greatest police badge number ever
- Thread starter ayzo
- Start date
What is the difference?
We're back to, where did the cop get authority over me?
Who granted it? Why do they get to grant authority and I do not?
If you believe it is a fact, then explain it.
Most people, but you're implicitly admitting not all people.
If that's so, then what about the people who don't want cops? Should they be forced to have them?
I don't harass cops. I simply don't accept their authority when they try to assert it, until they provide proof.
If they are as right, moral, and honest as you claim, providing proof of their "jurisdiction" and "authority" should be easy, right?
Another strong argument from Hellblazer.
Yes, I left out the .001% of nutjobs like you and the douchebags in this video who quite literally have nothing better to do with their lives than drive around harassing cops who are trying to keep their towns safe.
By most, I mean 99.99%, and if you don't like it, go live in a desert somewhere where you can breathe the sweet air of police-less freedom. Because they are such horrible monsters, after all. #1 on my list of priorities is taking cops off the streets.
That's your choice. Otherwise you could just follow the law(you know, don't murder/rob/rape) and not worry about the police like the rest of us.
Of course, your final choice could be to imperiously say "I don't recognize your authority!" to a policeman after you're murdered someone and see how quickly he provides proof of it.
Btw, I don't believe a word your grubby little mouth says about not "accepting" police authority. I bet than when you're stopped, you meekly comply and humbly lower your eyes like everyone else because you realize they're actually trying to protect people.
Or perhaps that's why you're in a village in Guatamala somewhere, surrounded by goats and no law enforcement in sight.
P.S. You look rather cuckoldish when you whine about me to others.
Indeed. And no one has offered any facts as to how they got that authority, but it hasn't stopped people from claiming they do have that authority.
I can't do that myself. I mean, I make mistakes all the time, but I try really hard to avoid asserting things I cannot prove.
A few people in this thread think
"Water is good" (an assertion) is no different as a proposition than "Water has hydrogen and oxygen in its composition" (a fact).
In fact, if you look at Hellblazer's post, he asserted zero facts. All he did was ramble on about what "most people" think. But to him, this is a fact. If people believe in God, God exists. If people believe the earth is flat, the earth is flat.
It's troglodyte reasoning, but hey, that's why I am a misanthrope.
Yes, this cop was really fighting crime by pulling those guys over.
Also, why so mad? Why so much namecalling? You'd think that if you had a strong argument, you wouldn't need to be so insulting. You could just make the argument.
By this rationale, maybe you should run to Chile so America can continue being communist without your complaining. Sound like a good idea?
The love it or leave it argument applies to Barack Obama too matey.
The police regularly harass and kill innocent people. There are mountains of evidence of this. And that doesn't even include their crime of running a monopoly protection racket and extorting taxes.
He will use violence. He can't provide any moral, ethical, or legal evidence he has authority if he stops me for a misdemeanor. People like you see violence as being legitimate (unless someone else is doing it to you, which is of course hypocrisy) but I don't think it is possible to be ethical or moral if you use violence against innocent people.
You don't know anything about me. Or "most people". Or "most cops".
Won't stop you from claiming you can speak for everyone though. That's what demagogues do.
It's hard for many people to imagine circumstances that other people live in or ideas other people exist. It's actually a skill to do so, it's called "theory of mind".
I know it's hard for you in particular to imagine many things you haven't experienced or already interpreted, but I live with all of the amenities of western life, without a cop for miles. There are thousands of people around me, and we exist almost completely without violent crime, and at best, very petty theft.
That's partially because we're not highly urbanized, we know each other socially as neighbors, and we have a superior culture to say, most American inner cities.
So yeah, it's possible to have roads and internet and gas stations and cell phones and McDonalds and not have cops. And it works really well.
The reason why you need so many cops to keep you safe, is probably because you're not a very nice person, and so you need to fear for people attacking you. Because if you lived in a community of rational, moral, compassionate people, (and were one yourself) you wouldn't need cops either.
Surely you must agree that some time in the past there were free markets (before governments). And surely you must agree that governments are monopolies.
So how did they come about, pry tell? Aliens?
2+2=4,949, right?
When were there free markets? Be specific pls.
By this rationale, democracy came before the holocaust, therefore democracy caused the holocaust.
Hoppe has an entire chapter in his last book devoted to this really poor sort of historicism which infers the present from the past. As I said, a lot of people postdict (hindsight supposedly being 20/20) and think that makes the past predictive. It doesn't work that way.
Here is another example.
Let's say we had free markets. Then we had slavery. But now we have no slavery. Which did free markets cause, slavery or no slavery?
I don't want to assume any viewpoint you have so if you want to continue this discussion I'd love an answer to my questions. Are you convinced there is no record of a law regarding vehicle inspections? Or are you arguing the merits or validity of any "laws" created by the current body of government we have? Or are you unsure how a police officer gets authority to enforce laws?
Last edited:
I didn't realize I wasn't answering you. Sorry.
That said, you need to answer my questions as well pls. It's courtesy.
