Open Letter From a Cop

[marshaul]

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

Can I support gay marriage, flag burning, a path to citizenship, and drug legalization also?

I must not be having enough fun, because I feel compelled to ask for clarification on whether or not you do in fact support these things.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

Cool ADWstylz. You are a liberal, socialist, communist, naziObama lover that hates all things gun and isimmature and indoctrinated by the mass conspiratorycollege system too? Can I support gay marriage, flag burning, a path to citizenship, and drug legalizationalso?

(fist raised in the air in fanatic fervor) Dyslexic workers of the world untie!!!!!

That's what I've been told. I'm still young and easily impressionable so my opinions change to match those of my lastest group of professors (because all college professors agree on everything and are working together, worldwide, to turn the population into liberal, gun grabbingzombies).





marshaul:

At least AWDstylez believes that the recourse to government is a function of human nature, not a denial of it.

I didn't see that at all. It sounds to me like he said, in many more words, what I say about 18 times a day on this board. He just stressed the importance of a pack mentality and social contract when group ("tribe") size becomes very large. That's almost undeniable if you're being realistic.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Personally I follow Oliver Wendall Holme's rule:

Abstractly, the Law consists of the Stautes and Court precedence. To the man on the street, however, the Law is what the cop on the beat says it is.

If the cop is wrong, I let him "tell it to the judge". I have done so to the utter mortification of the cop twice.

If I am wrong, I am wrong and I take my lumps.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

You read far too much Hobbes. Did you know the man actually believed that people were "asocial" and "apolitical" in "state of nature"?

Of course they were, that's what makes it state of nature. If you have no social contract on any level... then what do you have? A bunch of individuals.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

grumpycoconut wrote:

Cool ADWstylz. You are a liberal, socialist, communist, nazi Obama lover that hates all things gun and is immature and indoctrinated by the mass conspiratory college system too? Can I support gay marriage, flag burning, a path to citizenship, and drug legalization also?

(fist raised in the air in fanatic fervor) Dyslexic workers of the world untie!!!!!

That's what I've been told.  I'm still young and easily impressionable so my opinions change to match those of my lastest group of professors (because all college professors agree on everything and are working together, worldwide, to turn the population into liberal, gun grabbing zombies). 

 

 

marshaul:

At least AWDstylez believes that the recourse to government is a function of human nature, not a denial of it.

 

 

I didn't see that at all.  It sounds to me like he said, in many more words, what I say about 18 times a day on this board.  He just stressed the importance of a pack mentality and social contract when group ("tribe") size becomes very large.  That's almost undeniable if you're being realistic.

Well, which is it? Is it human nature to bow down to the top level of a hierarchy, thus creating government, or do we need a social contract for this purpose? I've heard you argue both ways.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Well, which is it? Is it human nature to bow down to the top level of a hierarchy, thus creating government, or do we need a social contract for this purpose? I've heard you argue both ways.

Governent IS social contract.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

You read far too much Hobbes. Did you know the man actually believed that people were "asocial" and "apolitical" in "state of nature"?

 

Of course they were, that's what makes it state of nature.  If you have no social contract on any level... then what do you have?  A bunch of individuals.

Wrong. Chimps have incredibly complex social interactions. In fact, they have social order without "social contract" or explicit government. People, as cousins of the chimp, almost certainly had similar societies in "state of nature".

Government does not create man's social dependency on his neighbor. This is a function of human nature. The simple fact is that, in "state of nature", higher primates of all sorts form communities which are more than "a bunch of individuals" or any other simple aggregate thereof.

People are not anti-social in state of nature. Describing them as "apolitical" creates an oxymoron.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Well, which is it? Is it human nature to bow down to the top level of a hierarchy, thus creating government, or do we need a social contract for this purpose? I've heard you argue both ways.

 

Governent IS social contract.

That isn't answering my question. I asked you if you've abandoned your previous assertion that the recourse to governance is an automatic function of human nature. The answer is, apparently you have.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

People are not anti-social in state of nature.

How do you know that? When was the last "state of nature" existance of man? Was there ever one?

Social contract does not have to be a government or a system of laws. A simple, "you don't kill me for no reasonand I won't kill you for no reason," is social contract. Chimps, like most social animals, have a functioning "society" type structure. The fact that they don't write down their social contract agreements doesn't mean they don't exist. That is what keeps them above Hobbes' HYPOTHETICAL state of nature.

