom demanded by the individual and the constraints imposed by society. This tension is enhanced as a function of increasing authority of the state. We must take care to ensure the preservation of our individual self-determination against tyranny arising from every tier in the hierarchy of external authority.

As a little aside: contemplation of this inherent tension, so magnified by external authority as it is, often causes me to sway further in favor of anarchism over the libertarian minarchism I normally espouse.
 

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
The criminality of a drug dealer is de facto, that of the LEO who arrests him de jure. Which violates the higher authority?

That is true for just about any crime. You do realize the police arrest people who violate the law correct?
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
As a little aside: contemplation of this inherent tension, so magnified by external authority as it is, often causes me to sway further in favor of anarchism over the libertarian minarchism I normally espouse.

I have noticed this disturbing tendency in my own thinking, as well. The implications of this are steep, which, I think, is one of the reasons many people avoid learning and thinking about this stuff. Once you come to a certain point, you realize that you may now be a radical and your honesty demands that you conduct yourself accordingly. It is around this time that friends and family wonder if you've become some kind of nut. Which is why I avoid discussing politics at work and in many social situations.

That said, I can't make the complete jump from minarchism to rational anarchism. I find too many reasons not to. Topic for anther thread maybe...
 

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,
imported post

I've been reading some stories about how Mr. Cooper had it set up where CI's were calling the cops with information on his "grow operation". Which makes more sense to me. The use of FLIR alone will not get you in a house, but the police can get a warrant to use it. If the CI information and the FLIR confirmation showed a grow op, I could see a search warrant coming out of it. A search warrant alone is not a guilty verdict, it is a search warrant. If they didn't find anything illegal, then so be it. I'm not seeing the big deal here. It's obvious Mr. Cooper has a HUGE beef with the police, it's not much of a stretch that this scenario plays out.

Mr. Cooper has admitted to racially profiling, using dirty tactics to get drugs while being a cop. He has also been arrested himself. It is interesting to me that on this site the "dirty cop" or "bad apple cop" is brought up a lot. Yet when these dirty cops do something like this, it is applauded and all of the sudden they are to be trusted and their story is to be believed.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
Society is made up of individuals balancing security, from community, and liberty's freedom and its risks. Some sway to the left while others hew to the right - to massively mix metaphors.
(Not contradicting, just using the quote as a jumping-off point.)

Dangerous word that---balancing.

I'm convinced its sloppy thinking or sneaky spin, depending on who is saying it. Perhaps add in a little "manner of speaking" if its a solid liberty-minded fellow like Thomas Jefferson.

There is no need to "balance" liberty and security. Security exists to secure Liberty. Not balance it, not be opposed to it, not gain some security at the expense of some Liberty.

Readonce again from theDeclaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men... (emphasis added)
 

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
Society is made up of individuals balancing security, from community, and liberty's freedom and its risks. Some sway to the left while others hew to the right - to massively mix metaphors.
(Not contradicting, just using the quote as a jumping-off point.)

Dangerous word that---balancing.

I'm convinced its sloppy thinking or sneaky spin, depending on who is saying it. Perhaps add in a little "manner of speaking" if its a solid liberty-minded fellow like Thomas Jefferson.

There is no need to "balance" liberty and security. Security exists to secure Liberty. Not balance it, not be opposed to it, not gain some security at the expense of some Liberty.

Readonce again from theDeclaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men... (emphasis added)
I find it amusing that the "all men are created equal" part is in the decleration considering slavery was going on. :uhoh:
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
Society is made up of individuals balancing security, from community, and liberty's freedom and its risks. Some sway to the left while others hew to the right - to massively mix metaphors.
(Not contradicting, just using the quote as a jumping-off point.)

Dangerous word that---balancing.

I'm convinced its sloppy thinking or sneaky spin, depending on who is saying it. Perhaps add in a little "manner of speaking" if its a solid liberty-minded fellow like Thomas Jefferson.

There is no need to "balance" liberty and security. Security exists to secure Liberty. Not balance it, not be opposed to it, not gain some security at the expense of some Liberty.

Readonce again from theDeclaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men... (emphasis added)
+1

liberty is necessary to institute security.
 

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
imported post

nitrovic wrote:
I've been reading some stories about how Mr. Cooper had it set up where CI's were calling the cops with information on his "grow operation".   Which makes more sense to me.

Can you show a source for that? I have been trying to find anything about it, and Mr. Cooper and the other people have been pretty tight lipped. I've heard interviews on FreeTalkLive and they definitely did NOT mention that Cooper "set up where CI'S were calling".
I am not saying they didn't, just saying you need to cite a source.
 

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,
imported post

mkl wrote:
nitrovic wrote:
I've been reading some stories about how Mr. Cooper had it set up where CI's were calling the cops with information on his "grow operation". Which makes more sense to me.

Can you show a source for that? I have been trying to find anything about it, and Mr. Cooper and the other people have been pretty tight lipped. I've heard interviews on FreeTalkLive and they definitely did NOT mention that Cooper "set up where CI'S were calling".
I am not saying they didn't, just saying you need to cite a source.
Of course freetalk didn't state that part of the story, they don't want the police to look good. The story itself has very little facts in it. I have read many stories where people I know said the above. This whole post is actually a non-story. The OP said "possibly". I could make up any post and say "possibly". They haven't posted the affiants words, it's pointless until they do. As alway, people here took it as fact and ran with it. THINK FOR YOURSELF PEOPLE!!!!
 
Top