Chaos, Anarchy, and a place for order

T

Trapp

New member
This isn't an attack (read: it might sound like one).

It appears to me through thoughts and opinions voiced by various members, like Wildcard, and First Freedom, that anarchy would be the only way to keep them happy.

I know this is not true (I think), but the anti-vibe from the posts make me want to know how far to go, where is the line, how do you draw the line?

Take for instance: Police. Do we or do we not grant them Authority? How much? Obviously that line has changed. I hear (read) negative sentiments about how the cops are being militarized......Would it be better if they walked around with billy clubs and whistles? Should you question them everytime you confront one? Yes, there is a line on how far they should go, but where is it? Do you not want a swat team that could handle a hostage situation? I do. I want the people who Protect and Serve me to be as well armed if not better armed than me.


How about the Government? I too believe that we have too much. It disgusts me how much we rely on the government for everyday living. Hell, WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be the government, and anyone would be hard pressed to prove thats how it is today. Here's the "but" though, Should we rely on the government for security of state, home, life, and liberty? Heck yes!! I think we need to have a "Realignment" of our government. I don't think we should have laws, but more of "guidelines" or something of that nature. I think the people should hold other people accountable for their actions, Not the government......

Anyway, comments??
 
Let us tread lightly with this topic. It has equal potential to be very thoughtful (as in having intellectual depth) or very incendiary. Staff will be paying attention.

Carry on. :)

-Dave
 
Trapp

If the gov. would end its War On(private citizens of the republic)Drugs and repeal its privacy stripping laws then you might have a chance at getting a form of gov. that bends to the will of the masses instead of the other way around.
 
I'm intrigued by the quasi-anarchist societies described in Snowcrash and Jennifer Government (an inferior, but still amusing, book).

An argument against anarchy is that organized crime would take over as the government, backed by force rather than any semblance of political philosophy. Even if that happened, how would it be different from government today? Government is an organized crime ring representing the views of the majority.

Even a representative government can't stop other crime rings (gangs, organized crime, etc.) from encroaching upon the government's territory. The idea that the most powerful gang/crime-network/organization/company would be unassailable under anarchy is similarly asinine. Nothing is more unassailable than a government that yearly collects trillions of dollars from all its (non-indigent) citizens by threat of force.
 
It appears to me through thoughts and opinions voiced by various members, like Wildcard, and First Freedom, that anarchy would be the only way to keep them happy.
Click to expand...

NO, NO, NO. As a nation we need laws. What we dont need, and in my opinion, is the crux of many problems is the War on Drugs. Get rid of that, and its a start in the right direction.

Do you not want a swat team that could handle a hostage situation? I do.
Click to expand...
That is a no brainer. But the use of swat teams for ALL types of arrests causes more problems than they solve. Take the man in NY, I believe, that was shot by either an over zealous cop or a cop who had an ND.

I want the people who Protect and Serve me to be as well armed if not better armed than me.
Click to expand...

Well armed, yes. Better armed, no. The populace should have the same access to arms that the police do.

I think the people should hold other people accountable for their actions, Not the government......
Click to expand...

Amen to that.
 
Overkill: The Latest Trend in Policing

Here is an example:


Overkill: The Latest Trend in Policing

Sunday, February 5, 2006; B08

On Jan. 24, a SWAT team in Fairfax shot and killed Salvatore J. Culosi Jr., an optometrist who was under investigation for gambling. According to a Jan. 26 front-page story in The Post, Culosi had emerged from his home to meet an undercover officer when a police tactical unit swarmed around him. An officer's gun discharged, killing the suspect. Culosi, police said, was unarmed and had displayed no threatening behavior.

It's unlikely that the officer who shot Culosi did so intentionally. But it's also unlikely that the investigation into this shooting will address why police sent a military-style unit to arrest an optometrist under investigation for a nonviolent crime and why the officers had their guns drawn when approaching a man with no history of violence.