 

[grumpycoconut]

imported post

Marshaul,

Before I address any of your questions I ask you to acknowledge that you possess and can exercise at any time the ultimate inalienable human right, the right of departure. If you really don't like it where you are there is no one, except maybe she who must be obeyed,who can stop you from beating feet. There is no stylish (but still made of iron), pink taffeta curtain surrounding San Francisco that prevents you leaving.

How about that social contract thingy? I assume you were born here and still live here. You reap the benefits of membership in this particular tribe. You have made no effort to exercise your right to depart. Therefor you have by your actions, signed the American social contract. Remember, tax lein and forclosure sales have made compounds in the hinterlands more reasonably priced then they have been in years. If you don't like it you can always get to steppin'.

Concrete examples of how the gubmint is responsive to the individual? I live in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan shite hole. My city says I can keep horses in my urban back yard. My neighbors and I wanted to keep more horses than the law said we could so we spoke with our elected representatives and they changed the law for us. I'm thinking of lobbying for my horses' right to smoke medicinal marijuana next. Nothing says you can't advocate for legalized weed for your horses too. If you don't like it you can get to revolting.

Hobbes. I'm secure enough in my internet annonymity to admit that I am intellectually lazy enough to only use those bits of other people's words that support my particular bias. I've never read all of Hobbes' book but I really like how "nasty, brutish and short" sounds and it helped me make my point so I used it. After all this is the internet and I can spout any ridiculous tripe I want. If you don't like it you can always exercise your right to not read it.

Ohh! Tripe soup is great for hangovers.

 

[Orygunner]

imported post

Having partially instigated this hijacking, I was just going to sit back and watch this escalate, but I do have to draw the line at gay marriage. Domestic partnership rights I'm fine with, but don't call it marriage .

Anyway, Back to the OP (I think). It seems there's quite a variance of opinion about cops. I know my attitude has changed greatly throughout my life. Starting with indifference, to frustration and disrespect (they kept catching me speeding!) to wanting to be one (I applied, interviewed, and tested for Sheriff's deputy, got turned down at the last stage).

Then over the last 10 years the slow dawning of the realization that cops are very similar to the "standing army" that the founding fathers knew was a real threat to liberty.

I'm not sure where the problem lies. My opinion is that SOME police are necessary SOMETIMES, for investigating crimes, serving warrants, and searching for suspects. However, I feel there are WAY too many traffic cops, and WAY too much of an expectation that police are going to directly prevent crime or protect people. Perhaps it's this expectation that they are here to protect us (misled by the "protect" part of "protect and serve.") and that for that reason we can shrug off our own responsibility of self-defense. This leads to frustration on both the part of the police and the victims.

The victims call for MORE police, which really doesn't do much more good, but can sure do a lot more harm.

A friend of mine was very frustrated when his motorcycle shop was broken into and thousands of dollars in motorcycle gear was stolen. The thief crawled in through a high window, and there were obvious fingerprints on it. When my friend pointed them out to the responding officer, he said they wouldn't send the lab guys down to take fingerprints because they were understaffed and too busy. Meanwhile, severalofficers were on patrol and traffic duty in the city "preventing" crime. :uhoh:

I think if the police and the citizenry were better educated as to their proper duties, and what they are and aren't responsible for, the relationship between citizens and police would be much less strained.

...Orygunner...

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Well, which is it? Is it human nature to bow down to the top level of a hierarchy, thus creating government, or do we need a social contract for this purpose? I've heard you argue both ways.

Governent IS social contract.

That isn't answering my question. I asked you if you've abandoned your previous assertion that the recourse to governance is an automatic function of human nature. The answer is, apparently you have.

Not at all, see above post. No living creature (not any sane one, anyway) WANTS to live in the state of nature. Therefore, it's natural to create social contracts (and social contracts in theirmost evolvedform is government) to bring one's self out of the state of nature. Animals do it with packs/families/colonies and humans do it with far more advanced contracts called governments.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

People are not anti-social in state of nature.

 

How do you know that?  When was the last "state of nature" existance of man?  Was there ever one?

