Why Don’t Cops Ever Enforce (Or Even Know) “The Law”?

Print Friendly

Troll around YouTube (or read the news, even casually) and you will readily come across examples of cops who don’t know the law – and enforce their own conception of it with impunity.Hero cops lead

Two examples come to mind, one automotive – the other not.

Example one: Open Carry.

In states where this is legal, people are routinely hassled by cops for doing what is legal. A person will be out in public, with a sidearm legally holstered (or carried) in plain view. A cop car – often, several of them – will roll up and aggressively confront the open-carrying person. Usually, it is done in an order-barking manner, and not infrequently with clearly stated threats of summary roadside execution, as in this video:

Mind, the open-carrier has not done anything illegal. The law is clear. People may open carry – that is, they may openly carry a gun in public. Period. There is no qualification. It is the law. Yet this is no defense against “the law” – the goons with guns and special outfits, that is.meathead cop 2

The common theme in these videos is a request by the person being given the Fallujah Treatment  that the cop consult the statute book – i.e., that he familiarize himself with the law rather than make up law as he goes. The response is typically a blizzard of non sequiturs and threats. The cops will state that “someone” called in to “express alarm” about the sight of an armed person walking down the street. That this made them “nervous” or “concerned.”

The open-carrier will reply – correctly, insofar as the law is concerned – that a person isn’t subject to harassment by the law because of “someone’s” feelings. That there must be at least some suspicion, some specific probable cause, to suspect that an actual law was violated.

Merely walking down the street with a firearm in an area where it is legal to do so does not constitute probable cause for suspecting anything illegal is occurring, has occurred or might be about to occur. If it does, then any legal going-about-one’s business is insufficient to protect one from “the law” – from its enforcers.

It is Kafkaesque.open carry stop pic

Why even bother with “the law” when it has become whatever any random cop decides it is?

The ugly truth is we’ve lost one of the basic bulwarks against despotism – the rule of law as opposed to the rule of whomever happens to wield authority.  Innocence of wrongdoing under the law – or rather, the absence of any tangible reason for believing a given person is guilty of having violated the law – ought to be (and once was ) a shield of immunity against arbitrary authority. It no longer is in random checkpoint/stop-and-frisk and shoot-you-in-the-head America.

Example two: The slow-motion Clover.

In many states, there are laws on the books requiring slower-moving traffic to yield to faster-moving traffic. Have you ever seen a cop enforce this law?slower traffic pic

Neither have I.

It is also illegal in several states to drive significantly slower than the posted speed limit – less than 40 in a 55, for instance. The driver who does so is legally obligated to pull over/off onto the shoulder in order to let the cars piled up behind him get by – and is legally subject to being ticketed merely for operating below the legally established minimum threshold.

Have you ever seen a cop pull over such a Clover? Even when there is a half-mile of cars stacked up behind him?

Of course not.minimum 2

What I have seen – and you probably have, too – is a cop immediately running down the poor slob who had the temerity to pass the Clover and in doing so, went a little faster than the posted speed limit.

That law gets enforced.

I once had a cop lecture me – and a class full of penitents (we were all stuck in one of those all-day DMV “driver education” courses they make you take in lieu of having a moving violation for some trumped-up offense such as “speeding” appear on your record) that when we encounter a Clover doing 20 MPH below the speed limit, we ought to wait patiently behind said Clover. “After all, ” he explained. “We’ll all be old someday.”

What that has to do with the law? About as much as being assaulted at gunpoint by cops who cannot read the laws pertaining to open carry – or who simply have contempt for them.Hero down

Bad laws are bad news, but even worse is when there is no law. Which is what it amounts to when a GED dropout wearing the latest in American-style sturmabteilung haute couture can simply do as he pleases – without shame, much less sanction.

I figure, if they don’t obey the law – why should we respect it? There’s no point. We can’t win. They hold all the trumps. So, why bother?

When that realization spreads, things are going to get interesting.

Throw it in the Woods?

PS:This site is almost entirely reader supported now. No Google. (They blacklisted us – so we dumped them. See here for the full story about that.)

So, please: We need your support to make a go of it and keep EPautos rolling. If you like what you see, consider supporting this site. The link to our “donate” button is here. You can also mail stuff our way – if you prefer to avoid PayPal. The address is:

EPAutos
721 Hummingbird Lane, SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

Share Button

  293 comments for “Why Don’t Cops Ever Enforce (Or Even Know) “The Law”?

  1. Me2
    November 15, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    http://www.ammoland.com/2013/03/ny-swat-cop-ridiculed-after-hes-pictured-with-eotech-rifle-sight-on-backwards/#ixzz2kgjYpciE

    Remember all the idiots who claim “Civilians should not have guns because only police and military are trained well enough to have them”?

    Oh, and in case the clovertards think this is a singular slip up by an individual, what about those ‘professionals’ he works with who obviously did not notice either.

    Also, it is pretty obvious that gun package had never been tested on a bench with that scope. So some moron banged a scope onto a rifle (backwards) and took it into the field to be used.

    Of course after the Empire State shooter ‘spray and pray’ incident by the pigs, I have no idea why they would bother with a scope.

    • November 16, 2013 at 11:12 pm

      I guess the only question now is, what do we “mere mundanes” do about it?

      As long as we still have 99% of the voting population voting “Team R” or “Team D” things aren’t going to get anywhere. And while I get that some principled libertarians don’t vote because of their libertarianism, the vast, vast majority of non-voters are just apathetic… if they did vote it would probably be with the 99% of voters.

      So, I think we’re still losing.

      Even some of the people on Ron Paul Forums absolutely make me cringe sometimes. The average statist clown is just never going to wake up.

      How can we win this game? Can we win?

      • Ed
        November 17, 2013 at 12:22 am

        David, I think we’re fucked. It’s entirely possible that most of our fellow human beings are pretty much satsified with the way they think things are. There’s really no way to get through to most people who think that way, that things really are the way they see them.

        I don’t get involved in the big things anymore. I look out for me and mine, the best I can and let everyone else think as they want to.

        • November 17, 2013 at 2:33 am

          I guess all we can do is try to educate people. Unfortunately, as justified as it would be, I don’t think violent overthrow of a democratically elected government would actually accomplish anything. If we had another election we’d get the same results, and most people are simply not ready to accept anarcho-capitalism, despite the indisputable morality of it. Heck, my parents have been listening to me for years and they still aren’t completely sold. How much more somebody who’s only exposed to it once or twice? Ron Paul tried very hard to bridge the gap by running for office (because of course, the sheep don’t care about any political figures who aren’t running for office) and I think he woke up as many people as he could (Including me, BTW, I was a dead sheep before I found out about Ron Paul too.) Sometimes I get annoyed with Rand for compromising, but at the same point, I understand why he’s doing it, because he has to win an electorate that is just that stupid. I just hope he doesn’t lose sight of who he really is, and where he came from (Ron Paul movement, and Ron Paul specifically) if he ever actually wins the nomination (which, unfortunately, he probably won’t. Even with Rand’s compromises I don’t think the average American will accept him. They love their big government.)

          Depending on your religious persuasion, you may not agree with this, but I try to remind myself that no political agenda, even the Biblical (Anarcho-libertarian) one is as important as spreading the good news of what Jesus Christ did for sinners on the cross. He can draw anyone to himself, even our wicked oppressors.

          • eric
            November 17, 2013 at 6:32 am

            Hi David,

            I’m not one who defends violence for any reason – except self-defense.

            What I believe is that the revolution must take place in people’s minds – and then the revolution in society (and government) will happen without the need for violence.

            It really is like the movie, The Matrix. Once a person sees – that is, once his mind understands – he is never the same again. There is no going back. Unless one is a sociopath, once the proverbial light goes on and one comprehends that (as an example) voting for “new schools” is just theft by proxy – one recoils from ever doing it (or anything like it) again. It literally changes one’s heart, as well as one’s mind.

            Most people – including Clovers – would not assault their neighbor after demanding money to “help” the schools (or whatever). And yet, they not only do it without compunction – by proxy – when they vote for it, they feel good about doing it.

            That is what must change.

            It is critical to make them feel as bad about stealing (and committing assault) via the ballot box as they would (assuming, of course, that they are not sociopaths) if they’d beaten up the next door neighbor and rolled him for his wallet.

          • Bobbye
            November 17, 2013 at 12:36 pm

            God does not support any political agenda. All government puts itself in the place of God(first commandment) as the primary authority in your life. The ‘rule of law’ has always been used by governments to oppress. Render unto Caesar: But Caesar owns nothing(Ps24). Any one who supports any government is opposing God. King David was a man after God’s own heart, but God never supported King David’s government. David was alive when Samuel told what God thought of government(1Sam8) so why didn’t David return Israel back to the Judges after Saul’s death? Yeah, that’s how much chance that our USSA will relinguish power. The ministry of reconciliation is the only thing the Church should be doing. Instead it worships Caesar.

          • Ed
            November 17, 2013 at 2:37 pm

            ” I don’t think violent overthrow of a democratically elected government would actually accomplish anything. ”

            True enough, and I don’t advocate anything like that.

            “Ron Paul tried very hard to bridge the gap by running for office”

            Is that what he tried? It appears to me after I threw money down the rathole by contributing to his campaigns, that he was just intent on having his “teaching moment” while taking millions from people who could have used the money better themselves. Turns out, he’s just a loyal republican politician who wanted to teach us all how to work within the system he was devoted to.

            He woke me up to the fact that you can’t kill a snake by living in its belly, but that wasn’t what he was telling me at the time.

            “Sometimes I get annoyed with Rand for compromising, but at the same point, I understand why he’s doing it, because he has to win an electorate that is just that stupid.”

            Rand needs fo all of us to be just that stupid. He’s a typical, duplicitous neocon republican of the “tea party” variety. He “compromises” as a way of doing just what he set out to do, but in a way that makes his brain-dead supporters defend him for “having to compromise”.

            Face it, the Pauls are nothing special, though the older Paul had me fooled for a decade or so. I was on to his game earlier when he was the anointed candidate for the LP, but when he immediately fled back to his home in the GOP, he handed us all his number. I admit to being willingly misled into supporting him in his GOP campaigns where I had voted against him in his LP campaign.

            I’ve quit participating in electoral politics. Like you, I see it as doing evil so that good may come of it. That never works out well, does it?

          • November 19, 2013 at 9:24 am

            In response to Ed’s post of November 17, 2013 at 2:37 pm (which should hopefully be directly above this)…

            RON PAUL and the RON PAUL REVOLUTION have done MORE to awaken and begin-the-education-of MILLIONS across the PLANET…by using as many modern-day-tools such as media/technology/internet/etc…as possible.

            And perhaps (more than likely) he has contributed MORE to Liberty than any other human being that has EVER walked the planet.

          • Bevin
            November 19, 2013 at 9:42 am

            Dear Ed, John & Dagny,

            I’m closer to John & Dagny on the specific issue of whether Ron Paul is “one of the good guys.”

            That said, personalities are not really the issue. The issue is always ideas. Once the right ideas spread and become the norm, the way society is configured will change in response to them.

            This is not wishful thinking. This is hard reality. Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. Good ideas have good consequences.

            The worst idea ever was the Myth of Authority. The best idea ever is to discredit the Myth of Authority.

            The funny thing is, that many people don’t think that’s enough. They think one has to “do more.” They are wrong. That’s not merely enough. That’s the whole ball of wax.

            Shatter the Myth of Authority and the world will never be the same again. Modern democratic dictatorship will be as dead as Pharaoh worship or Medieval feudalism.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYbpICtfFwo

      • libertyx
        November 17, 2013 at 2:21 am

        From David: “How can we win this game?”

        My conclusion: Privatize education. No government schools – separate school and state. Otherwise, propaganda wins.

        • November 17, 2013 at 2:36 am

          Don’t misunderstand me, I completely agree with this. But, isn’t that kind of a catch-22? To get people to think critically, so they will be willing to reduce the size of the government (ideally abolish, but one step at a time), we need to convince people to eliminate the public schools so they will be willing to reduce the size of the government…. See how there’s a catch-22?

          If they got eliminated, churches would likely take over. To me, that’s great in a number of ways (Especially as an evangelical, calvinistic Christian.) But I don’t know how much that would help us with the statism problem, seeing as how many “Christians” absolutely adore the military and the police.

          • eric
            November 17, 2013 at 6:23 am

            Hi David,

            The fallacy is that government schools teach critical thinking. They do not. They exist to “socialize” kids. To collectivize them. To inculcate rote memorization. To produce – as George Carlin trenchantly put it – obedient workers.

            Consider: The average citizen of Boston or Philadelphia in the late 18th century was more capable of critical thinking (and far more literate) than most college-educated people are today. Many of the founding fathers were autodidacts, self taught.

            Read up on the true purpose of government schools. John Taylor Gatto’s book is an excellent primer. The read up on John Dewey and the Prussian Model – the template for government schools in the US.

      • Carpenter
        November 17, 2013 at 1:47 pm

        (From Encyclopaedia America, 2055) The “globalist” order eventually fell due to its inherent flaws, which were never fully addressed. In order to win elections the political parties needed to offer a constantly improving economy and economic benefits. To pay for these promises, the national debt was increased drastically in the final years, to a point where interest payments significantly weakened the central government. Combined with massive money printing, the dollar collapse became inevitable, resulting in soaring prices on imported goods, fleeing investors and mass unemployment.

        At this point the Left depended almost entirely on voters imported from the Third World, their loyalty bought with borrowed and newly printed money. When these outnumbered Americans the situation became untenable. Attacks on American civilians, and between the Third World groups themselves, were now so common that this period is often referred to as the “Twilight War”.

        The central government in Washington increasingly relied on temporary martial law in various hot spots. This backfired however when the armed American public … (next page)

      • BambiB
        August 10, 2014 at 2:41 pm

        Comments on the video.
        The cops clearly know from early on that these two are simply exercising their Second Amendment RIGHTS. I can understand a quick check. “Oh hi! Yeah, I know you. Yeah, we had another complaint, so we have to come check. Okay, keep it safe and have a nice day.” End of encounter.

        Instead we get, “If you move, the officer will shoot you in the head”. (I seriously doubt she could hit him in the head except by accident, or by emptying several magazines. Most cops can’t shoot for bumpkis.) This stop went on long enough to constitute a legal ARREST. Given that the two did nothing wrong, they may want to sue for false arrest… if only to ensure that future encounters are shorter in duration.

        A comment on what the cops did RIGHT. The backup officer (female) did NOT point her gun at the two. That’s an improvement over the average cop. And there wasn’t any of the “get on the ground” bullshit. The verbiage was a little edgy – but it didn’t sound like the cop was looking for any excuse to kill someone (which a lot of cops do).

        On the bad:
        The cop looks for ANY EXCUSE to arrest him… which is a little disappointing. The 1000 feet of a school thing is bullshit. The cops can’t even tell whether they’re within 1000 feet of a school. (Is the perimeter posted?)

        And of course, the entire encounter was too long and FAR too confrontational.

        Surprisingly, I think the cop’s heart is generally in the right place. He’s a Second Amendment supporter (sounds like a real one – the fakes don’t even know who Jeff Cooper was). And he has a legitimate (personal) point about how the carry of long guns might turn people against guns. There are two sides to that argument. But it’s a PERSONAL disagreement, and no reason to keep two guys jacked up for 20 minutes while he pontificates at gun point with the threat to “shoot them in the head” hanging over his every word.

        What would have really impressed me is if the cop who was doing all the talking had made this a 1 minutes stop and asked to get together with them later over a cup of coffee to discuss the matter. The irony is that he berates the two for going about a positive goal (broadening the right to keep and bear arms) in a wrong way (carrying in such a way that Joe Dumbshit is alarmed), while at the same time HE’S trying to accomplish a positive goal (getting these two to take more effective steps to support the Second Amendment) while threatening to “shoot them in the head” if they move.

    • triliberty516
      December 2, 2013 at 9:38 pm

      GREAT Article Thanks Eric. Love seeing you on LR

      • eric
        December 3, 2013 at 8:55 am

        Thanks, Web!

        Good to have you with us – and please encourage people you know to join in, too!

  2. captcow
    November 15, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    New York has a rarely enforced law that states that you can’t drive more than 20 MPH under the speed limit, I’ve seen that enforced once. A local guy in a tiny town had some drinks at the bar and went to drive home around 10:00pm, there were no other cars on the 3/4 mile drive to his house (except a napping cop on the side of the road) His car started running like crap and wouldn’t go over 10-12MPH, our napping hero sprang into action and pulled him over for driving too slow and then gave him a DWI. For about a year after that my friends and I would call PD every time some old timer was cruising down the road at 15 MPH, and there were a lot of senior citizens in this town. We finally had to stop when the chief threatened to arrest us for “harassing his secretary” with our daily calls.