This isn't the first time a SWAT team in Virginia has killed someone while serving a gambling warrant. In 1998 a team in Virginia Beach conducted a 3 a.m. raid at a private club believed to be involved in organized gambling. Security guard Edward C. Reed was sitting in a parked car outside the club, which had been robbed a few months earlier.

As the black-clad police team raided, a few officers confronted Reed, who had fallen asleep. Reid awoke and, probably startled by the sight of armed men outside his car, reached for his gun. The SWAT team shot and killed him. Reed's last words were, "Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book."

During the past 15 years, The Post and other media outlets have reported on the unsettling "militarization" of police departments across the country. Armed with free surplus military gear from the Pentagon, SWAT teams have multiplied at a furious pace. Tactics once reserved for rare, volatile situations such as hostage takings, bank robberies and terrorist incidents increasingly are being used for routine police work.

Eastern Kentucky University's Peter Kraska -- a widely cited expert on police militarization -- estimates that SWAT teams are called out about 40,000 times a year in the United States; in the 1980s, that figure was 3,000 times a year. Most "call-outs" were to serve warrants on nonviolent drug offenders.

That statistic is troubling enough, but it is compounded by the raids, particularly in drug cases, being based on tips from notoriously unreliable informants, often with no corroborating investigation. This leads to the "wrong address" raids we frequently hear about in the news.

Now police military-style units are increasingly being deployed on gambling raids, too. Last November, police with guns and K-9 units raided a charity poker game in Baltimore. Police in New York are using similar tactics against gambling clubs. Last April, a SWAT team of 52 officers raided a small-stakes poker game in a Denver suburb. An alternative weekly, the Cleveland Scene, reported last year that Jaycees and American Legion clubs in northeastern Ohio "are being raided with the kind of firepower once reserved for drug barons and killers on the lam."

These gambling crackdowns carry a whiff of hypocrisy. Even as it sends SWAT teams to protect citizens from the scourge of gambling, Virginia spends $20 million a year promoting its state lottery. As police in Ohio knock over private poker games, the Ohio Lottery pulled in $2.15 billion in 2005. And while Maryland police have been busting charity tournaments, the state's lottery cashes in on the poker craze with scratch-off games such as Royal Flush, Aces & 8s and Poker Showdown.

Fairfax apparently serves all of its search warrants with SWAT teams. But officials and county residents need to ask themselves if they want to live in a community in which routine police work and vice warrants are carried out by officers armed with gear more appropriate to a battlefield. Their answer may determine whether Salvatore Culosi represents an accident or a trend.

-- Radley Balko

is a policy analyst

for the Cato Institute.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020302389.html
 
In my experience, there are plenty of people who claim to be libertarians who are really quasi-anarchists. (To be fair, there are also plenty of people who claim to be conservatives who are really quasi-fascists; likewise liberals: socialists) I like to think that these quasi-anarchists would change their tune right skippy if a poultry factory/farm moved in next door to their family.

I tasted the libertarian kool-aid, but didn't swallow. ;)

Trapp said:
I don't think we should have laws, but more of "guidelines" or something of that nature.
Click to expand...
Any law that is weakened enough to be called a "guideline" will be completely ineffective. What you're proposing amounts to what we today consider social customs or manners. What is the penalty for belching in public? A few disapproving looks. Should the penalty for punching someone in the face be the same?

I think the people should hold other people accountable for their actions, Not the government.
Click to expand...
The People do hold other people accountable for their actions; they do so through their government. Are you suggesting that vigilante justice is preferrable?

BTW - Here's a very good article on the nature of law. A bit over my head, though. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-nature/
 
Any law that is weakened enough to be called a "guideline" will be completely ineffective.
Click to expand...
I agree, I can't really put into words what I am trying to express. There should be laws, Yes, What about unenforceable laws? We do have them, We have a whole bunch of laws that are generally ignored. There are also laws that are just plain ignorant (if you can personify a law :D )

vigilante justice is preferrable?
Click to expand...
To a point, yes. This is why I was trying to see what other people thought. Boundries. Guy rapes girl. OK lets have a court, innocent until proven guilty right? Found guilty. Send him to the wolves for some "vigilante justice".