There may well be. But that's not the question. Are you convinced there is no record of my hopes and dreams written in a ruled notebook hidden under my mattress?
So someone made a law. What does that mean to me?
"We" don't have a government. We have a mass delusion that allows some very crafty members of the species to rule the rest of the species.
It's a genius racket, and I have actually considered joining it, and living off all of you while bossing you around. I am just not evil enough (yet).
What I am saying though is, so someone made a law. Big deal. Governments, the UN, they are all creating policy non-stop.
What does that have to do with me?
I am not unsure, I am not aware of the facts of how this happened. I don't believe things which I cannot prove (usually). I am fucked up like that, I prefer evidence to faith particularly when someone is pointing a gun at me, or taking my property.
But hey, if people prefer faith, I can do that too.
ATTENTION WICKEDFIRE I AM A COP AND YOU NEED TO PAY ME TAXES TO PROTECT YOU ON THE INTERNETS. CYBERPOLICE REPORTING FOR DUTY. I AM AUTHORIZED. I AM THE LAW.
Are we not talking about New Hampshire? That's okay. We can talk about whatever place you prefer. San Antonio, Cabo San Lucas, Krakow, wherever. The point I'm trying to make is that jurisdiction is often assumed, but can it be proven? Or is it more likely that a bunch of people with guns say so (without any empirical proof), therefore people comply?
Do we really need to look beyond the fact that governments in the 20th century killed over a quarter billion of their own people to conclude that we are better off without their involuntary "protection"?
I never said free markets caused monopolies. I said monopolies like government evolved from free markets. you know, before government, when tribes exchanged goods and services among each other and there was no one to tax them?
Not to nitpick, but there are more slaves in the world today than at any time in human history. People must enjoy their bondage because very few truly fight for total freedom.
Also, any one that knows my posts know I don't troll and post bullshit so the fact that guerilla had to put me on ignore rather than debate my points makes my case for me. With that, I'm out.
Sounds like this country...
We are all government slaves.
Work you ass off all year trying to be productive... hand over 30%+ of your profits to your masters...
See a person wearing a uniform... OBEY!!!
People are too dumbed down with football and reality shows to fight it or really give a shit.
Can you be specific about when, where and who was doing this?
Or are we just assuming that primitive societies didn't have hierarchies or violent social orders?
I mean, it is possible the first two humans ran into each other and said, "hey, let's trade and be friends" and then it was all downhill into statism from there.
But I am not sure we can assume that as being more likely than that the first two humans met, one raped the other and made the victim their slave.
Barter isn't necessarily a free market.
Maybe statism did evolve from free markets. Being very ignorant about that idea, I can suppose for now that it is possible. But if that's the case, then are you saying that statism is inevitable and not subject to future evolution, or are you saying that it's pointless to get back to free markets because they will just turn into statism anyway?
Lol you're the biggest slur-slinging diva around here. You're just usually better at packaging them in a pseudo-intellectual veneer.
Who's to say I won't or haven't? But of course you couldn't answer that, so you lamely tried to turn it back on me.
More garbage anarchist talking points. Man, it must be hard to live firmly locked in that paradigm. You guys talk about "violence" or the "state" as if they're actual people.
The state is a tool.
Violence is a tool.
They can be used for good or evil.
Because a cop broke the law, you people think the entire police force should be dismantled. What demented logic.
I don't see "violence" as legitimate, I see law enforcement as legitimate. Violence is merely a tool of law enforcement, which is a tool of the state, which is a tool of the people when utilized correctly.
And if I broke the law, I would expect to face the consequences. But that kind of muddles up your whole "hypocrisy" line of attack, eh?
Evil will always exist. It's why we have cops and armies and the law, to defend ourselves against evil people with evil acts. Me and the billions of other people are cool with that arrangement. We pay some money in taxes and in return get a defense.
That's not to say it couldn't be corrupted, or the law couldn't be corrupted, or that evil couldn't take over the state itself and then have no counter-balance. That's why I rail against communists, because they are evil incarnate taking over the reins of government with nobody to stop them. But the concept itself works, it simply takes eternal vigilance.
You people are just fools who have fallen for this simplistic "force is bad", "violence is bad", "the state is bad" propaganda crap and it's distorted your whole way of thinking.
You were. I was referencing the impending questions I had. Bad phrasing- apologies.
Okay, so herein lies the issue. The fact of the matter is there is no "evidence" that would sway your opinion because by design you reject any evidence of the validity of laws. It's a losing argument to try to convince you because there is no way of convincing you.
I wish I could get my time back! Thanks for the chat, anyway!
A lot of people are ignorant to those types of (mostly abstract) slavery outlined in that article. A big reason for that is because people that profit from that type of slavery have a big incentive to conceal it, since the prevailing public opinion is that it's wrong (which was not always the case). Not to mention the people in general have a big incentive not to go around looking for it because it would give them bad feels. It's obviously still very shitty, but wouldn't you call that progress?
I think you would find a substantial percentage of the global population appalled by the sight of someone in chains doing their master's bidding in this day and age.