    • clover
      November 16, 2013 at 2:25 pm

      I have to say this was a very very good video and what the cops said was exactly correct. Yes open carry may be legal in some states but from what I heard it is not legal for ex criminals. Aren’t criminals more likely to be carrying guns in our society? The cop was correct that it is not a good thing to carry a gun into a public place. If more people start doing that all that someone has to do is flinch if they are carrying a gun and someone is going to blow them away for their own safety. Idiots do not understand that. Clover

      I do like the speed limit sign. Personally I have not seen anyone driving 40 mph or under on the interstate unless there was heavy snow or ice but as Eric said before, it is only a number on the sign and people have the right to drive 20 mph down the interstate if they feel like it. I guess that is their libertarian right.

      • eric
        November 16, 2013 at 3:50 pm

        Well, Clover, you might be a criminal, too. Therefore – according to your own loathsome logic – you should be treated as if you were one until you prove otherwise, or to the satisfaction of some cop.

        You believe, of course, that such affronts cannot happen to you. Because you’re a good Clover and cops never abuse good little Clovers.

        Until they do.

        PS: How many times have you even heard about a criminal openly carrying a gun? Real criminals attempt to conceal their intentions, Clover. Open carriers are as likely to be criminals as three-year-olds are likely to win marathons.

        Per Dr. Evil: Why must I be surrounded by idiots?

        • clover
          November 16, 2013 at 7:40 pm

          CloverTell us Eric if you believe no one should be checked when openly carrying guns in a public place then why a criminal would have to conceal a weapon any longer. They can just have their guns handy when they walk into a place and do whatever they feel like with them.Clover

          • eric
            November 17, 2013 at 10:49 am

            Clover,

            First point: If it is legal to open carry, then a person who is open-carrying is by definition in compliance with “the law.” Yet you believe it’s acceptable for cops to subject a law-abiding person who has given no reason to suspect he’s committed any crime to hands-in-the-air/freeze-or-we’ll-shoot-you stops. Therefore, you believe “the law” is irrelevant. That legal conduct is not sufficient to entitle a citizen to be left to go about his business in peace.

            In which case, “the law” is meaningless – by definition. It is arbitrary - whatever a cop decides, at any given moment.

            Would you apply the same logic to your favorite hobby horse, “speeding”?

            You are driving along at the posted limit. A cop pulls you over and subjects you to a 15 minute delay while he “checks” to make sure of whatever he feels like making sure of.

            Are you ok with that? If not, why?

            I know you’re not capable of comprehending a logical argument, so the above is more for the benefit of others than it is for you.

            Second point: Open carrying means you’ve lost the element of surprise. Criminals prefer to surprise their victims, do they not? In your experience, is it typical for a criminal to make clear his intent? Moreover, the presence of armed citizens is a deterrent to criminals. Why do you suppose cops wear guns, Clover? Do you suppose they’d be more or less effective if people – if criminals – knew they were not armed?

            Your position is absurd.

          • clover
            November 17, 2013 at 12:04 pm

            CloverEric you do not understand. Having something being legal to do does not mean it is a good thing to do. In fact in this case it was purely stupid. I have no problems with someone having a gun at home but when they bring them into a public place and in this case flaunting it in front of everyone it is pure stupidity. I guess if you lived in a bad community area with a lot of drugs and gangs around where the police have not been able to do anything about it then carrying a gun in that area may be OK and in my mind legal but in this video that surly did not look to be the case. If you were a person that wanted to have guns outlawed then this kind of activity shown by these young guys was the best way to do it. If you want guns outlawed then go ahead and back up what those guys were doing.

          • eric
            November 17, 2013 at 12:15 pm

            Clover writes:

            “Having something being legal to do does not mean it is a good thing to do.”

            Good – according to whom? You? Some cop’s subjective judgment?

            Either a given thing is legal – or it isn’t.

            Only a Clover can worship “the law” – yet not mind when those charged with enforcing “the law” ignore “the law.”

            Your vacuity is just spectacular.

          • MamaLiberty
            November 17, 2013 at 12:56 pm

            Making something “illegal” doesn’t change for a moment the fact that those who wish to harm others don’t CARE about any law or prohibition. They don’t mind at all violating the laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. Why would any restriction on guns bother them in the least? In fact they are very happy to see all kinds of “laws” and restrictions enacted… they create more helpless victims and less chance of them getting hurt because only the “law abiding” pay any attention to them. You know, those who didn’t want to harm anyone in the first place.

            And that would be true even if guns were the only weapon criminals use, of course. The truth is that almost anything can be used as a weapon. In my own kitchen are dozens of things that could harm someone if I wished to do that. The UK has gone far down this silly rabbit hole, and all they do is produce more and more helpless victims for the few who want to do harm.

            Trust me. In a society where everyone is potentially armed, openly or concealed, there are few criminals. I know because I live in such a place. And every place could be that way, with a little “common sense” self responsibility rather than this endless whining that your safety is somehow dependent on making ME helpless.

            No, you can’t ever know who in a crowd might wish to do harm. Utopia is not an option. What you can do is prepare yourself to be a MAN, a human being, willing and able to defend themselves and others from that harm in the unlikely event you happen to be confronted with. I’ve been armed for more than 30 years, and only had to shoot once to save my life. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/?page_id=846 I’d do it again in a heartbeat if necessary, but in order to do so, I must remain armed.

          • clover
            November 18, 2013 at 11:39 pm

            MamaLiberty the facts are that with more guns available and handy more people are killed. One of the preppers or whatever you call them had an assault weapon for family defense and their kid went out and killed many innocent people with it. That never would have happened if the gun was not easily available and so distructive. The fact is there are many more at home accidents and family disputes that kill people with their own guns than any burglar ever kills anyone. Those facts are beyond depute.
            Clover
            With that said I do not want to live in a society where you have to carry a gun for safety. It has been many many generations since my family had to carry a gun for safety. Is the world getting that bad? Maybe if you say that it true that you are not allowing the police enough leeway in doing their job.
            Tell me why is it that you feel we have to carry guns for our protection but drunk driving or reckless driving are fine? That makes no common sense to me with the facts that are out there but I guess I use my brain better than others.

          • eric
            November 19, 2013 at 8:40 am

            Clover,

            Why is it, then, that there is an almost axiomatic (as in a mathematical relationship) between the presence of guns in the hands of ordinary people in a given community or area – and the relative absence of violent crime? If your assertion were true, then rural areas – where guns are as common as pick-ups – would be among the most violent places in the country. Yet they are in fact among the least violent places, in terms of your likelihood of being home-invaded or murdered in the street.

            Contrariwise, in communities or areas were guns are “controlled” – that is, areas in which ordinary people have been legally denied any effective means of defending themselves – one is much more likely to be violently attacked. Virtually all of the mass shootings have occurred… in “gun free” areas. In fact, I can’t recall one that took place in an area where concealed carry/open carry is legal and it is easy for an ordinary person to obtain and to keep a gun on his person. Can you?

            Why is that, Clover?

            PS: As usual, you’ve got your facts all wrong. The kid in Sandy Hook? He used a semi-automatic pistol. Not an “assault rife.” Like most of your tribe, you’re too dumb not to reveal your titanic ignorance about firearms. The civilian version of the AR-15 (the rifle the kid apparently took with him but did not use) fires a single shot each time the trigger is pulled. Just like a revolver. The fact that it has a military-style composite plastic stock or a flash suppressor does not make it functionally more lethal than a wood-grained hunting rifle. Both are semi-automatic. You and your despicable ilk like to use the emotionally loaded term, “assault rifle” to denigrate all rifles. But the fact is that rifles – semi-autos or military grade capable of selective fire – are almost never used to commit crimes. There have been a handful of mass shootings, yes. But compared with knifings or beatings-to-death-by hand, they are virtually nonexistent and you have virtually no chance of being slain by such a weapon.

            You do not want to carry a gun for safety? Yet you want to force everyone to buy air bags and be required to wear seat belts for safety?

            I thought safety was important to you, Clover?

            PS PS: Who here ever once wrote in defense of “drunk” or “reckless” driving? Yes, I’ve denounced treating everyone as presumptively drunk – and equating driving faster than an arbitrary number with “dangerous” – let alone “reckless” – driving.

            But those are very different things.

        • November 17, 2013 at 2:27 am

          The answer to your last question is because there aren’t enough smart people to surround yourself with.

          Seriously though, why is this person naming themself “Clover?” Did you force them to name themself thus, or change their name? Or did this person actually voluntarily choose to be named such? lol.

          • Tionico
            November 17, 2013 at 2:47 am

            Actually, I think that last CLover post was Eric his self… just being snarky. It was REEKING with sarcasm……

          • eric
            November 17, 2013 at 6:34 am

            Hi David,

            Nope! Clover’s name is (apparently) Clover. We ran with it. It has a certain ring to it, doesn’t it? Plus, it makes it possible to discuss this type in polite company without using profanity.

            I hope it catches on!

          • Ed
            November 17, 2013 at 10:09 am

            “It has a certain ring to it, doesn’t it? ”

            Uh….no, it doesn’t. Outside this site, it’s unknown. To say it’s obscure would be an understatement of monumental proportions.

            Try using it in a conversation in a live setting. It’s likely that responses would range from puzzlement to “what the fuck are you talking about?”

          • eric
            November 17, 2013 at 10:29 am

            Give it time, Ed…

          • dom
            November 17, 2013 at 10:22 am

            Google => “What is a clover?”

            It’s the second result on Google.

            Urban Dictionary:

            1. Clover

            1. A person that believes all laws are made for the common good, and that all laws have to be followed. Clovers generally believe that if someone does something that irritates them in some way that a law should be made to correct the problem – “There ought to be a law”. A Clover will always side with the police or the government no matter what egregious evil they have committed.
            Clovers believe that they are always doing the right thing, and therefore everyone should wait on them, or are basically oblivious to others’ needs.

          • Ed
            November 17, 2013 at 10:37 am

            Thanks, dom. I had already done that without the identifying phrase “what is”. Still, even though that’s the 2nd result, out of “About 56,300,000 results in .25 seconds” it’s also the ONLY result in all the pages I scrolled that doesn’t return a reference to the plant species.

            Maybe it’ll catch on, but so far it hasn’t. In the urban dictionary, it was provided by an ID called “prov6yahoo”, who has provided one definition to the UD, and that one was dated 2011. On UD, it was one of 18 results, and the only one which appeared to have been cut&pasted from here. The rest are even more obscure and I’ve never heard any of them used.

            ‘Course, that’s just me. Y’all seem to like it. I think it sounds fucking retarded. Just my opinion, of course.

          • Ed
            November 17, 2013 at 10:40 am

            Yeah, I’ll be holding my breath, eric. ;-) Meanwhile, the nesting performance on this page makes this my last response on the subject. All this scrolling up to find a reply button has made me lose interest.

      • Carpenter
        November 17, 2013 at 1:51 pm

        “If more people start doing that all that someone has to do is flinch if they are carrying a gun and someone is going to blow them away for their own safety. Idiots do not understand that.”

        You are the idiot for saying something like that. By that logic cars should not be used in public, because if a driver flinches someone will blow him away. Do you believe that? What an idiot.

        RIGHTS need to be USED or we will lose them. I won’t be frightened by socialists. If the cops harrass someone for open carry, and provoke him by talking about shooting him in the head (a ridiculous lie, as anyone with the least bit of gun training is told to aim for the body), then MORE people should carry openly. I hope that the men harrassed by the pigs in the video will carry guns in the open over and over again in the future. I also hope they got the cop’s full name.

      • November 26, 2013 at 7:48 pm

        So “people have the right to drive 20 mph down the interstate if they feel like it”.

        I have two things I want you to look up and give me your opinion on. Just your opinion, nothing formal.

        California Vehicle Code 21656
        California Vehicle Code 22400

        • eric
          November 27, 2013 at 6:22 am

          Hi Ayn,

          Clover’s “mind” is not capable, apparently, of registering the concept of not impeding others (and thereby creating a hazard in addition to being inconsiderate).

          If he were walking down the sidewalk and encountered a person who deliberately blocked his path by just standing there (or walking really slowly, making no effort to step to the side to let Clover walk past) Clover would not be patient much less argue that to attempt to pass this obstacle amounted to “reckless” and “dangerous” actions.

          Yet he will not apply the same principle to driving. Because Clover cannot apply principles. He seems to have no conceptual ability – the intellectual hallmark of a Clover.

          • November 30, 2013 at 1:36 am

            Yes, but in this case it is the law, and Clover also worships law.

  3. liberranter
    November 15, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    [Y]ou will readily come across examples of cops who don’t know the law – and enforce their own conception of it with impunity.

    “Legislating from a squad car,” as I call it.

  4. Shoal Creek
    November 15, 2013 at 3:23 pm

    As bad cops grow more bold, there is a growing trend to sue cops civilly in federal court under color of law civil rights violations. Often, these suits have begun to largely succeed because the most damning testimony comes right from the cop’s own incident report. I know of four recent cases in Millard County, Utah, and some other cases in West Valley City, Utah, where local police officers, sheriff’s deputies, a county commissioner, and even a justice of the peace not only had their bond revoked (to be in government, you must be bonded), making them ineligible for any government work (not to mention the private jobs that require you to be bonded), but also had a large judgement placed on their credit report, making pretty much anything these individual “heros” own subject to foreclosure by their original victims if they don’t pay the civil rights “damages.” The case in West Valley City has also lead to Federal Criminal civil rights prosecution against various officers, but I don’t know if that is just the Democratic leaning Federal Prosecutor for Utah seeing an opening to politically weaken the barely Republican majority in West Valley City.

    Word is finally getting out to more attorneys that thar’s gold in them thar hills of Civil Rights violations and that the territory is still ripe for the taking (in contrast to the Ambulance Chasers and Pharmaceutical lawsuits of past decades).

  5. Garysco
    November 15, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    But wait. After you get thumped, your car towed and anally probed in Deming, NM you also get the bill.

    Hospital bills man for rectal search he was forced to undergo by police

    http://rt.com/usa/hospital-bills-eckert-search-270/

  6. Tor Minotaur
    November 15, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    Retarded Policeman – Boobies!

    Detroit Cops Robbing Citizens
    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=44556

    Cop Tickets 26 Bicyclists At Once
    http://imgur.com/c2Vugav

    • Jacob
      November 16, 2013 at 10:08 pm

      Tor, I very much envy your youtube video collection.

  7. JoePA
    November 15, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    I know I’m going to get beat up for saying this but I watched the entire video and couldn’t find a single thing wrong in what the officers did. They were called to the scene of an armed suspicious person(s) and conducted an investigation. They acted in the utmost professional manner and I would give them thumbs up! Yea they used some harsh language but so did I when I was a cop. Harsh language is sometimes needed to prevent someone from escalating a preventable event. Remember!!!!! they were called by a person who thought they might be up to no good. The offers responded as they are supposed to and yes they fully understood the laws and the gentlemen walked away free.

    I laugh when I hear someone ask why an officer does not know all the laws. Lawyers and Judges constantly need to look up laws to refresh their memory. Arguments in court about the meaning of laws are common yet a cop on the beat is suppose to be some type of instant genius.

    Most officers today….myself included…… are not only college educated but come from a variety of professions. My last command had one teacher, three lawyers and sever truck drivers with a host of prior military. GED high school dropouts? Hardly.

    Stop blaming the officers because your government is out of control, bankrupt and corrupt. Blame yourselves and your neighbors for that!

    • eric
      November 15, 2013 at 6:51 pm

      Hi Joe,

      The fact that someone – some Clover – calls the cops to whine because they see a person lawfully open carrying ought to be treated as follows:

      Lady: Help! There is a man with a gun walking down the street!
      911 Dispatch: Is he doing anything?
      Lady: Yes! He has a gun!
      911 Dispatch: Ma’a,m, it is legal to “open carry” in this state. Is the man on your property? Has he threatened you? No? He’s just walking down the sidewalk? Ok. We’re very sorry, but there is no legal reason for us to dispatch a car as this person does not appear to be breaking any laws. Please try to calm down – and have a good night.

      The guys in this video didn’t do anything illegal. They were legally carrying. Therefore, the cops had no right – legally or otherwise – to subject them to a felony stop and a threatened roadside execution.

      Some Hillary for Dear Leader in 2016 fishwife is upset? Too got-damned bad – and the cops should be the ones telling the fishwife so.

      What would you think about cops doing a felony stop on me because some Clover called 911 to complain that my bright orange Trans Am scared her?

      People’s feelings should not be sufficient warrant to justify an “interview” by armed goons. A person either broke the law – or has given good cause to suspect he has – or he has not. If he has not, then he was every right to be left in peace.

      Period.