I guess maybe I just don't feel represented by anyone in office. I have a feeling that I am not a minority. Vote for the lesser of two evils, right?


Ok mental block here...Can't think of much else to say.
 
Any law that is weakened enough to be called a "guideline" will be completely ineffective. What you're proposing amounts to what we today consider social customs or manners. What is the penalty for belching in public? A few disapproving looks. Should the penalty for punching someone in the face be the same?
Click to expand...
Here's an interesting bit of trivia: The Lakota Sioux had unwritten rules that were enforced by an elite group of warriors called Crazy Dogs. They were feared even by their own people, but here's the interesting thing; there was no capital punishment among the Lakota, and physical punishment was rare.

How did they do it? The People stood united against the things they wouldn't tolerate, and the punishment was being ostracized, either for a time or permanently!

Even during sheer anarchy, peer pressure would remain as a form of law enforcement.
 
Wasn't the old west largely anarchic for a period of time? From what I gather from movies, robber and railroad barons and corrupt politicians ruled it with the help of paid gunmen.

If this is true I'm not sure I would want that at all.

I think the problem is that while anarchy would work for some peoples (countries), it wouldn't work for others. I also don't think it would work for large cities.

The fact is the most efficient way to control a populace is by making them like insects ala some Asian societies that shall remain unnamed. Worker bees with no free thought.
 
Anarchy is just another name for tribal living. In a true anarchy people revert to tribalism. If you want anarchy buy an island somewhere. Bad idea IMO.

Laws conform to the will of the people. Laws have been enacted,changed, and repealed throughout the history of the US. Each of the 3 requires a different level of public opinion to make happen. Enacted is easy, sometimes very low levels of public support, just no outspoken opposition. Changing laws can be a little more difficult. But repealed is extremely difficult without the presence of a "hot button" issue. The Government usually profits from laws, they are reluctant to repeal any law which profits the Government.The change is always driven by public opinion.

A recent example might be the finding by the SC regarding eminent domain. There is huge public support for limitation of eminent domain by legislative means. We have no current eminent domain legislation yet because this would limit the Government.

Then there is the problem of drug legalization. Repeal of these laws would take significant revenue from the budgets of everyone from the Attorney General to the local police departments. There is a lot of opposition to drug laws, however it is not politically advantageous for any government leader to sport a "normal" cap. It will require overwhelming popular support to effect any sort of meaningful change.

Neither are impossible, in fact the eminent domain issue will be played by one party or the other (maybe both) during an election year.

I don't think we should have laws, but more of "guidelines" or something of that nature.
Click to expand...

Wow!:rolleyes:

I think the people should hold other people accountable for their actions, Not the government......
Click to expand...

Please finish this sentence or thought.;)
 
My understanding is that real anarchy is similar to a vaccuum, and I remember that nature abhors a vaccuum. It is a transitionary state, and mutates into what amounts to feudal warlordism (more malignant) or merchantile oligarchy (more benign). Basically, power gravitates towards the powerful in the absence of enforced law -- be that merchantile power or power of arms. Either way, it is bad news for the common people, who become serfs with little sayso other than the threat of revolution.
 
Just in case this thread takes the Late Night Dark Turn, lemme get my comment in and ask that it be largely ignored as I don't want to see a topic hijack:

GREAT debate, guys. Well thought out; well articulated...an ALL sides. This is what TFL was built for.
Rich
 
I don't think we should have laws, but more of "guidelines" or something of that nature.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess I phrased that badly. How about this though. Take the 10 Commandments, They seem to be good rules to live by, right? Don't kill people, Audaltery is bad. We should have something like that. Keep the whole crime and punishment. Just don't make laws about driving with Cell phones. Make it more of a "If you drive while talking on a cell phone, and get in a wreck, don't expect compensation" type of thing. This would hold individuals accountable for their actions. The people have gone so far away from "Justice" it is ashame. People talk about how they got out of Jury duty, and how they plan to next time. Something is wrong with that.
 