Social contract does not have to be a government or a system of laws.  A simple, "you don't kill me for no reason and I won't kill you for no reason," is social contract.  Chimps, like most social animals, have a functioning "society" type structure.  The fact that they don't write down their social contract agreements doesn't mean they don't exist.  That is what keeps them above Hobbes' HYPOTHETICAL state of nature.

If there never has been a "state of nature", to the point that the society of chimps itself is a "social contract", then Hobbes' fears have no basis in empirical fact.

It's merely an expression of the fear that "OMG man is going to rape and kill each other because that's what they inherently want to do!". My counter to this is, not only is Hobbes projecting, but that "state of nature" is, quite the contrary, riddled with formation of societies and resolution of disputes.

You have essentially rendered Hobbes' argument for government based on a "social contract" in contrast to "state of nature" circular. Not that I ever valued Hobbes in the first place...

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Well, which is it? Is it human nature to bow down to the top level of a hierarchy, thus creating government, or do we need a social contract for this purpose? I've heard you argue both ways.

 

Governent IS social contract.

That isn't answering my question. I asked you if you've abandoned your previous assertion that the recourse to governance is an automatic function of human nature. The answer is, apparently you have.

 

Not at all, see above post.  No living creature (not any sane one, anyway) WANTS to live in the state of nature.  Therefore, it's natural to create social contracts (and social contracts in their most evolved form is government) to bring one's self out of the state of nature.  Animals do it with packs/families/colonies and humans do it with far more advanced contracts called governments.

OK, you've clarified this for me. Thanks. Now see my post above.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

My counter to this is that "state of nature" is, quite the contrary, formation of societies and resolution of disputes.

Which would be social contract. Are you really not getting that?


When I say "government" I mean a social contract, nothing more. You've had this problem from the day I joined the board, I DO NOT mean our current government, I mean A government, A social contract. I DO NOT mean the over-stepping behemoth that is modern government. But I also recognize the needs of modern society and the need for far more government that you would like, but that's another arugment.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

My counter to this is that "state of nature" is, quite the contrary, formation of societies and resolution of disputes.

 

Which would be social contract.   Are you really not getting that?

No, I do get that part. The point is that the contrast to "state of nature" is baseless.

 

[grumpycoconut]

imported post

Marshaul,

To answer your question about what I believe in, I say this. I don't give on tiny bit of a tinker's damn what or who you stick in your body as long as it doesn't hurt someone who can't consent to being hurt. You can alsoburn any flag you want as long as you bought it yourself. I don't care where you came from or how you got here as long as you support the corrupt society that drew you here and do nothing that harms it. My folks have been Californios since long before those damn illegal Yanquis started stealing all of our jobs. Somehowme and mine have still managed to thrive despite being overwhelmed by the rampaging hordes of illegal gringos. Of course we did steal the land from the indios fair and square so I'm not sure just how strong my territorial claim really is.

Looky that. I got 4 questions addressed in only1 runonparagraph. Not bad for me.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

My counter to this is that "state of nature" is, quite the contrary, formation of societies and resolution of disputes.

 

Which would be social contract.   Are you really not getting that?


When I say "government" I mean a social contract, nothing more.  You've had this problem from the day I joined the board, I DO NOT mean our current government, I mean A government, A social contract.  I DO NOT mean the over-stepping behemoth that is modern government.  But I also recognize the needs of modern society and the need for far more government that you would like, but that's another arugment.

Understand that Hobbes is routinely used to justify our current behemothic government's excesses. The Rousseauean concept of a social contract is far less inimical to the liberty Americans value.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

Marshaul,

To answer your question about what I believe in, I say this.  I don't give on tiny bit of a tinker's damn what or who you stick in your body as long as it doesn't hurt someone who can't consent to being hurt. You can also burn any flag you want as long as you bought it yourself.  I don't care where you came from or how you got here as long as you support the corrupt society that drew you here and do nothing that harms it. My folks have been Claifornios since long before those damn illegal Yanquis started stealing all of our jobs. Somehow me and mine have still managed to thrive despite being overwhelmed by the rampaging hordes of illegal gringos. Of course we did steal the land from the indios fair and square so I'm not sure just how strong my territorial claim really is.

Looky that. I got 4 questions addressed in only 1 runon paragraph. Not bad for me.

Good for you indeed. I approve of your answers, not that you have any good reason to care.

 

[grumpycoconut]

imported post

This game is fun but can we get someone really irrational to post?