      • Me2
        November 15, 2013 at 7:04 pm

        JoePA – “I know I’m going to get beat up for saying this but I watched the entire video and couldn’t find a single thing wrong in what the officers did.”

        Why would you as you go on to state you acted as they did. Of course you seem to miss the entire point that Eric made, “the rule of law as opposed to the rule of whomever happens to wield authority.”

        Clearly you operated from the position that the law was whatever you said it was and violating the rights of those who had done nothing illegal in any way was acceptable to you.

        Congratulations, you have confirmed yourself as an armed criminal. More commonly referred to by us mundanes as a “PIG”.

        Eric – “What would you think about cops doing a felony stop on me because some Clover called 911 to complain that my bright orange Trans Am scared her?”

        Me, just another day in the ‘Land of the Free’.

        Do Americans still use that phrase, other than as a lament of what used to be?

      • JoePA
        November 15, 2013 at 7:10 pm

        Eric, I agree with you 100% …… BUT ……to be that way the officers out in the field should NOT be held accountable if something goes wrong. Lets say the officers saw those two guys with the rifle and did nothing cause no laws were visibly broken. Lets say they go and kill a bunch of people, who is responsible? In NYC the officers would be hung by the department, the media and finally by the murdered family. It happens so often most veterans become paranoid thinking this way. Now a cop responds thinking what will happen to me, my career and my family if I do nothing?

        Quick true story. In Staten Island many years ago people called 911 because a kid was dancing naked on a car. Officers screwed and screwed more respond and after an investigation it shows nothing more than a fraternity stunt. They tell the kids to beat and the kid leaves. Unfortunately the kid drives through a stop sign and kills a few people. Guess whose fault it was? Yup….both officer were fired because they did nothing even though the accident had nothing to do with the fraternity stunt. The Police Commissioner went on TV proclaiming the officers failed to act. The kid should have been arrested…blah blah blah. Sorry Eric but my original post stands.

        • eric
          November 15, 2013 at 7:19 pm

          Hi Joe,

          To me, this is passing the buck. No one is forced to hire on as a cop. If one chooses that line of work, then – in my opinion – one is obligated to at least follow the damn rules. If there is no legal cause to hassle someone (let alone cause based on some harm caused) then the cops ought to man up and abide by the damn law, even if means they might catch flack later on. Aren’t cops supposed to be brave? Heroes?

          Isn’t “the law” what they took an oath to uphold? What happened to that oath?

          I guess the same thing that happened to the Bill of Rights.

          • JoePA
            November 15, 2013 at 7:55 pm

            Eric I agree that its in a way cowardice but I considered it more survival, like a soldier keeping his head down in a firefight. Yes I chose policing as a career and it was a good career choice. Yes there are vast areas of policing that need to be changed. Officers should not be held accountable for what people do, period. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are now dead pieces of paper thanks to the controlling elites. I don’t have all the answers, I’m just saying it as I saw it.

            To the few that post obscenities…..you make yourselves look like hick illiterate fools when you post that dribble.

          • Me2
            November 15, 2013 at 8:15 pm

            JoePA – “To the few that post obscenities…..you make yourselves look like hick illiterate fools when you post that dribble.”

            Translated – “I have no rebuttal for those that pointed out that I am an abusive coward so I will whine about being insulted instead”

            So JoePA, how about answering my 7:27pm questions?

          • Ed
            November 16, 2013 at 8:30 pm

            “you make yourselves look like hick illiterate fools when you post that dribble.”

            Porky, you show yourself to be an uneducated asshole by posting such poorly worded sentences. The word you’re futilely struggling for is “drivel”. “Dribble” is what your little Tommee Tippee cup does when you drink coffee while driving your “publicly provided” cop car.

        • Linda
          November 15, 2013 at 8:11 pm

          Tell us JoePA, how screaming obscenities at a law-abiding person is supposed to do anything but cause the situation to escalate!

          How would any sane person react to someone shouting obscenities at them? For what purpose to pigs shout at non-violent persons?

          The officers have no sense of obligation to those who are footing the bill for the cops’ paychecks.

          And obviously no sense of obligation to uphold the law of the land.

          Get real.

          • Linda
            November 15, 2013 at 8:13 pm

            For what purpose “do” pigs shout? not ‘to’ shout

          • anarchyst
            November 16, 2013 at 2:34 pm

            Let’s not forget that it is recommended (unofficially and discreetly) as part of “police academy training that “law enforcement officers” obtain and carry a “throwdown” weapon in case there is a “questionable situation” that needs to be “cleared up”. A throwdown weapon is acquired by taking a weapon from a “suspect” . . . who is usually “released from arrest” for providing this “contribution” to the “law enforcement community”.

        • MikeFromWichita
          November 15, 2013 at 11:17 pm

          “Lets say the officers saw those two guys with the rifle and did nothing cause no laws were visibly broken. Lets say they go and kill a bunch of people, who is responsible? In NYC the officers would be hung by the department, the media and finally by the murdered family. It happens so often most veterans become paranoid thinking this way. ”

          Oh BullShit Joe- NYC make it clear 30 years ago that Porktards in Blue have absolutely no obligation of any sort to the mundanes.

        • Bobbye
          November 17, 2013 at 12:57 pm

          There ought not be any officers to call at all. Once King John hires the Sheriff of Notingham, and the Sheriff hires his men it becomes inevitable that the first time a young man is seen with a bow the Sheriff will dispatch his men to make sure that the young man with the bow is not going to kill one of the KIng’s deer.

        • Bevin
          November 19, 2013 at 12:30 am

          Dear Joe,

          “Eric, I agree with you 100% …… BUT ”

          A wise man once observed that everything a man says before the word “BUT” can be safely ignored.

          As in “I believe in individual liberty, BUT… ”

          You know what the definition of a libertarian is?

          A libertarian is a person who refuses to append the word “BUT” to the statement “I believe in individual liberty.”

          You need to decide what you want to be, and be it.

    • Ed
      November 15, 2013 at 7:06 pm

      “Stop blaming the officers because your government is out of control, bankrupt and corrupt. Blame yourselves and your neighbors for that!”

      Oh, bullshit, Porky. How is it the fault of anyone but the cop when he decides on his own in defiance of the rule of law to abuse and threaten citizens? Oh, yeah, blame your neighbor because one of your fatassed colleagues is a fucking criminal.

      It makes more sense to blame you and your fellow porktards. you’re the ones who protect the politicians from the rest of us, and you’re the ones who obey their commands.

      You are a stupid cocksucker, Joe. Fuck you and every other asshole who gets a paycheck for pushing the rest of us around.

      • RothbardianamericanHelot
        November 15, 2013 at 8:07 pm

        You’re awesome, Ed.
        Ten hour days are killing me, I can’t keep up with you guys.

        When I read this: “I considered it more survival, like a soldier keeping his head down in a firefight.”

        … I’m so tired and wore out I can’t even put it to words how wrong that statement is.

        • Ed
          November 16, 2013 at 8:15 pm

          Roth, I worked a few jobs with four ten hour shifts. That’s a killer, so you must be really worn out by working 5 or more shifts a week. I don’t think I could do what you’re doing now. You’re awesome your ownself. ;-)

      • liberranter
        November 18, 2013 at 7:42 pm

        You are a stupid cocksucker, Joe. Fuck you and every other asshole who gets a paycheck for pushing the rest of us around.

        It’s sad, because Joe seemed like a really reasonable guy up until this thread. It would appear that, with very few exceptions, the popular phrase Marines throw around, the follow on to “Semper Fi” (“Fi” to fellow gangbangers, that is) applies here as well: once a cop, ALWAYS a cop.

        Apparently Joe is always going to have certain blind spots. I guess that’s a lingering effect of porkademy training, much like the conditioning of 13 weeks of boot camp is to a Marine.

        • Ed
          November 18, 2013 at 9:58 pm

          Lib, There’s a vid posted on another thread where the cop smacks a guy down. The guy says to the cop something like, Hey, don’t get up in my face. I’m a soldier, US Army” The cop sucker punches him and yells “I’m Marine!”

          People get their minds and characters altered by their association with military or police units, the same as with street gangs. It’s sad, and it’s also dangerous for those of us who ain’t in their gang.

    • Rich
      November 15, 2013 at 7:32 pm

      I watched the video and had the exact opposite reaction. No reason to approach the citizens. They were doing nothing illegal. The state has no business questioning these two. Define “acting suspicious” and “being up to no good”. You make interactions with armed state agents with arrest powers sound so benign. If the officers fully understood the law, they would not have approached these two. There was no preventable event that needed de-escalating. It only existed in the minds of the officers. Professional thuggery is still thuggery!

      • Me2
        November 15, 2013 at 7:37 pm

        Rich – “You make interactions with armed state agents with arrest powers sound so benign.”

        Just a quibble but I think, “You make interactions with armed state agents with *summary execution* powers sound so benign.” would be more accurate.

        • Rich
          November 15, 2013 at 7:48 pm

          Yes! And JoePA is worried about police being held accountable. I see very few police officers being held accountable for anything.

    • VicD
      November 16, 2013 at 8:35 am

      Most cops ARE cops because they are too stupid to make donuts or change.

      • eric
        November 16, 2013 at 8:55 am

        I agree, Vic – but it’s worse than that.

        Dumb is bad. But violent and dominance-minded is much worse.

        The profession – if you can call it that – is about force projection and obedience to authority. It attracts a certain psychological type.

        The wrong type to be endowed with arbitrary authority over others – and the lethal means to enforce it.

      • Horse Badorties
        November 16, 2013 at 10:27 am

        ‘K. I’ll feed the troll, just this once.
        Things have changed, I know – but don’t know it directly since I’ve always tried to avoid engagement with LEOs whenever possible, and last contact was about 10 years ago.

        Funny story that – this was in the 65 Chevy van again, and it was parked.
        A sunny Saturday afternoon, beautiful day, roomie and his fiance are fighting, so I bug out to give them & me some space. Take the van down to an old road that follows the river, park by the side of the road in the shade of some big trees, river moving past just to my right, empty field on my left.
        I turn in the seat to kick up my legs over the doghouse, brew a fresh cup of coffee on a small butane stove perched on the doghouse, watching the river right in front of me now, windows down, sounds of peace & stillness. A sip of coffee, a hit off the peace pipe, and I resume reading a Carl Hiassen novel. Life is good.

        Eventually an LEO shows up, lights flashing, pulls in behind me.
        I should have expected this – the isolated spot was also directly under one of the major flight paths of the Sacramento airport, and it wasn’t that long after 9/11, one of the two or three cars that had driven by in the last hour must have phoned in a report. I swivel in the seat and put both hands outside the window by the mirror to help calm his mind. He approaches and asks some questions, I explain what I’m doing and why I’m here, (except for the part about the peace pipe, which is on the doghouse behind the stove, behind the curtain between front & back.)

        He asks me to exit the vehicle and stand with my hands on the vehicle spread out. No problem, no hassle, I see where he’s coming from and just want to make his job easy for him, so we can both get this over with. He’s been sic’d on me as a possible terrorist with a van full of SAMs, he’s alone, and to say he’s nervous would be an understatement. He uses his baton to push aside a bit of the curtain, sees that the back is completely empty. The look on his face said that he half expected to be looking into the barrel of a Mossberg.
        I told this story to a friend/coworker after (a former MP in the first Iraq war) and he said, “Yeah, if you stop a van full of bad guys, and they want you dead, you’re pretty much dead.”

        The officer was relieved to find out that I was just drinking coffee and reading a good book. I’m trying to think of the last time I saw work related stress writ so large on someone’s face. He thanked me for cooperating, and we wished each other a good day. As it should be. I didn’t feel like my rights were violated, and we achieved the optimal outcome. Now, if I’d been looking for a fight w/ The Man, on philosophical grounds, the outcome would have been different. How stupid.

        • Eightsouthman
          November 16, 2013 at 10:38 pm

          Horse, a few tokes, a good cup of Joe and Carl Hiassen. I call that steppin in high cotton.

          • Horse Badorties
            November 17, 2013 at 2:48 am

            It was a good day, well spent. :-)

      • November 16, 2013 at 5:54 pm

        To be precise, criminals, cops, and politicians are cut from the same cloth. The least intelligent (at least in terms of thinking about consequences) become criminals, the most become politicians, and cops fill the middle ground.

        • Garysco
          November 16, 2013 at 8:41 pm

          @Ayn R Key – Damn, should have been a multimillionaire Wall Street investment banker, or munitions maker, or an executive or scientist working for Monsanto. Or maybe a used car salesman, or a derivative insurance salesman for A.I.G. ? I could be driving my Lambo to the Adirondacks on the weekends instead of hanging with all those criminals you describe.

          Your blanket statements make you look foolish.

          • November 16, 2013 at 10:32 pm

            If you’re going to accuse me of making blanket statements, then please accurately portray the blanket statement I am alleged to make. Saying “they are cut from the same cloth” is not the same as saying “they are the same thing.” Your version is called “a straw man.”

            Oh, and it might benefit you to learn that libertarians think Capitalism and Corporatism are not the same thing.

          • Garysco
            November 16, 2013 at 11:01 pm

            Well lets play a word game if you desire. What is your denfintion of “cut from the same cloth”?

        • Ed
          November 16, 2013 at 10:14 pm

          ” criminals, cops, and politicians are cut from the same cloth. ”

          Exactly correct. All three types are sociopaths. Sociopaths construct justifications for their crimes. In the case of politicians, many are lawyers who realize that stautory law and regulations are perfect cover for the crimes they can commit in office with absolute impunity.

          Cops utilize self deception to justify to themselves the crimes they commit under color of their authority, which is granted to them by the politicians.

          Criminals are the most honest about their intentions to live criminal lives. They know full well that what they do for a living is criminal and detrimental to others, so they don’t have to engage in the elaborate justifications of the other two types and they aren’t nearly as likely to paint themselves as heroes to the victims of their crimes.

        • Eightsouthman
          November 16, 2013 at 10:52 pm

          Ayn, I know lots of criminals. For the most part they never get charged with anything since they wear badges. The victims of The WAr on Some Drugs however are the people who want nothing more or less than to be left alone. I bring this up since the majority of criminals are guilt of nothing more than being libertarians in their own minds and certainly don’t think of themselves as “criminal”. I think Tor had a good post about that.

          • Bobbye
            November 17, 2013 at 1:20 pm

            Mr. Liberty decides for himself that owning a gun is good and just wants to be left alone. Mr. Sociopath has decided for himself that owning a gun is evil, but also that his ‘belief’ must be universal; for the good of the children. Mr. Sociopath hires Mr. Psychopath to go to Mr. Liberty’s house and ‘protect’ the children by putting a few dozen bullets into the body of Mr. Liberty. The children are now safe.

    • tionico
      November 17, 2013 at 3:19 am

      You’re wrong. If such carry is lawful (and the cops agreed it is in that jurisiction) they have NO PLACE to detain someone within the law. So, some wussie get her knickers knotted at the sight of a gun. I don’t like the sight of forty pound cats that lay about ans stink. Can I call the coppers on that? Nope. I have to suck it up and shut it up. It would have taken about fifteen seconds of following, slowly, on the proper side of the roadway, pacing the “suspects” to observe them… and readily discern that they were no threat. They were simply “travelling” whilst in lawful possession of firearms. After all this maltreatment of the two chaps, the coppers should have got on their ray dee oh and had someone call 911 dispatch and tell THEM to call back that complainer and inform them that there was no violation, no reason to detain the two, and that before calling again on such a matter, they need to make sure there is CAUSE for suspicion, and simple possession is NOT suspicion.

      As to all the phoney rhetoric the cops were blathering.. “it HURTS our position”, “think of all the laws they’re gonna pass” in this town, restricting.. but Charlie KNEW the law better than the copper…. HE knows that state law trumps local (preemption) so their little town council can’t make any laws more restrictive than state.. which allows open carry. Seattle’s stupid council tried passing such a ban, got the slap down all the way to the State Supreme Court, spend boatloads of public money, two mayors, all to get told the same thing our states AtG told Nickels in a strong letter as he was trying to shove this down the Council’s throat. Dummy!!

      What needs to happen is, in incidents like this, after the cop assures himself all is well, is to go back and chew out the person who called, educating THEM. That’s wha happened in Washington a few years back… constant “man with a gun, oh dear” calls, cops detaining, arresting, prosecutors slamming charges on innocents…. finally the AtG sent round a letter to ALL LEO, prosecutors, and 911 exchanges… HEY, guys, mere possession of a gun in public is NOT illegal in Washington, you 911 operators ask the questions to find out what is going on.. if he’s waving it about, pointing it at folks, play-shooting, charging folks,m why yes, there IS a problem. Walking down the street, shopping, standing in line at the bank, eating in a restaurant, sitting on a park bench.. DON”T CALL, and don’t “contact”. Within a few months, all those calls….. STOPPED.