Here's an interesting bit of trivia: The Lakota Sioux had unwritten rules that were enforced by an elite group of warriors called Crazy Dogs. They were feared even by their own people, but here's the interesting thing; there was no capital punishment among the Lakota, and physical punishment was rare.
Click to expand...

err the Dog's were Cheyenne.

Physical punishment was not rare, matter of fact it was dealt out with a flouish. (Next time you watch the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wales", pay particular attention to the reference to the line "dirty nose" when the old chief is talking about the indian girl from the trading post. Dirty nose isn't quite accurate. It's really "split nose". The punishment for being unfaithful was to have the nose split in half.)

Infractions against other crimes would result in beatings or destruction of ones clothing, pony and/or shelter.

Anyhow if you research the real history of the rise of the Dog society in the Cheyenne culture, you'll see that they ruled via an iron fist. Hollywood and the media have portrayed the Dog society as an "elite fighting force". Eventually they did end up that way. Their origin was far different. The Dog clan was pretty much the dregs of society ie: the total misfits.
They also consisted of conscripts from other nations that weren't considered "good enough" for Cheyenne society.


Sorry Capt. your example is a terrible one since the Dog clan is perfect example of a police state or wht happens when a bunch of thugs get into power.
 
Every organized society has had rules (laws) that members are expected to abide by. Even the street gangs (bloods, crips etc.) have rules for their members within their "society". To be a member of TFL you are required to abide by the rules established for the membership. We are a nation of law. I don't believe the anarchists among us want zero government, they simply don't want the rules, laws, or guidelines to apply to them. Put them in charge and you would rules, laws or stringently enforced guidlenes quickly.
We have a process to implement or recind laws that we desire or resent. The key is to obtain the backing of enough of our fellow citizens to demonstrate to the government that the change is in the best interest of the majority. A prime example of this is the repeal of the mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists.
I absolutely agree that no law should ever take away the fundamental rights of a citizen, no matter how popular it would be with the majority. The gun laws of Morton Grove, New York City, New Jersey, and now San Francisco sicken me and these should be recinded or overturned.
Many decry the "war on drugs". I can argue both ways on that issue, both for and against current drug laws. As far as marijuana use I couldn't care less. Other than the crimes for possession/sale of marijuana I have seen far more "social" problems from alcohol use and abuse than I have marijuana, whether it's domestic abuse, fights, DWI/DUI or whatever, drunken behavior is a bigger problem than "high" behavior. As far as the hard drugs such as meth, heroin or cocaine I believe we still need enforcement but we also need readily available rehab. As it stands I can have you in a nice cozy jail cell in minutes if you have dope, but if a person comes to me wanting help to kick the habit, getting him or her into a rehab program can take hours, days or weeks if at all.
Be involved, vote, attend city council meetings and stand ready to pull jury duty rather than weasel out of it. Do your part to make this country function. It's not perfect and never will be, but I don't want to be any where else.
 
The fabled key:
The key is to obtain the backing of enough of our fellow citizens to demonstrate to the government that the change is in the best interest of the majority
Click to expand...
.

The problem with that is the inactivity of our fellow Americans. They only want to be active in stuff that directly affects them. Even then the type of activity does nothing for the cause. Most wouldn't even know how to become active in local government. I'm sure many people don't care. They have been so jaded by illicit/bad government, they just want to be left alone.

One problem we have today is people cannot admit when they are wrong. Example: I was driving home, there was a vehicle in front of me. We had a green light. Coming from the intersection this person ran a red light to make a right turn. The guy in front of me honked, the red light runner flipped him off and started yelling. I see this crap every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top