      These two cops and their “nanny lectures” were WAY out of line. I’d have gone had a chat with the police chief, instrucing HIM to have his guys learn the law, deal with false calls, observe quietly to figure out what’s up, and stop harrassing people who are within the law.

      • eric
        November 17, 2013 at 6:18 am

        Exactly, Tionico –

        What’s the saying? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

        Cops – and courts – throw that at us mundanes with regularity.

        So when we know the law – and cops are ignorant of it – what then?

        If they refuse to respect the law, what’s the incentive for us to respect them?

    • Boothe
      November 17, 2013 at 11:01 am

      JoePa – The cops are the face of gun-vernment at the local level and they are sworn to uphold the law. Now if Eric, I or any other mere mundane does anything remotely aggressive, including using profanity toward the police, we will most likely suffer “roadside justice” in the form a tasing, beating, take-down on the pavement, manacles and possibly even a shooting. Yet when these “public servants” use harsh language (a good way to escalate a situation, probably intentionally) you make excuses for them? No sucker, they are the public interface for government and if they behave like spoiled children and schoolyard bullies, that is their fault as individuals. You can’t put their behavior off on some other mysterious group of corrupt and out of control government officials; it’s a matter of their own free will and they are government officials; sworn to boot.

      And if you behaved badly toward your fellow countrymen while you were a cop, that makes you a bad cop. That’s how it is. You can’t rely on this tired mantra of ‘it’s impossible to know all the laws’ either. You took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and by extension, the bill of rights. But from what I’ve seen cops do indeed presume the rest of us to be guilty until we can prove ourselves innocent, which is completely contrary to the legal tenets this nation was supposedly founded on. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the prosecutor is going after you with a vengeance once a cop accuses you of something. After all, he has to have a high conviction rate if he wants to be the next Attorney General. Law and order and all that tripe. But when “your” (as in the local cops’) “confidential informant was trespassing on my property, stealing from me, cooking meth, stalking my wife and pulling the corner markers for my property out of the ground, “you”, the cops gave him and his girlfriend a free pass. Oh by the way, he’s not a taxpayer either, since he’s (fraudulently) on disability and food stamps; he’s tax-feeder. Is that why your ilk protected him? Birds of a feather? In all the years I’ve worked and paid into the system (since 1976), overwhelmingly my interactions with the police have been costly, negative and counterproductive. When I needed something done about the scumbag next door your ilk was covering for him. But all I needed to do was tell the local dope-heads roughly where his pot was growing and they scoured the woods and meted out justice to him at no charge for the last two years I lived there. Something your precious system couldn’t and wouldn’t do. I can honestly say I’ve had a helluva lot less trouble from potheads over the years than I have from cops. And let me point out that none of that wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t stolen from and threatened me first; I couldn’t care less what he was growing or putting in his body as long as he left me and mine alone.

      Oh and there’s that nasty little truth of cops joking about “testi-lying” too. That’s a euphemism for perjury which is not only a crime, but a violation of the fundamental or natural law of not bearing false witness against your neighbor as well as violating your oath of office. I had a cop here in Missouri very arrogantly inform me that in court “what I say goes.” We finally managed to get enough on him to have him removed from the sheriff’s dept. for stealing, but subsequently found out he’d been fired from another county for the same thing. That sheriff covered it up (presumably to keep the smudge off his reelection campaign) and exported the problem two counties over. After all, there was a lot of taxpayer money tied up in this thug’s “training.” So with no bad marks for raiding the evidence room and “years of law enforcement experience” on his resume, despite lying, stealing, running up debt and threatening the citizenry, he was able to move on to the next sheriff’s dept. and do it all over again. That was his choice, don’t try to blame that on some ethereal “corrupt government.”

      I’ve known some good cops over the years, just like I’ve known some good career military men. The problem is that they typically have to operate in a moral vacuum and either end up turning a blind eye and going with the flow, or getting out cynical, bitter and disillusioned. So that leaves the sociopaths, psychopaths and those who will “go along to get along” to run “the system.” You will never change the system, any system of any size at least, from within. Resistance to change is a fundamental human trait and especially when the humans involved are protecting their paychecks, power and turf. They will find a way to can you if you appear to be a threat to their gig and you know that. The best you can hope for is to educate enough people to cut funding. The only way to curtail police corruption as well as any brand of government corruption is to have less cops and less government, plain and simple. Cut the money (i.e. avoid paying taxes any way you can at the individual level) and you cut the corruption because you have fewer people on the government teat. Otherwise, there will be blood.

    • Fred
      November 18, 2013 at 11:31 pm

      “Stop blaming the officers because your government is out of control, bankrupt and corrupt. Blame yourselves and your neighbors for that!”

      Just following orders eh?

  8. Me2
    November 15, 2013 at 7:27 pm

    JoePA – ” It happens so often most veterans become paranoid thinking this way. Now a cop responds thinking what will happen to me, my career and my family if I do nothing?”

    Is this supposed to excuse the violation of the innocent? Your fear (of your own kind) entitles you to abuse others?

    • Linda
      November 15, 2013 at 10:11 pm

      “Your fear (of your own kind) entitles you to abuse others?”

      Isn’t that the definition of a bully?

    • JoePA
      November 16, 2013 at 9:56 am

      I never violated any innocents or abused anyone. In fact the only complaints after 20 years in law enforcement was I called someone an “idiot” which is not in my vocabulary and the others were failure to take police action. The failure to take police action were people wanted me to break laws to achieve their purpose. As one example in a landlord tenant dispute a landlord called 911 because an old tenant broke into his apt. The investigation showed the landlord allowed the tenant into the apt, called 911 then wanted the old tenant arrested……by his own admission. Obviously this does not violate anything. After this happened the landlord made a complaint against me stating that I let a burglar go free. If the landlord did not slip up and state he allowed the tenant back into his apt I would have arrested the tenant just to cover my ass. This in the face of the fact that the tenant could NOT have been able to get back into the apt without the help of the landlord. On the job EVERY cop knows one term learned early on in their career….CYA. Cover Your Ass. It is not in reference to abusing anyone but in ensuring you the cop does not end up in a bad way. Now go back to calling me porky…..lol

      • Me2
        November 16, 2013 at 11:34 am

        JoePA – “I never violated any innocents or abused anyone. In fact the only complaints after 20 years in law enforcement was I called someone an “idiot” which is not in my vocabulary and the others were failure to take police action.”

        JoePA – ” Yea they used some harsh language but so did I when I was a cop.”

        Get your story straight Joe. Exactly what part of threatening to execute an innocent is not abuse? Of course ‘harsh language” is not abuse when a cop does it but is grounds for a beat down if a mere mundane does so to a cop.

        And you still managed to not answer the 7:27pm questions. Typical coward pig.

      • MikeFromWichita
        November 16, 2013 at 2:05 pm

        “I never violated any innocents or abused anyone.”

        No Joe EVERY DAMN TIME while wearing your Stasi Suit you stopped someone going about their ordinary concerns to bark Threats and Orders YOU ABUSED THEM. PERIOD. EOS. EVERY DAMN TIME you exercised your Porktard discretion to excuse a friend/kin/fellow PorkTard from the Rules you impose on everyday mundanes who cross your path you ABUSED the public at large. Every time you covered for overlooked the criminality of a fellow PorkTard (by the Rules your sort applies to us mundanes) or made shit up in Court you acted as an abusive POS.

        Thing is Joe you are useless to society. You never ever prevent crime…………BUT rather often commit what would be crimes IF the acts were those of mundanes. Your sort ‘on patrol’ packing a hogleg are dangerous to innocents and generally unneeded. Concealed Carry civilians are all the rapid response a Community needs. Crime scene investigation and apprehension of real criminals (those who hurt people and break/take stuff) can be handled by private for fee agencies.

        At a minimum ALL agents of the State should be completely unarmed while on duty unless assigned to security of a specific State facility. None of you should draw a pension prior to age 65. Lying (which includes not divulging the full truth in a criminal case) to or about a member of the public while on duty should bring a long term in the most brutal prison the State owns. Lying in a capital case should result in your hanging.

        • Horse Badorties
          November 16, 2013 at 2:14 pm

          Wow, Mike switched sides and went reductio ad absurdem.
          What a waste of time, Dom, can we get him on pay-per-post?

        • Bobbye
          November 17, 2013 at 1:38 pm

          Mostly correct Mike; there should not be a state for there to be any Agents of. LEO’s only function is to enforce the edicts of the state and to defend the state from the people. Anyone with that job is an enemy of liberty.

      • Ed
        November 16, 2013 at 8:08 pm

        “Now go back to calling me porky”

        I never stopped, Porky. Of course I may sometimes use your full name, Porky JoeinPA.

        Otay, Buh-weet? Otay, Porky.

  9. BrentP
    November 16, 2013 at 2:52 am

    I have on previous occasions expressed how I see the functional law to be social. To be a matter of perception. That nobody reads the written law, even cops. Law ends up being what people believe it to be, and thus it decays to a pre-magnacarta state.

    Recently I read an article showing how an AP history study guide summarizes the bill of rights. In those summaries they managed to completely twist it around. There is in the USA an adversarial way of doing things, it’s a culture of the scam in many respects that underlie how everything works. Thus people are scammed with regard to what the law is. They are taught incorrectly from the day they step into government school and I am sure the police academies are no different. The only way to know differently is to research, to be open to idea that one’s government school teachers lied.

    Written law starts to matter several layers of court into it. Which means it is for rich people. People with the money and connections to ruin a street cop’s life. The rest of us? Violence and authority is the law. Sure with determination a mundane can pull it off, but just one jurisdiction over he’ll have to start again from scratch.

    But who is really to blame for this condition? The people, specifically those who are too lazy to read, to research, those who want to control their neighbors. I found that following the written law is one of the socially most rebellious things a person can do. Especially if it is done with something that makes a person different. Open carry falls under that as does vehicular bicycling. Anything that goes against what people commonly believe. It brings what are called ‘clovers’ here out of the woodwork and angers them considerably IME.

    How can we get back to written law? Education I suppose. Then there is a lot of written law that needs fixing.

    • Garysco
      November 16, 2013 at 5:29 am

      @Brent – As a retired cop I think you are both right and a little off base.

      Back “in the day” police academies taught the state statute law (the ones with the numbers in the books), and the application of or the “intent” of the law, not just the strict enforcement of the letter of the law. they still sort of do. Actually a cop who “pays attention” will graduate with more “codified” state law then a lawyer who passes the bar, because lawyers never open a state code book in law school. As with public education in general, we as a culture headed for Idiocracy and that includes police training. To me most new cops are more fascinated with their toys then then the correct application (intent of the law) of the law. So they act in a stupid way, but think they are correct because their bosses tell them so. And they generate “stats” for the chief to wave in front of the public when asking for more money and people. It is a total bullshit game, but that is what is happening.

      For 12 years since Bush #2 and the 9/11 kick-off event, all police agencies are now run by the federal government propaganda agency called the Department of Homeland Security. Ever wonder why all agencies were consolidated overnight under one czar after 9/11? It was a plan already on the shelf waiting for an event. All police departments, and their brass have been federalized, and trained by virtue of money given in exchange for control of the local cops. There may a few exceptions, but very few. Ask you local agency how much in federal grants and money they take from their new masters. It will be a big chunk of their annual budget.

      That propaganda is designed on purpose to create a Stasi police force for the feds to use. They don’t give a shit about the individual cop or the citizen he abuses. The psych-out is they know the public will get pissed and challenge back, which is what they want in order to increase the force they will use to maintain “order” and “control”. Street cops are now brainwashed to fear the public, and that is why we are seeing their overreaction. The brass backs them up – if they want to keep their gold lapel bars and stars long enough to get the fat pension.

      Lawyers are taught to argue the philosophy of the law and run his practice by the “rules” of his business. The best explanation I was ever given was from a very good criminal defense attorney ” I argue the inarguable”.

      In the end we have corrupt bunch black robed fellows who say this and that search, seizure, and use of force is OK because we say so, not because it is constitutional. The days of playing by the old rules are gone.

      • JoePA
        November 16, 2013 at 10:06 am

        As a retired cop myself I agree. A lot of what went wrong was after 9/11. The creation of Homeland Security was the last nail in the coffin of our rights. Police misconduct if its politically correct is totally justified…..if it conflicts with an entitled few the cop hangs. The rule of law does not apply anymore.

        • eric
          November 16, 2013 at 12:24 pm

          Morning, Joe!

          You wrote, “The rule of law does not apply anymore.”

          Exactly.

          That is just the point I was trying to make.

          If a citizen who has not broken any laws, who has given no reason to suspect he may have, cannot expect to be left alone by the law – then the law is no law at all, but the essence of tyranny.

          Cops who behave tyrannically deserve our contempt, not our support.

          Is it tough sometimes to do the right thing? Of course it is.

          But a man ought to always make the effort. And if he does not, he is something less than a man.

          And certainly no “hero.”

          • JoePA
            November 16, 2013 at 3:44 pm

            Eric…as a side note. A friends son just came back from Iraq and Afganistan. He understands fully the pointless and abusive nature of being an occupying army (Marines) yet just reinlisted because they are giving him $45,000 cash bonus. According to your website he is also part of the problem. I agree with you but the point I’m always trying to make is that the problem will not ever ever ever be made by the people. The government needs to be cleaned up and everything else will self correct.

          • eric
            November 16, 2013 at 3:53 pm

            But Joe, aren’t you putting the cart before the horse?

            Does not the government reflect the people (in general)?

            I cannot absolve those who willingly and knowingly partake of evil. And – I mean no offense – it is evil to openly concede, as your friend’s son has, that it is “pointless” and “abusive” (your words) to participate in the brutal occupation of a foreign land yet freely choose do so for the most nihilistic and base reason there is – money.

            It makes me sick.

            It ought to make you sick, too.

      • BrentP
        November 16, 2013 at 1:36 pm

        I’ve encountered far too many made up laws in my life to believe cops have any good working knowledge of the written law or they are just running scams on people. Challenging them on it results in anger on their part. However they have not gone through with a ticket when challenged.

        • Ed
          November 16, 2013 at 8:01 pm

          True, Brent. I was ticketed for “reckless driving” on I-95 by a state trooper who insisited that he was giving me a break by not also ticketing me for passing on the right when I had passed an old asshole doing 45 in the left lane by moving to the center lane to get by him.. I told him that passing on the right is only illegal if it involves driving on the verge (off the pavement or over the white line on a multi-lane highway) or completely off the road.

          The trooper insisted that he was right and that he writes tickets for that “all the time”. This trooper didn’t know the law or had made up his own version of the law and was forcing people, who hadn’t violated any law, to shell out money or go to court.

          He either failed to learn the law or failed to give a shit. Most cops have similar failures in their career histories.

          • BrentP
            November 17, 2013 at 2:20 am

            My favorite is when I encountered an aggressive driving cook county mounty on Lake-Cook road. Typical bully type aggressive driving common with cops and some others where he could not plan more than one move ahead. I usually plan three or four moves ahead so it wasn’t long before I was ahead of this cop. I have entered the clear road and am in the left hand lane. Next thing I know the cop has cleared traffic and is coming up on me fast. He’s on my ass as I am passing traffic to my right. I clear the slower traffic and the right lane ends ahead… the cop cuts over nearly taking the corner off my car. I look at him as he passes and he passes and then stops. I stop. He waves me by and then pulls me over.

            Yes, kids, I got pulled over for looking at a cop in a way he didn’t approve of. He then goes on about how I didn’t turn left in two light or something… I tell him there is no such law. He gets angry. He tells me he read about it in the newspaper. There is no such law. Dickhead cop starts leaning on my car’s side mirror (this was my ’97 mustang) trying to piss me off. I say nothing. He keeps exercising his authoritah and then tells me turn on my headlights… at 3pm in the afternoon in dry overcast winter weather and allows me to leave. Again something else to threaten me with a ticket over that is made up. Illinois doesn’t require headlights to be on in the afternoon when the sun is up and it’s not snowing/raining/sleeting.

            The “law” he read about, I vaguely remember. It was a proposed to the chicago city council and went no where. We where no where near chicago, in fact, in a few more miles we wouldn’t even be in cook county any longer. And just feet off the road to our right was Lake county if we weren’t already in lake county by virtue of being on that side of the road. (the line isn’t down the center, the road is for most of its length entirely in cook county as I understand but there are parts where that isn’t true and I never looked up this particular stretch)

            Most of the other made up laws are when I’ve been bicycling. The cops are just like the clovers, they have a made up idea of how bicyclists should use the road.

        • Tionico
          November 17, 2013 at 3:35 am

          Had a cop pull me over and ticket me for “chain towing on a freeeway” in Calif.. which IS illegal. Funy thing… when he saw me he was going the other way, went through the median, came after me. I saw HIM, and knew what he was up to. The offramp I’d already planned to take (I KNOW about chain towing on the freeway) was just at the start of the freeway, I HAD been on four lane divided, but NOT “controlled access”, taking the offramp as my lanes turned to full freeway. I tried to explain to this guy that where I was did NOT qualify as freeway. He wrote. And showed up in court. Funny thing… I had subpoenaed a guy from Dept of transportation and his maps…. I had the cop identify the route I had taken, then questioned the engineer…. he showed exactly where the “boundary” was between controlled/open access.. and, according to the cop, I’d never BEEN in the controlled part. The judge picked up his cute little wooden hammer and said CASE DISMISSED, you, sir, are free to go.

          I could hear the cop sizzling as I left the courtoom… AFTER thanking the engineer. He thought it was pretty funny, too.

    • Rog
      November 16, 2013 at 9:50 am

      @Brent If we, or the cops were following the written law there would be no traffic stops for the average person. There would be no tickets for speeding or failure to stop at a red light or many of the myriad “violations.” All state motor vehicle codes are directed at commercial use of the roads. A “vehicle” is a commercial conveyance using the roads for profit, a “driver” is a”Person” (a fiction, a corporation, one who drives for the fiction. The now unused appellation “driver’s license” is proof that the license belongs to someone other than the one “operating” the “vehicle” ) etc. Just go to the definition section of any state’s mvc and you will see it does not apply to the average joe running around in his car.

      If we want to get back to written law we have to learn how to read it, as deceptive as it is.

    • Bobbye
      November 17, 2013 at 1:56 pm

      Brent: the law became subject to interpretation by the courts and thus ceased to be ‘ written in stone’. Thou shall not commit murder used to not be subject to interpretation. It meant, don’t commit murder. 500 years later it meant, don’t commit murder. 1000 years later it meant, don’t commit murder. It was always subject to an investigation as to whether the accused did in fact commit murder, but the meaning of ‘commit murder’ was plainly understood. Now we have an injustice system that insist that it gets to define “commits murder’. It of course finds that summery execution by the police is NOT murder. “Precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little”(Is28:13).

  10. derfel cadarn
    November 16, 2013 at 5:46 am

    It is totally outside the mandate of the police officer to interpret the law. Their primary justification is enforcement of the law. Their training for their primary function is grossly inadequate as for the other they are completely incompetent . Yet we continue to see that incompetence is now a hallmark of government at ALL levels.

    • Garysco
      November 16, 2013 at 5:58 am

      Not altogether true. Case law is what the judges and appellate courts say it is, and that is what the cop is supposed to go by.

      An example is a a California law, still on the books, that states a cop may use deadly force on “any” fleeing felon. These days that could be a child support casem or other some such rule on the books. Case law has limited that to meaning only when another life is threatened.

    • eric
      November 16, 2013 at 8:03 am

      Indeed.

      And, all this confusion would be dissipated at a stroke if the only standard that mattered was – has anyone (or anything) been harmed or damaged?

      If yes, then there is cause for restraint – and for holding the offender accountable.

      If not, then the cops (peace officers, if we had a free society) would have no business with him.

      Simple, intelligible, fair.

      Which is precisely why we don’t have that.

  11. Andy S
    November 16, 2013 at 6:24 am

    Since you asked, I can tell you my Asian wife was pulled over by the cops for driving too slow on the 101 freeway near San Francisco airport.

    Is she a Clover? I say no. A Clover is a manipulative control freak who intentionally holds you up in order to show off their status as a “law abiding” driver. They want to wield power over you, so the drive slowly on purpose, making you wait for no good reason.

    My wife is simply a bad driver who didn’t get a license until she was in her 30’s and who is afraid when driving, especially in traffic or at high speed (over 55). So she drives very slowly just to be safe. She comes to a complete stop when she smashes into something and “scratches” the side of the car or when she cracks the oil pan as she runs over the parking space divider in the parking lot.

    Really, she’s not a Clover. I promise you. You need to learn to discriminate.

    • eric
      November 16, 2013 at 8:01 am

      Good stuff, Andy!

      I agree that slow driving as such is not the mark of a Clover. It is just as you said: Trying to force others to drive slowly.

      Brent made a really good point the other day. He wrote that he rarely finds himself being tailgated. The reason? He uses his mirrors and when he notes a car coming up behind him, he moves over before the car gets to him. Situation diffused.

      That’s good driving.

      Something Clover will never master nor comprehend.

  12. anarchyst
    November 16, 2013 at 10:01 am

    “Qualified immunity” must be abolished for ALL public officials including “law enforcement” and “court officers”. Yes, this includes firefighters as well.
    If police, court officials and firefighters knew that they could be personally sued (and lose everything they have), they would be less likely to “misbehave”.
    I do include firefighters in this with good reason and will cite two examples of fire department “misbehavior”.
    A plating plant in Eastpointe Michigan caught fire. The owners of the facility had a well-developed “fire plan” which included shutting off the utilities and stopping processes (which, in this case) would have minimized damage to the facility.
    The Eastpointe fire department WOULD NOT ALLOW the owners to carry out the fire plan. As a result, the facility was totally destroyed.
    Another incident is that of an Eastpointe Michigan (ex) firefighter who claimed to have an “arson dog”. Testimony based on his “arson dog’s” reaction was used by insurance investigators to deny fire insurance payouts to hundreds of policyholders based solely on the “arson dog’s” “reaction”. Prosecutions for arson were also the result.
    It finally came to a head when this “arson dog” was tested. This dog had NO special “abilities” (as with police “drug” dogs). . The dog was merely acting on “cues” from its owner. This firefighter was pulling a scam which ruined hundreds of lives and resulted in questionable prosecutions for arson.
    Qualified immunity must be abolished for all public officials.

  13. Steve
    November 16, 2013 at 10:05 am

    How about the circular argument that if you insist on doing this thing that is legal, then the other citizens will band together and make it illegal. Therefore you should not do the legal thing because if it was made illegal you would not be able to do it.

    It is the logic of a retard.

    • Jean
      November 18, 2013 at 4:42 pm

      Lots of retards in public office… Feinstein, Schwarzeneger, Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Lincoln…. Etc.

  14. Nick S
    November 16, 2013 at 10:07 am

    @JoePA,

    The police do not have the right to interfere with the rights of citizens simply because there is a small chance that something could go wrong and an equally small chance that the police may be held responsible. This is a kind of warped logic that can be used to justify any sort of pre-emptive attack on anyone who has thus far done no harm or shown reasonable intention of harm. You had better hope that Joe Public never adopts a similar attitude of pre-emptive defense when dealing with police.

    This is the problem with many police officers. They expect everyone to have endless understanding and sympathy for the pressures and risks of their job (often exaggerated), yet they have no sympathy or understanding for those on the receiving end of excessively aggressive policing.

    • Me2
      November 16, 2013 at 12:03 pm

      Nick S – “You had better hope that Joe Public never adopts a similar attitude of pre-emptive defense when dealing with police. ”

      Unfortunately, that is likely the only thing that will ever put a stop to the ever increasing violation of our rights.

      The system has been set up to have two sides, you and whatever laws you can get the State to apply to itself (good luck) and the entire resources of the State (stolen from you) and whatever they decide the law is. Judged by someone who collects their paycheque from the state. (BTW we have jury trial in Canada but after the jury verdict the Judge can ignore the jury and do whatever the hell he feels like. No nullification here.)

      It is amazing that my 10 year old niece can grasp the inherent unfairness of the system but the average adult can’t.

  15. Nick S
    November 16, 2013 at 10:22 am

    “I laugh when I hear someone ask why an officer does not know all the laws. Lawyers and Judges constantly need to look up laws to refresh their memory. Arguments in court about the meaning of laws are common yet a cop on the beat is suppose to be some type of instant genius.”

    This is a silly red herring. Of course some laws are open to interpretation and few or any people can be expected to know or understand absolutely all the laws. But someone who does not know, or does not care, about the most basic law such as whether open carry is legal in a given state has no business working as a “law enforcement officer”.

    It sure is hard to respect the police when one is confronted by such juvenile solipsism as this.

  16. MamaLiberty
    November 16, 2013 at 11:37 am

    Only one law is needful. No human being has the right, under any circumstance, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate such initiation of force. Every living creature has the absolute and inalienable right to self defense. All other “laws” people might wish to agree to stem from it. This is so simple, and tied to our basic nature, that nobody can be excused from knowing it, and knowing it well.

    Sure wish all you folks would visit me here in NE Wyoming. I’ve been carrying openly for a lot of years here, and so far have never had a police person bother me about it. A young officer standing behind me in the bank one day asked what I was carrying, and we talked about XD vs. Glock until it was my turn at the window. The only questions I get are from tourists, and they usually ask “Is that legal?” They mostly go away with a grin on their face when I explain it to them.

    We don’t have “cops,” or very many people who want to control the lives of others. No, it’s not perfect here, by any means. We have our problems… but that’s not one of them. http://www.freestatewyoming.org/ Come visit… you’ll never want to leave.

    • eric
      November 16, 2013 at 12:17 pm

      Hi Mama,

      I’ve been through Wyoming a few times (Casper is a nice little town)… it’s a beautiful state – you’re very fortunate!

      • MamaLiberty
        November 16, 2013 at 12:28 pm

        Unfortunately, Casper is becoming more and more like Denver every day. It’s a nice little town to drive through, but I don’t know anyone who wants to live there. You CAN be hassled for OC there, sadly, though it is not common. Forget Cheyenne… it went to the dark side long ago. :(

        Come up to God’s country here in the NE corner. We are seriously outnumbered by the deer, and all the rest of nature’s yummy gifts. And that is just the way we like it. :)

        • MoT
          November 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm

          Any time you have people gathering in herds, and the area is “pretty”, you can be assured that statist control freaks are there if not on their way. The amazing thing is that they actively seek positions of power in which to control peoples lives. The locals being so quaint and out of touch and all.

          • FastEddie
            November 16, 2013 at 7:12 pm

            That’s exactly what has happened here in Oregon MoT. I’ve been here for 28 years watching an organized transformation take place.

          • Jean
            November 18, 2013 at 5:05 pm

            @Eddie,
            Maybe it’s time to cull the liberal herd?
            Can’t have them overstepping their feeding grounds, you know, they’ll starve when they run out of other people’s money – and die when we run out of patience…

            Hmm… Baked Lieberal… Or should we put them on a spit and do ‘em up Rotisserie style?

          • Eightsouthman
            November 18, 2013 at 5:51 pm

            Jean, I’m more of a “pig in the ground” kinda guy….but whatever floats your boat. afterward the hogs will eat what’s left. In fact, I need to take the piggies some leftover pork, they love it. A friend had a 435 lb. wild boar in a pen along with 150 lb. pig so he comes back a couple days later and there’s just one bigger pig. Now that’s making the best of a bad situation….for the boar.

          • Boothe
            November 18, 2013 at 5:53 pm

            Jean, I’ve heard that once you “clean” a liberal and get all the crap out, all you end up with is a pair of Birkenstocks, a Sierra Club T-shirt and a bad haircut. You can’t live on that.

          • liberranter
            November 18, 2013 at 7:56 pm

            Any time you have people gathering in herds, and the area is “pretty”, you can be assured that statist control freaks are there if not on their way. The amazing thing is that they actively seek positions of power in which to control peoples lives. The locals being so quaint and out of touch and all.

            That’s certainly the case here in Arizona. Too goddamned many Kalifornians and New Yawkers have moved here over the last fifteen years, having rendered their own states uninhabitable and looking for new worlds to destroy. Whenever I see a car here with a California license plate, the temptation to test its paint job with my house key is almost overwhelming…

    • Bevin
      November 18, 2013 at 2:25 am

      Dear ML,

      Glad to hear that Open Carry is perceived as perfectly normal and absolutely nothing to panic about in at least some parts of the USSA. It is precisely what libertarian gun rights champions need to work to achieve.

      It’s exactly the opposite of what Eric Holder wants.

      Eric Holder – We Must “Brainwash” People Against Guns!
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXwo9lARAgg

      Holder gives an example — smoking. People have been so guilt-tripped into perceiving smoking as shameful and embarrassing, that when we watch “Mad Men” and see people lighting up inside office buildings the way they used to during the 50s and 60s, it comes as a shock.

      This must never be allowed to happen to guns and open carry. Libertarian gun rights champions must make sure that open carry remains as normal as smoking inside buildings in “Mad Men.”

      Making something a cultural norm is the surest way to ensure that it will not be outlawed.

  17. Mr. Liberty
    November 16, 2013 at 11:40 am

    Eric:

    Outstanding article and great description as being Kafkaesque.

    I’ve noticed recently that cops are utilizing this new term “furtive movement.” I gather there may be some court opinion out there justifying deadly force which makes reference to that term. I suspect the police unions are teaching cops to say it (similar to the bleating of cops with”Stop Resisting! Stop Resisting” when a citizen is being passive).

    I might have challenged that cop by saying “what do you mean by the term “furtive movement?” I bet he would have had no clue as to it’s meaning. He just knows that by using that term he would be able to cover his ass if he used deadly force. Under such circumstances, the cop would of course say that he warned the individual not to make any “furtive movements” and he didn’t heed his warning.

    The interesting thing about the term “furtive” is that its is defined as: attempting to avoid notice or attention. Thus, a “furtive movement” is movement attempted to avoid notice or attention. In other words, it is a subtle movement or to use a more appropriate description under these circumstances, a movement that could only be perceived by the very cop who took his life. “I was in fear of death or great bodily harm when he made that furtive movement -thus, I had to ‘tap’ him in the head.”

    Any thoughts on this new term entering the LEO lexicon? I’m guessing we’ll hear a lot more of it in the future.

    • eric
      November 16, 2013 at 12:16 pm

      Morning, Mr. Liberty!

      The “furtive movement” thing is a new one for me – but it’s of a piece, isn’t it?

      Essentially, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

      This is what comes of accepting the logic of prior restraint – and this idea that cops, though “heroes,” must behave as though (no, are entitled to behave as though) every citizen is a potential lethal threat and to be treated accordingly. That cops have special rights – and their lives matter more than ordinary people’s lives.

    • MoT
      November 16, 2013 at 12:55 pm

      “Furtive movement” is one of those after-the-fact-cover-your-ass kind of phrases that leaves me with bile rising in my throat. They’re weasel words spoken by badged weasels.

    • Garysco
      November 16, 2013 at 3:47 pm

      Mr.Liberty – It is not new, and dates back to the 40’s. It is a term used in police reports and courts to describe actions like reaching inside your jacket or similar clothing, or reaching under the seat of a car as though going for a concealed weapon. It could also mean the hiding of something like a bag of dope, guns, stolen property etc. when confronted by the cops.

      • Me2
        November 16, 2013 at 3:51 pm

        Or scratching an itch, getting your ID, pulling out a kleenex, reaching for your inhaler…….

        • Garysco
          November 16, 2013 at 4:26 pm

          Yup. There are times, in all cultures, that we should avoid winning the Darwin Award.

          • Me2
            November 16, 2013 at 4:35 pm

            It seems you are suggesting that the things I listed are ground for summary execution.

            BTW, Darwin award is for those who take themselves out of the gene pool, not when some trigger happy cop shoots you.

          • Horse Badorties
            November 16, 2013 at 5:19 pm

            Be reasonable, maybe, Me2? If an LEO takes an interest, it pays to put them at their ease. They also have to deal with people who haven’t slept in a few days, might be armed, might not have too strong a hold on reality,… these people exist.
            First rule of Aikido is, “accept the presence of your opponent.”
            This means don’t freak out, be calm and aware.
            (This usually stops a fight before it begins – an aggressor is unnerved if you aren’t cringing in fear.)
            With an officer, it means signaling to them that you are not a threat. Hands in view, stay still, wait for it. You can get your paperwork when it’s requested. It’s just a formality. It’s just courtesy, really, and you’d appreciate it if you were on the other side of the badge, I think, unless you haven’t slept in a few days.
            I had to get used to these encounters driving a Citroen ID19 in Orange County – got pulled over in that car more than all my other cars combined, I think usually just because they’d never seen one before & wanted a closer look at the spaceship I was driving. Almost never got a ticket, no charge ever stuck, it paid to be calm and friendly. Try it, it works. Like when a big dog charges up to you in the park and wants a sniff – don’t freak, let him (within limits) and assume you can be friends given half a chance.

            It works, but this is assuming a real LEO and not a gang-in-uniforms operation. I’ve never had the bad luck to run into one of those.
            Don’t argue with the cop, make your case in front of the judge – I’ve found this tactic usually means I never have to see the judge. Call me lazy, or practical, maybe.

        • Garysco
          November 16, 2013 at 4:44 pm

          @Me2 – You just jogged my old memory. Years ago I was speeding in my 240Z on the Santa Monica freeway one night. A CHP pulled me over, walked up to my drivers door and promptly pulled the biggest 6″ .357 magnum revolver ever made. I swear the hole in the barrel looked like a Howitzer. What I forgot was the empty CCW gun holster sitting on the passenger seat. But he reminded me when he asked where the gun was.

        • Ed
          November 17, 2013 at 12:53 am

          “Or scratching an itch, getting your ID, pulling out a kleenex, reaching for your inhaler…….”

          …….or standing still, making no move whatsoever. Somes cops will shoot your ass and swear under oath that you “made a furtive move”. Before the DEA, there was the BNDD, not a lot of difference but anyway, there was a case in California where a guy had some pot growing on his land. The fearless BNDD agent, Gerrit Van Raam who was among the raiders who jumped out on the little patch kind of got over excited and shot and killed the pot grower while he was pinching a plant.

          Get this: the BNDD agent got off with no charges because he said that he saw the pot grower holding a sprig from a marijuana plant and saw it as a deadly weapon. I shit you not.

          Here’s an excerpt from an article which mentions the murder:

          “The first fatality of the drug war took place in 1972, when federal agents conducted a helicopter attack on what was supposed to be a million-dollar PCP lab in Humboldt County, California. According to a reporter who tagged along, the raid resembled “an assault on an enemy prison camp in Vietnam.” An unarmed hippie named Dirk Dickenson was shot in the back and killed, but the agents found little but some baggies of marijuana and two tabs of LSD. When the local district attorney had the shooting officer indicted on murder charges, a specially deputized U.S. attorney moved the case to federal court, where a judge dismissed it.”

          http://www.psmag.com/culture/book-review-lockdown-nation-military-style-policing-radley-balko-60861/

          http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/rolling-stone/3

  18. griff
    November 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    After reading this article and comments, I want to move to where y’all live. Here in urban america, we got this thing called crime, we need police. If all you have to worry about is being hassled for open carry (I carry concealed every day with no problem) and driving behind zombie drivers, life is damn good.

    Yes, there are bad cops, but I’ll take my chances with a few bad cops over a lawless society of thugs where violence and murder rule the streets.

    Stupid americans voting for corrupt politicians created this mess. If you don’t like the laws, change the politicians, don’t blame the cops.

    • eric
      November 16, 2013 at 1:25 pm

      So Griff, you apparently endorse the “I was only following orders” excuse?

      But wait, it’s even worse than that. These cops were not following orders (“the law”). They just made it up, on the fly.

      You approve of cops hassling people who’ve broken no law? Who’ve given no reason to suspect they may have?

      If so, we’re all presumptively guilty until we prove otherwise – to the satisfaction of authority.

      Is that what you want?

      To be treated as a criminal because some people are criminals?

    • Me2
      November 16, 2013 at 1:34 pm

      griff – “Here in urban america, we got this thing called crime, we need police.”

      But wait, you have police and you still have crime. Could it be police may not be the answer?

      griff – “Yes, there are bad cops, but I’ll take my chances with a few bad cops over a lawless society of thugs where violence and murder rule the streets.”

      Unfortunately, the “lawless society of thugs” is pretty much the point Eric made in the article. It’s the police.

    • MamaLiberty
      November 16, 2013 at 1:36 pm

      Griff, you’d be welcome to come here. You are welcome to carry concealed too… no “permit” required. But there is no compelling reason to CC, just a personal preference. I carry both ways, one or the other… and occasionally both, just for the hell of it.

      See… we don’t have a serious “lawless society of thugs” … not even the “official” kind. Maybe it’s because most of us are armed, and perfectly willing to take care of ourselves. Violence and murder don’t rule our streets because we won’t allow it. WE, the people… not a standing army of “cops.” We don’t have waves of zombie drivers, or flash mobs looting a grocery store… A crime wave here is a rustler and a bar fight in the same week.

      And we have our share of politicians, but they pretty much mind their manners. They live here… and we know WHERE they live too.

    • Ed
      November 16, 2013 at 6:32 pm

      “Stupid americans voting for corrupt politicians created this mess. If you don’t like the laws, change the politicians, don’t blame the cops.”

      That’s the same thing Porky JoePA said. ‘ Oh don’t blame the holy coppppps….It’s the stupid asshole citizens who voted in the crooked politicians’.

      That is the worst reasoning I’ve ever seen anywhere. Elections are nonsense as long as voters have only a choice between two identicval thieves, both of whom have been painted by the news media as heroic public servants. Cops enforce the whims of the politicians and will quickly move against any citizens who try to ensure an honest election or an open discussion of what’s going on.

      ” I’ll take my chances with a few bad cops over a lawless society of thugs where violence and murder rule the streets.”

      Yeah, sure you will. I would too, but that isn’t the choice we have before us. The majority of cops are bad. Almost all cops will unquestioningly follow orders to rob citizens by way of asset forfeiture, murder them if they offer the slightest resistance (or sometimes even when they don’t) or imprison them on false charges. The 99.99% of bad cops give the rest a bad name.

      Admit it, you’re a cop or at least a fucking copsucker. It shows in the arrogant way you dismiss the concerns of the people posting here. It isn’t possible to have any effect at all on the politicians as long as they have you and your gang running protection for them.

      Don’t fool yourself into thinking that people here can’t recognize a fucking shill when we see one. I spotted you before finishing the first sentence of your post.

    • Jacob
      November 16, 2013 at 10:41 pm

      OH NOOO!!! NOT A LAWLESS SOCIETY!!! Then maybe gangs that uphold moral values will be in power! Like when the mob ran Las Vegas, my grandpa has horrible stories about that, like incredibly cheap hotel rooms, and comp’d drinks and food just for gambling small amounts of money. Also, people getting the shit beaten out of them for being rude in public! HOW TERRIBLE!!!

      Or me sitting around with my family eating dinner, thank god we have the government to protect us. Without laws my family and I would probably just jump over the table and start stabbing each other!

      Or the people that molest their children and force them to do drugs with them then get caught by the government, snitch out their dealer, and get 0 days in jail! Sure, their kids are taken away from them forever, but now they’re on welfare and get to party all day/night and laugh their ass off at people like me for attempting to working for a fucking living. It would be super terrible to not have the government around to give them those benefits and have the free people of society give them a healthy dose of street justice!

      OH NOOOOO!!!!! Thank god for government! God bless it and all the people who work within it! ……….*pukes*

      • Ed
        November 17, 2013 at 12:37 am

        “Without laws my family and I would probably just jump over the table and start stabbing each other!”

        Now, that makes an excellent point while being funny as shit at the same time. ;-)

        • Jean
          November 18, 2013 at 5:21 pm

          Yeah, obviously Jacob hasn’t met MY family.
          To some, that’s a Riot.
          To others, it’s a divorce.
          To me? That was Thursday…

          (I think I posted my family stories before, won’t dredge them up again – but Dropkick Murhpys did a decent montage, “The Season’s Upon Us” – look for the video on youTube… ;-) )

      • Boothe
        November 18, 2013 at 6:50 pm

        Actually Jacob, out here in Missour-uh, if the baby-momma will snitch on her room-mates and keep feeding the Porcine Posse information, she gets to keep the kid (and presumably the EBT card, WIC check, etc.). Then she can sell the groceries to her less than scrupulous neighbors for fifty cents on the dollar to buy more dope. Oh and she gets extra points for ratting out family members. I know one young “lady” that has been in the middle of three drug busts with her toddler in tow, and has yet to be charged or lose the kid. But her uncle, her mother and her brother (who really wasnt involved) all got the blue finger up the corn hole as they were processed into jail (can’t be too careful about contraband ya’ know). In her brother’s case, that was after the porkers dragged him out of his front door and administered an obligatory ass whuppin’ for daring to tell them to come back with a warrant. Isn’t gun-vernment grand?!

    • Tionico
      November 17, 2013 at 3:59 am

      but the REASON there is that much crime in your neck of the concrete jungle is that “the law” has either fully disarmed the citizens, or has so frightened them they have abdicated their personal responsibility for the safety of their community the bad guys rule. I was reading earlier this week that, in spite of the fact that it is illegel, several Mexican villages in the same region have banded together, armed themselves, formed an active militia, and are SUCCEEDING in driving the drug cartels out of their region. And guess what? Local LE and government are COMMENDING them, despite the fact that citizens being armed is illegal in Mexico. THEY got fed up with the thugocracy ruining their lives and families, and took action. If THEY can do it, the locals where you are can… but don’t. The NUMBER ONE thing criminals fear is an armed victim. The greater the level of arming of the citizenry, and the more responsible the locals are, the lower the crime rate. And George Zimmerman was pilloried, had threats against his life, etc, because he CARED enough about the security of his neighbourhood he took HIS time and placed HIMSELF at risk to check out a suspicious stranger he knew did not belong in that neighbourhood. Too bad the stuipd kid thug jumped him, then went for his gun threatening to kill George with it. He got what he asked for…. a REAL fight. Which he lost. But all George was trying to do was look after the security of his neighbours. Funny thing, I haven’t heard of any more housebreakings since that kid got shot……. hmmm… conicidence?

      • Bobbye
        November 17, 2013 at 2:25 pm

        Many Asian movies have as a theme the close relationship between criminals and the police. Without the police to protect them criminals could not survive. And police would not be thought needed. ‘New World” is the latest I watched ; look it up and watch for a dose of the truth.

        As an aside, Eric , I apologize for all the posting today but I needed the therapy of being amongst some people who love liberty. I’ve been too much lately with the ‘christians’ who inhabit The King’s Chapels. Talk about clovers!

        • eric
          November 17, 2013 at 2:32 pm

          No worries at all, Bobby – your posts are always top-drawer!

          It’s Clover’s posts that leave me reaching for the Jack Black….

        • Ed
          November 17, 2013 at 3:19 pm

          You’re right, Bobbye. One of the ones I saw was “Infernal Affairs”. Scorcese remade it, slightly modified and titled it “The Departed”. It was a story that transcended cultures between Hong Kong and Boston really well.

          Post some more. You stay gone too long between visits. I like reading what you have to say.

        • Bevin
          November 19, 2013 at 2:05 am

          Dear Bobbye,

          Don’t apologize for speaking the truth.

          Double down.

          As an ethnic Chinese market anarchist who takes pride in Chinese culture, I was delighted to see you and Ed affirm the merits of “Infernal Affairs.”

          I am a film buff who is not about to praise Chinese films merely because they are Chinese. They have to be objectively good. A spade is a spade. A turkey is a turkey.

          “Infernal Affairs” was better than “The Departed,” revered film auteur Scorsese notwithstanding. The “Mean Streets” microcosm depicted in eh original was bleaker than that depicted in the remake.

          I’m not saying the remake was bad. It was quite good. I’m merely saying that the original was even better. It was more nuanced and “edgier.” The remake was sketchier, and oddly enough, considering Scorsese’s track record, tamer.

    • liberranter
      November 18, 2013 at 8:01 pm

      Here in urban america, we got this thing called crime, we need police.

      Please do us a favor and stay right where you are. As I said upthread, we already have far too many of you Clovers relocating out here to the country, bringing your poisonous urban attitudes and Cloverheit with you where they’re not wanted.

    • BrentP
      November 19, 2013 at 1:29 am

      Griff, one thing I learned is that police protection is an illusion. Police do not make a neighborhood safe. They do not stop crime. They take reports after the fact. That’s about it. Especially in the big city. It’s the people of the neighborhood that keep it safe. Once a neighborhood relies on government, the criminals end up taking over.

      • Bevin
        November 19, 2013 at 1:53 am

        Dear Brent,

        Well said.

        As Thomas Paine, the greatest of the American revolutionaries noted,

        A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all parts of a civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost every thing which is ascribed to government.
        — Thomas Paine, from “The Rights of Man”

        Re: “In fine, society performs for itself almost every thing which is ascribed to government.”

        I firmly believe that if Paine could rise from the grave today, the first thing he would do is put a line through the modifier “almost.”

        • Garysco
          November 19, 2013 at 2:26 am

          @Bevin – A rule of thumb in the USA (not sure about where you live) is about 1.5 -2.5 police for every one thousand population. A more moral peaceful community requires less. I worked in both extremely high crime, and rural. The high crime city was about 1 per 1000 population measured in square city blocks. The rural was 1 for 10,000 in an area of 150 square miles.

          • Bevin
            November 19, 2013 at 2:49 am

            Dear Gary,

            Agree.

            I’m not in the US currently, but I’ve lived all over. DC. Houston. NYC. LA.

            Order is never the result of “Law and Order.” Order is always the result of social order within civil society.

            If every “civilian” was determined to commit crimes, police would be overwhelmed and utterly incapable of coping.

            The reason people aren’t murdering each other on sight is not because cops are stopping them. The reason is that social forces reward cooperation and punish predation.

            The creation of Leviathan States does not deter rampant criminality. It empowers the worst criminals of all, the state and its henchmen.

            Frankly, even if a “Road Warrior” style dystopia was the alternative, and it isn’t, I would choose it over a “stable” police state. At least under the former there are no laws to forbid you from defending yourself!

          • Bevin
            November 19, 2013 at 3:01 am

            * As Paine also noted,

            Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government.

            An interesting real world example is the diamond trade. I’m referring only to one aspect of it, not other unrelated aspects.

            Diamond traders turn over millions of dollars of diamonds to fellow traders on the basis of a handshake. For centuries this arrangement has worked well enough that it persists even today. No resort to cops and courts is necessary.

            I’m not saying this exact arrangement would work for everything. But it shows that alternatives to The State are feasible.

      • Garysco
        November 19, 2013 at 1:58 am

        @BrentP- You are 100% correct. A peaceful community requires moral inhabitants. When that is not present crime will take its place. The police just clean up the mess and identify the players.

  19. Dylan
    November 16, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    I thought all things considered these cops acted pretty understandably. Threatening to shoot the guy in the head was haneous and unprofessional, but the officer made a good point about the man threatening the 2nd amendment. This asshole was out looking for trouble, there’s no ifs ands or butts around it. He was executing a social experiment and was attempting to bait law enforcement into providing him with an excuse to go on the internet and whine his fucking eyes out. We live in a police state, and by no means do I approve of the Gestapo-esque tactics employed by the police establishment of today, but expecting cops to know the law inside and out is like expecting paramedics to be physicians. I work as an NREMT, and while we have significant medical training, for us to go through a full semester course just on endocrinology is pretty unrealistic considering the pay rate and nature of the profession. The same can be said about cops. In light of all the active shootings going down in this ass backward trigger happy nation of over exuberant retards, this type of response is understandable. (Ps, even if some of the shootings were false flags -which I’m sure they are- they still occurred, and the trauma still resonates within the public psyche).

    • eric
      November 16, 2013 at 1:21 pm

      Dylan,

      “Open carry” is pretty straightforward. It means it’s legal to openly carry a gun in public.

      No legal parsing is required here.

      These guys were acting in accordance with the law. The fact that this wasn’t sufficient to ward off being hassled by the law is the problem here – the point I was trying to make in the article.

      • Dylan
        November 16, 2013 at 1:44 pm

        I respect the point you are trying to make Eric, and agree with you absolutely, however the simple matter is that regardless of whether the cop is a mindless zombie of the establishment, or a free thinking liberty loving patriot, they are still citizens. Outside the job these are ~relatively~ normal people, and the issue here is more about the social consciousness than about the *law* per se. America is dominated by a culture of fear, fear of each other (Borne from a variety of socio-political factors), and Until this inherent fear is abolished, absolutely the fishwife is going to dial 911 when she sees a dude walking down the street with an AR. Then when the cops who respond (who may have got shot at in a domestic a few months prior) draw guns because they don’t know the individuals intentions, it is justifiably understandable when looking at it through the lens of inherent societal fear.

        • Dylan
          November 16, 2013 at 1:47 pm

          While the law is supposed to be black and white, all human interactions are governed by emotion. We expect cops to put emotion aside when they go to work, and treat the law and constitution as gospel, but then exhibit criticism when they become zombies of the establishment? Dopple standard if you ask me.

          • Ed
            November 16, 2013 at 7:03 pm

            “We expect cops to put emotion aside when they go to work, and treat the law and constitution as gospel, but then exhibit criticism when they become zombies of the establishment? Dopple standard if you ask me.”

            Well, shit. I give up. That was another unreviewably bad piece of reasoning, ending with one of your signature malapropisms. I just got a mental image of you. There you stand, in your navy blue SWAT BDUs, with your skinhead haircut and your nitrile exam gloves. You’re torn between noticing that we live in a police state and your admiration for the police who you mostly see only at traffic accidents, right?

            EMTs are now part of the police state apparatus. I’ve seen y’all turn out for police funerals, when some drunk skinhead or other crashed his cruiser racing his shiftmates to Dunkin Donuts.

            I do hope you wake all the way up someday. The people you’re defending here don’t deserve what you’re trying to do for them. These guys you see helping out at wrecks are the same ones who send teenagers to the morgue in body bags for sassing them or for trying to run away to avoid having their lives ruined over a fucking pot arrest.

        • Me2
          November 16, 2013 at 2:03 pm

          Dylan – “Then when the cops who respond (who may have got shot at in a domestic a few months prior) draw guns because they don’t know the individuals intentions, it is justifiably understandable when looking at it through the lens of inherent societal fear.”

          Seriously?

          So I suppose that if you have been abused by a policeman ‘a few months prior’, it would be ‘justifiably understandable’ to pull your gun on the next cop who approaches you? After all, you would have reason to doubt his intentions, right?

          • Dylan
            November 16, 2013 at 2:14 pm

            A fair point. Which is where we enter the realm of abuse of power. I acknowledged it, and wasn’t trying to justify it, simply to add some context. You’re right though, it is unacceptable.

          • eric
            November 16, 2013 at 2:28 pm

            Hi Dylan,

            Arguably, cops should be held to a much higher standard as regards knowledge of “the law” than any ordinary citizen. Thus, it is particularly obnoxious when a citizen knows more about “the law” than the cop who enforces it.

            Who, in fact, enforces non-law.

            It’s of a piece with the double standard as regards use of force.

            I am a CHP holder – and the legal standard for me is very high. If I unholster my weapon and point it at someone, I’d better have a damn good – and legally defensible – reason for doing it. At minimum, I will be put through the ringer before I am exonerated (assuming “the law” is on my side).

            But cops routinely brandish their weapons – and discharge them recklessly, not infrequently into random people’s homes (and their bodies, too). What happens? Paid vacation. Perhaps – in rare cases – dismissal. Almost never criminal charges.

            It’s wrong – and people are rapidly growing weary.

            Include me among that number.

          • MoT
            November 17, 2013 at 8:48 am

            Or the young kid in Iraq, or Afghanistan, who has seen Americans killing people, maybe even family, disrespecting everything you believe and the lives of the murdered are worth a few thousand bucks to be doled out and then forgotten. It’s not that easy to do, act the slave, so they’d be fully justified in taking out American grunts with bombs and bullets. And I am in full sympathy. So this is where you now have our militarized cops today seeking MRAP’s because they know deep down that war is coming to the streets. Oh they may lie about their reasons to want them, of course, but that’s where it’s headed.

        • Ed
          November 16, 2013 at 6:51 pm

          “whether the cop is a mindless zombie of the establishment, or a free thinking liberty loving patriot, they are still citizens. Outside the job these are ~relatively~ normal people,”

          Wrong again, Dylan. Cops aren’t citizens at all, if you mean they’re on an equal footing with the rest of us. They are granted privileges far beyond what any other citizen can exercise.

          Outside the job, these assholes are sociopathic morons. Ask the neighbors of any cops you’d like to use to prove the ridiculous statement you just made.

          “Normal” cop behavior would get any citizen locked up in a mental word or in a prison.

          “Then when the cops who respond (who may have got shot at in a domestic a few months prior) draw guns because they don’t know the individuals intentions, it is justifiably understandable when looking at it through the lens of inherent societal fear.”

          God damn, son. You’ve been huffing toluol in a barf bag, haven’t you? Cops draw guns gleefully, not out of fear. They live for the chance to kill a fellow human being and skate away from it, unpunished. That’s the only kind of people drawn to police work in a police state.

          • FastEddie
            November 16, 2013 at 7:32 pm

            Reminds me of a conversation I had with a lawyer turned city cop. He was relating how he was the first to respond to warehouse burglar alarm one night, needing to enter alone into a dark building weapon drawn. I said it sounded rough and he might have to shoot someone.
            He corrected me by saying with a smirk, “you mean I might “get” to shoot someone.” He added that he was now a racist after a year on the streets and anyone would be a convert when they saw what he saw on the job.

          • Ed
            November 17, 2013 at 12:32 am

            Eddie, you got it straight from the horse’s mouth. That guy wants to kill someone and he’ll probably do it, sooner or later. He’s one of many, I’d be willing to bet.

    • Ed
      November 16, 2013 at 6:41 pm

      “Threatening to shoot the guy in the head was haneous and unprofessional, but the officer made a good point about the man threatening the 2nd amendment……..attempting to bait law enforcement into providing him with an excuse to go on the internet and whine his fucking eyes out. …………..”

      That’s funny as shit, Dylan. You did mean it as a joke, didn’t you? Oh, man. That’s really fucking “haneous”.

      “expecting cops to know the law inside and out is like expecting paramedics to be physicians.”

      Oops. I see you WEREN’T joking. You really meant that, didn’t you? Excuse me. For a second there I mistook you for somebody with two brain cells to rub together who was trying to be humorous.

    • November 17, 2013 at 12:52 am

      It wouldn’t be hard for the police to know the law “inside and out” if there weren’t so freaking many of them.

      • Ed
        November 17, 2013 at 12:55 am

        Yep, no shit. If the fuckin poe lease can’t even keep up with the laws, how are we supposed to? Maybe the point of all these laws is to make it easy to rule over us.

        • Garysco
          November 17, 2013 at 2:02 am

          @Ed – “Maybe the point of all these laws is to make it easy to rule over us.”

          You hit on a point that I now understand. The ones running the system (not the street cops, or even the department chiefs ) have designed the matrix with the intention of creating so many laws that everyone will violate at least a few of them every day. That has been pointed out by law professors for years now. California’s governor just signed 800 new ones a few months ago. No one knows or can recall what all of “new laws” added to the bloated system of laws are. The “exempt” ones will not be bothered, but anyone not going along with the program will. Witness the recent blatant IRS abuses and an Attorney General of the United States committing felonies (running guns to Mexico, illegal secret detentions and more) and not being bothered. No street cop you ever meet could get away with those abuses.

          Too many posting on Eric’s site have the rage against the machine but ignore the big picture. Yes, some portion of street cops and federal agents abuse people daily without penalty. But the problem is further up the pyramid, and that is the root of the loss of liberty that people need to understand and correct. The fallout from fixing that will auto-correct the street cops and government agents below.

          I respectfully disagree with Eric over the cop in the video. He was trying to tell the man with the rifle not to play checkers in a game of chess. His display of the rifle, for no other reason then to prove a point, WILL result in votes to create more laws restricting guns where he lives. And yes, contrary to what some believe, states and communities do have the legal ability to do so. Ever seen an old cowboy movie where the town had a “no guns” law? That was allowed even 150 years ago.

          • November 17, 2013 at 2:24 am

            I think trying to figure out whether the problem is “Up the pyramid” or “Down the pyramid” isn’t the point. EVERYONE who is willingly part of the aggressor class is responsible (I should point out here that simply being among the aggressor class does not necessarily being a part of it. A hypothetical cop that refused to enforce any unjust, anti-libertarian laws would be an example of such. As far as politicians go, although not absolutely perfect, Ron Paul was pretty darn close to a sterling example of this: Amash, Massie, and Sanford marginally less so, and Rand Paul a little less than them) and part of the problem. Are some more responsible than others? Yes, but all are to some degree responsible. Degree of responsibility depends on knowledge, intent, and other factors. Education is important so that, at the very least, we can cause everyone to be fully responsible.

            As for gun-laws, I don’t like it, but I get what you’re saying about state-level gun laws. I certainly don’t want the FedGov imposing ANY policy from the top-down! That said, gun laws are still unethical, even if there is no “higher power” to prevent them, and those who enforce them are still acting immorally.

          • Horse Badorties
            November 17, 2013 at 2:37 am

            Well said G –
            Some views here seem so black & white, all or nothing.
            It’s good to be outraged by injustice, but on youtube I think it’s also good to be on the look out for agitprop.
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agitprop
            From any direction.

          • Garysco
            November 17, 2013 at 2:44 am

            @Horse – Damn, that is a great word. Right out of Orwells’ 1984 Newspeak dictionary. Thanks.

          • Garysco
            November 17, 2013 at 3:12 am

            @Davir – You don’t kill a tree by trimming the branches. You go for the roots.

          • Ed
            November 17, 2013 at 3:27 pm

            “No street cop you ever meet could get away with those abuses.”

            Well, you gotta admit, plenty of them get away with Ag Assault, felony theft, assault and battery, B&E, and 1st, and 2nd degree murder. Most of them out there today display what judges and prosecutors call “depraved indifference to human life”.

            The politicians just commit a different list of crimes. They allow their enforcers, the judges, prosecutors and the street cops, to skate away from every imaginable charge. Claiming that there’s any difference is like arguing over which turd is a nicer shade of brown.

          • Garysco
            November 17, 2013 at 3:52 pm

            @Ed – The little Hitler we meet at the traffic stop can’t equal this approved behavior that you paid for.

            “One of the things that’s so offensive about this case is that our federal government knowingly, willfully, purposefully gave the drug cartels nearly 2,000 weapons — mainly AK-47s — and allowed them to walk,” Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) told NBC News. These arms were supposed to lead federal agents in Phoenix to the Mexican thugs who acquired them. Instead, Fast and Furious guns melted into Mexico without a trace.

            Approximately 300 Mexicans have been killed or wounded by Fast and Furious guns, estimates former Mexican attorney general Victor Humberto Benítez Treviño.

            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304835/remember-fast-and-furious-s-mexican-victims-deroy-murdock

      • eric
        November 17, 2013 at 6:46 am

        Hi David,

        For us Libertarian types, there is but one law: Cause no harm to others or their property. This neatly cleaves actions one may disapprove of, not partake of oneself (and so on) from those that justify the use of defensive force to “make things right.”

        If I’ve harmed you – or damaged your property – then you have “cause” against me. Otherwise, I’ve got a right to be left in peace.

        That’s the essence of law, as Libertarians would define it. Or at least, as this one does. It all flows from the concepts of self ownership and non-aggression.

        You own you – and I own me. Neither of us has a claim enforceable by violence on the other. I may not (ethically) use force against you unless you first use force against me.

        A reasonably bright 10-year-old could readily understand this – and apply it. No need for a shyster class – lawyers and politicians, who would soon have to find honest work.

        But of course, that is why we have “the law” instead.

        • Ed
          November 17, 2013 at 10:19 am

          “A reasonably bright 10-year-old could readily understand this – and apply it. No need for a shyster class – lawyers and politicians, who would soon have to find honest work.

          But of course, that is why we have “the law” instead.”

          Yep, that’s my thinking exactly. For any of these traffic laws to be effective at all, charges could only be laid once actual harm had been done. Speeding could be charged once a collision took place, but only then. A rolling stop through a stop sign could be charged only once the action had resulted in a collision, ditto DUI, failure to signal, improper lane change, failure to yield, etc.

          I think that this standard for application of existing laws would also eliminate the practice by insurers of automatically assuming fault by virtue of a cop’s unproven accusation (ticket = fault) made at the scene of an accident or dreamed up later, as is sometimes the case.

          The actual finding of guilt by a jury is a better standard for determining who was at fault for destruction of property or personal injury than making an automatic assumption based on an accusation.

          That might make way too much sense, though.

          • Gil
            November 17, 2013 at 1:06 pm

            A classic example of the case where the Libertarian is the one who gets to define what’s “harmful”. You’re drunk and speeding but that’s okay provided you don’t crash or hit someone? What if video evidence showed you didn’t crash or hit someone because everyone else was forced into evasive manoeuvres? It’s goes back to someone pointing a loaded gun at others – it’s harmless fun so who cares if others find it scary when the gun’s pointed at them? Gun-ownership is a sacred right. Being offended isn’t considered harmful by Libertarians and thus is not worthy of infringing on anyone’s gun rights.

          • eric
            November 18, 2013 at 8:30 am

            Clover,

            You provide endless material for the picking apart of “straw man” arguments – keep ‘em coming!

            Clover writes:

            “You’re drunk and speeding but that’s okay provided you don’t crash or hit someone?”

            (Italics added.)

            Clover does not define “drunk.” He wants you to assume it means slobbering, slurring, reckless, falling asleep, out of control – etc. But the state’s definition of “drunk” is something altogether different. It is merely to have an arbitrary threshold percentage of alcohol in one’s bloodstream. Nothing more. One’s actual driving is legally irrelevant. It is not a legally viable defense to point out that a person was not driving erratically and did not appear to be out of their mind or even other than perfectly normal in terms of their behavior and speech. Merely to have a certain BAC is sufficient to be labeled “drunk” in Clover’s – and government’s view.

            Moreover, it is not even necessary to have any alcohol whatsoever in one’s system – or give any indication at all that one is impaired (for any reason) to be treated as presumptively impaired. That is the essential nature of so-called “sobriety” checkpoints. Every single driver is forced to stop and demonstrate to the satisfaction of a state goon that he is not “drunk.”

            Clover does not define “speeding.” I will define it for him. It is – by definition – traveling any faster than a number posted on a sign. I have already and at great length demonstrated that this number is an arbitrary construct that does not – as such – correlate absolutely with dangerous driving. Enough said on that score.

            Clover then trots out the idiot mantra, “pointing a loaded gun at others ” – an act of aggression that no Libertarian would defend (except if it is done in self-defense, in which case it would not be aggression). Like most Clovers, Clover likes to argue against things no one here has put forward. He must resort to outright lies – and emoting hysteria – because he cannot argue the point.

            Clover then writes something I actually agree with:

            “Being offended isn’t considered harmful by Libertarians.”

            Indeed!

          • Bevin
            November 18, 2013 at 9:30 am

            Dear “Gil,”

            You wrote

            “… pointing a loaded gun at others – it’s harmless fun so who cares if others find it scary when the gun’s pointed at them?”

            Wow. More straw man “rebuttals.” Hey, but keep trying. It’s amusing, after a fashion.

            Jeff Cooper’s Rules of Gun Safety
            http://thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html

            RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

            RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

            RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

            RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

            An experienced gun rights advocate abides by the basic rules of firearms safety, and knows them by heart.

            He or she will never “point a loaded gun at others in harmless fun.” He or she will never even “point an unloaded gun at others in harmless fun.”

            Why? Because as Rule 1 noted, “All guns are always loaded.”

            And guess what? Libertarian car enthusiasts, who largely overlap libertarian gun enthusiasts, treat automobile safety the same way.

          • Gil
            November 18, 2013 at 11:27 am

            Well Bevin that’s Jeff’s view on what he thinks people should do with their guns but he shouldn’t force others to do what he doesn’t like unless it actually *harms* others. In a Libertarian society the complainant has to show evidence of harm and not simply assert that they felt “intimidated” by having a gun pointed at him. After all, a gun hater feels intimidated by the notion that someone one else is carrying a gun per se but that ought not mean society should cater to gun haters.

            A similar scenario would be a group of boys surrounding a mentally-slow boy and making fun of him and making him cry – has that boy been harmed? Nope, freedom of speech, association and to be a jerk are sacrosanct. At no point is the boy being harmed in any meaningful sense. Feelings count for squat. Hence any behaviour that does not cause physical injury or physical damage to private property is up for grabs.

          • eric
            November 18, 2013 at 4:41 pm

            Clover,

            Do you have anything but straw man arguments?

            Pointing a gun at someone is threatening lethal violence. That is aggression – which is a violation of the NAP. No one here has ever argued that it’s ok to point guns at people (except in self defense, which is a response to aggression and so not a violation of the NAP).

            Next, you trot out the example of a group of children bullying another child. Bullying is another example of aggression, Clover – and no Libertarian I know of defends aggression.

            Again, you argue against positions never taken and things never said in a sad attempt to undermine what actually was said.

            Clovers are easy meat.

          • Bevin
            November 18, 2013 at 8:31 pm

            Dear Eric,

            “Gil” once again engages in open evasion of the point he himself raised earlier, and throws up yet another straw man in order to draw attention away from his intellectual evasion.

            This is why one never actually debates these authoritarian control freaks per se, but merely uses them to illustrate the fallacy of their arguments to third parties who may be looking on from the sidelines.

          • Gil
            November 18, 2013 at 9:00 pm

            CloverAw poor baby. You suppose the 1st Amendment wasn’t intended to protect obscenities but that’s what freedom truly entails: the right to be a jerk unless it pro-actively harms others. As a South Park episode points out if you ban one thing on the view someone finds it “intimidating” yet it causes no actual harm just perceived potential harm then the floodgates are open towards total abandonment of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

          • eric
            November 18, 2013 at 9:28 pm

            Clover,

            Historically speaking, you’re right – the 1st Amendment was probably not meant to protect public expression of obscenity. It was meant to protect the free expression of political opinion.

            But should free people be free to speak freely of anything? Certainly. Provided they cause no harm. Hurt feelings – taking offense – do not rise to that level.

            Being a jerk may invite negative repercussions such as social ostracism. And if the jerk behavior (bullying, for instance) rises to abuse, the person being abused has every right to defend himself.

            What’s your point, exactly?

            Do you want to make it a crime to hurt someone’s feelings? To make it illegal to cause another person to feel uncomfortable about something?

            There is such a place – it’s called nursery school.

          • Gil
            November 19, 2013 at 7:06 am

            CloverPointing a loaded gun at someone for laughs should be protected by the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

          • eric
            November 19, 2013 at 7:50 am

            Clover,

            Do you enjoy publicly affirming you’re an imbecile?

            Pointing a gun at someone is threatening them with lethal violence. That is aggression – and therefore, something no Libertarian defends.

            I almost feel pity for you. Almost. But then I remember you’re malicious as well as unintelligent.

            You’re done here.

          • Ed
            November 19, 2013 at 8:15 am

            “This is why one never actually debates these authoritarian control freaks per se, but merely uses them to illustrate the fallacy of their arguments to third parties who may be looking on from the sidelines.”

            I don’t bother to read what Gil posts, let alone bother to rebut his ramblings. The way I see it, any 3rd party too dimwitted to need an illustration of how fallacious Gil’s “reasoning” is would likely be too retarded to understand what I was saying anyway.

            Never argue with an idiot, because a 3rd party looking on from the sidelines wouldn’t be able to tell which of you is the idiot.

          • Bevin
            November 19, 2013 at 9:02 am

            Dear Ed,

            The way I see it, any 3rd party too dimwitted to need an illustration of how fallacious Gil’s “reasoning” is would likely be too retarded to understand what I was saying anyway.

            You may be right! LOL!

          • Eightsouthman
            November 19, 2013 at 10:51 am

            Please don’t feed it. If you ignore it, it will go away.

  20. Real
    November 16, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    I read all the comments and must make a point that I saw skirted around but never actually addressed entirely.
    One of the pigs mentioned “written law” vs “intent of the law” (or similar words).
    The written law is citizens have a right to keep and bear (carry) guns.
    The intent of the law is that citizens can and should use those guns against law breakers including tyrants.

    • Ed
      November 16, 2013 at 7:09 pm

      Yes, you’re right, Real. As a character in a Dickens novel may have said:

      “Candor compels me fur to admit that yer right, but discretion does dictate that ter say so could put me in mortal peril”

      Sometimes many among us will stop just short of saying all that needs saying.

      • Ed
        November 16, 2013 at 7:10 pm

        Oh shit. Now I’ve filled up the “whatshappnin” dingus again. Somebody shut me down, please.

    • Garysco
      November 16, 2013 at 7:46 pm

      @Real – You have a right to free speech in this country. That includes offensive speech. But you have no right to yell fire in a crowded theater. That idea applies to other “laws” and “cultural rules” of conduct as well.

      • Tim B
        November 16, 2013 at 8:17 pm

        Of course you do! If there is a fire and you yell “fire”, no one will even think about penalizing you for it. There is no law authorizing anyone to require you to wear a gag in a crowded theater to prevent you from yelling anything at all.

        • Garysco
          November 16, 2013 at 9:10 pm

          @Tim B – Huh?

          • Me2
            November 16, 2013 at 9:21 pm

            Methinks both Garysco and Tim B both missed the meaning of Ed’s post.

            Funny huh Ed? You feel you have to watch what you say while the ‘law enforcers’ (breaking the law, on camera) threaten execution of a fully legally compliant citizen and face no penalty.

            The inmates are truly running the asylum.

          • Ed
            November 16, 2013 at 9:44 pm

            “The inmates are truly running the asylum.”

            Same as it ever was, Me2. This has been a most revealing thread. An incident like the one of the porktards threatening to murder people who have done nothing to provoke the threats kind of raises the ire of many people. It also brings out the little junior Gman defenders of our glorious heroes who make up the chubby, donut addicted blue line.

            Honestly though, I think Garysco and TimB were responding to someone besides me. With the way the siteware nests comments, it’s hard to tell.

          • Garysco
            November 16, 2013 at 9:44 pm

            @Me2 – Help me out then. I did not reply to Ed, only trying to help real understand that “rights” are not without responsibilities. That goes back to English common law. BTW what did Ed mean?

          • Me2
            November 16, 2013 at 11:22 pm

            @Gary

            My bad, I should have said you missed Real’s point then.

            Ed can answer what he meant, but I find it hard to believe you could not discern my interpretation from “Funny huh Ed? You feel you have to watch what you say ……..”

            Please explain these ‘responsibilities’ in the context of the video and how Common Law would allow for the actions of the state sanctioned thugs.

          • Garysco
            November 17, 2013 at 12:12 am

            @Me2 – “Please explain these ‘responsibilities’ in the context of the video and how Common Law would allow for the actions of the state sanctioned thugs.”

            What video are you referring to? I am lost in the threads and don’t see one.

            The pig and thug statements are also confusing and not related to my comments. At least I don’t think so. But then maybe I am one of the stupid thug pigs or something. Let’s generalize and convict a whole population of individuals by workgroup. Or would that not be Libertarian?

            By responsibilities re rights –
            An example would be “..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”

            The responsibility is to not menace others with your right “to bear”, or to give your 5 year old ( who is a people by definition and therefore included in the “right”) a loaded gun to play with.

            Or, as I apparently in-eloquently tried to point out, the first amendment right “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom speech…”

            The responsibility is to not use that right to yell anything you desire that poses a threat, or slander, or like “fire” in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire.

          • Garysco
            November 17, 2013 at 12:23 am

            @Me2- Or as Ayn Rand put it – you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

          • Me2
            November 17, 2013 at 12:27 am

            @Gary

            The video at the top of the page, the one the article was…….

            Seriously? You are here debating in the comments section of an article mainly concerning the actions of police in a video and you have not watched the video?

            Really?

          • Garysco
            November 17, 2013 at 12:49 am

            @Me2 – My comments were from the threaded conversation stream, not directly related to the vieo contents.

      • captcow
        November 18, 2013 at 10:47 pm

        Garysco, I note a disturbing trend in this and other comments. 1) “you have a right to free speech in this country” as if free speech exists only via the will of the government. All humans have the right to free speech, our government just suppresses it less than other countries. 2) the old “can’t scream fire” line always fails to mention that you most certainly can scream fire in a crowded theater if the place is on fire. 3) the cop in the video is entitled to his opinion RE open carry, but could somebody cite the law that allows a man to hold another at gunpoint with the sole purpose of pushing your personal ideas on another man?

        • Garysco
          November 19, 2013 at 1:05 am

          @captcow – Why are you trying to put your words and thoughts into my mouth?

          Re :your #1 – you have no idea what you are talking about. Try shooting your mouth off in one of the many non-free speech countries around the world, and when you are jailed by that government tell them that you have a human right. Then demand they let you out. Lookup political prisoners. No tell me why the First Amendment is “a written law” placed into a document to keep the government under control. I am not so sure about your belief that “our government just suppresses it less than other countries”. Relatively yes, but do your homework before making that statement, because it is no longer true that the USA is #1. Again, it is rude to put words into my mouth.

          #2 – You miss the example completely. I offer no assistance on that one.

          #3 – The “sole” purpose? I don’t think so. The man with the rifle stayed for the whole conversation. Where was his request to leave after the cop explained why he was stopped. I am sure you would have made that request, but he did not, and he engaged in the conversation. I do not know his thoughts at that point, only his actions. And since you asked, I would have holstered my police gun as soon as I determined he was not a present threat to others or myself.

          Are you “unconstitutionally” detained when you are forced to stop for a “government” red intersection light while driving or crossing the street on foot? If so then why do you comply? Because of threats? That would not be a real answer, you know you could get away with it. Let me know if you don’t, so I can avoid your reckless actions.

          • captcow
            November 19, 2013 at 1:47 pm

            garysco, 1) my comment about freedom of speech was based on the idea of “natural rights”, the idea that certain rights are beyond the control of government. The framers of the constitution wrote of these as the impetus for the bill of rights, it’s a concept that goes back centuries. I based the statement about the US on this statement, and acknowledge that Americans have more freedom of speech than probably any other group of people. 2) I got your example but found it incomplete and a typical cop response, you stated you can’t do a thing as an absolute when in fact there are sometimes perfectly acceptable reasons for doing that. 3) Once the cop in the video realized there was no threat (something that was obvious when they didn’t run or start shooting at the site of the cruiser) it should have been over. Instead the cop and his inept pals stood there, guns drawn, lecturing the man. That was anything but a voluntary interaction.
            Your last paragraph about stop lights had nothing at all to do with anything I said but if it makes you feel better, yes, I stop for traffic lights, not because I’m afraid of overzealous jackboots but because it’s usually a good idea.
            You claim I have no idea what I’m talking about but it seems more likely you lack the ability to comprehend what I’m saying.

    • November 17, 2013 at 12:54 am

      Too bad there’s no rep system on here, I would definitely have given you one. Exactly right.

    • Bevin
      November 18, 2013 at 8:55 pm

      Dear Real,

      Actually several people, including myself, have underscored this point in the past a number of times.

      When Should You Shoot a Cop
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cElTyqJkMEw

      It’s well worth repeating however, especially since the video has been updated with new images.

      • David
        November 19, 2013 at 2:00 pm

        I don’t have all my principles with regards to when it is or is not OK to use violence worked out yet. I certainly think violence should be reserved for the most extreme cases, if even that. However, I think the more important point there is just calling a spade a spade. Murder is murder, theft is theft, etc. That video would likely make many people cringe, but it really exposes an important fact about what aggression actually is.

  21. bert
    November 16, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    joepa?? i thought he committed suicide (he sure did die of cancer fast) after he was accused of letting boys be abused by the people in his employ.

  22. henry barnes
    November 16, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    Here’s the way to beat Google. Write an article about how Google targets conservative and libertarian sites. Get it published on Drudge Report and ask for support. The article will go viral and Google will back off. If not you’ll have many more donors.

    • Ed
      November 16, 2013 at 7:11 pm

      Beauty, henry. Genius idea, eh?

  23. November 16, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    Eric, I was wondering what you would call a person who would do this on the road? I was driving home on a 15 mile stretch of road that has only a couple of no passing zones. It was dark and I like to drive with the cruise control set between 55 and 60 mph because my car, according to the instant mpg gauge, gets its best gas mileage at that speed. The entire ride home i had only one car behind me and a handful of cars coming from the opposite direction. The car behind me was going a few miles per hour faster than me and would have to wait for a few seconds for oncoming cars to go by and then could pass. The car drove up very close to me, too close, I thought, but it would soon be passing so it was not a big deal. The oncoming cars passed and here was the opportunity to pass. The car had a stretch of 3 miles to pass me, but instead continued to follow me very closely. It eventually backed off and stayed there. Another car up ahead was coming toward me and now the car behind me started to speed up again. I was muttering to myself about this driver and started thinking of “clover”, but clovers are usually messing you up from in front. Was I being the clover? I could drive between 60 and 65 mph on this road and I often do during daylight when there are more cars on the road, but this guy could pass at any time. Screw it, he must just be incompetent or an a-hole driver. I figured I would just keep on driving and ignore this guy. Another couple miles go by and now this guy speeds up and passes. Finally, I thought, this guy must be a a real . . .

    Cop. A county sheriff. Now I knew for sure he was incompetent and an a-hole driver. I also realized the games these a-holes play to get people to react and then use their “authoritah” to pull them over and steal money. What would have happened had I slammed on my brakes to keep him from tailgating? What if I drove behind him like he did to me? You know the answers and that is why cops are scum.

    Why is it that cops, whether you are legally open carrying, or legally driving down the road, feel the need to confront you and dare you to do something that will make them feel justified in harming you physically or take money from your pocket? I have had enough of this new breed of parasite.

    • Ed
      November 16, 2013 at 7:37 pm

      “Finally, I thought, this guy must be a a real . . .

      Cop. A county sheriff. Now I knew for sure he was incompetent and an a-hole driver.”

      Excellent. This is my nomination for post of the week. Great post, Paul.

    • Eightsouthman
      November 16, 2013 at 10:23 pm

      Paul, an old college buddy was out and about doing his job, insurance inspections. He was on the way home and it was late. He came across a County Mounty going slower than he’d been driving so he finally got a chance to pass on this two lane hiway and then the guy stops him. He’s drunk, really pissed cause my buddy went around him. He has his wife with him and she finally pulls him off and my freaked out friend went on home. He was fearing for his life from this drunk and was just glad to be gone. Now the dep. sheriff was about my friend’s age, in his fifties and had that sort of attitude. This was out about 50 miles SW of San Antonio. They’re everywhere…..unfortunately.

    • MikeFromWichita
      November 17, 2013 at 9:54 pm

      Paul- as it is you are lucky he did not stop you on ‘suspicion’ and demand to search your vehicle. Driving ‘too slow’ or right on the speed limit is one of the porktard markers for ‘suspicious’ behaviour.

      • BrentP
        November 18, 2013 at 12:25 am

        Many years ago I argued that speed limits were set absurdly low such that to obey them made one suspicious but to exceed them was a violation of the law giving cops the ability to pull over anyone of their choosing whenever they wanted to.

        Back in the 1990s this was considered “paranoid”. Probably still is, but more people seem to get it now with more experience.

        • November 18, 2013 at 1:35 am

          If that is “paranoid” than “paranoid” has lost all negative connotation.

  24. Charles
    November 17, 2013 at 10:24 am

    This world is horribly messed up. There’s lots of reason to be angry and upset. There are a lot of angry people in this world, on both sides of the “fence”. (The fence being the oppressed vs the oppressors.) Anger and rage tends to be counterproductive. I’ve never seen obscenity or insults accomplish anything useful. Doesn’t matter which side of the fence you’re on!

    Eric, I like the factual parts of your articles. However I don’t agree with the derogatory viewpoint you use. Yes, your so called clovers, cops, and elites are regularly in the wrong. That doesn’t mean you should be insulting them. Do you have children? A wife? A family? Do you use the same derogatory terms for them when they make mistakes? I hope not. Surely they aren’t perfect either? Assuming you don’t, why is that?

    I’ve spent a lot of time contemplating what’s wrong with the world and what to do about it. Anger, violence, coups, laws, less laws, none of it will work. Let me give some examples. Unions were created to protect workers from abusive employers. Now, in most cases, the unions are quite a problem of their own. Governments were originally created to protect the rights of the people. Now most governments are a problem of their own.

    So what do we do?

    Governments, corporations, unions, they are not evil entities of them selves. They are composed of people. So the problem lies fair and square on the people, those in these said entities, those that created them, and those the perpetuate them.

    Clearly the problem is with the people. Everyone. Not just “them”, you, me, everyone. Where have we gone wrong, and what do about it?

    My conclusion is a 3 letter word that people tend to avoid, tend to blame, and tend to use to justify their actions: God. I’m not talking organized religion, as clearly most organized religions have problems of their own, for the same reason that corporations, unions, and governments do: the people that comprise the said entity.

    God is good. If your God, religion, or dogma isn’t good, that’s part of the problem. Find the REAL God, the real good, and emulate him, as any good son or daughter would do. Then we’ll see real change in this world. It doesn’t matter what the other person does. You’re responsible for YOU and YOU alone. Be good as your father is, people will see it, notice it, and eventually want to be it.

    See God as a loving father or mother, take your pick (since he/she is both). Would a loving father curse you and call you names and belittle you when you make mistakes? Would he throw in an eternally burning oven if he decides you were a “bad” person at the end of your life?

    I hope that each and every person here who is a parent understands what I’m saying. Treat everyone with love and respect, as you would your own child. That doesn’t mean let them walk all over you or oppress you. It won’t be easy. Parenting isn’t easy either.

    God is love. Be that love. Forgive, teach, lead by example. Be nice to that belligerent cop, the arrogant politician, the ignorant driver, just as you would your own child, the slave, the homeless, and the oppressed.

    Make a difference, here, now, right were you are.

    • eric
      November 17, 2013 at 10:39 am

      Hi Charles,

      I do not condemn people lightly – but only (as in the case of our Clover, and people like him) when they have proved themselves to be uninterested in – no, contemptuous of – other people’s right to be left in peace unless they’ve caused harm, to own themselves – and to not “owe” other people money or any other thing that they did not freely agree to provide.

      Then, I condemn them utterly.

      It’s ironic, when you stop to think about it, that people who have accepted Libertarian notions of self-ownership and non-aggression are often characterized as “mean spirited” and (of course) “selfish.”

      Yet they are the people who practice goodwill toward others; who respect their rights; who try to base their interactions with others on peaceful, mutually agreeable cooperation – not violence.

      You mentioned God. How about the Golden Rule?

      Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

      I suspect most people would prefer that violence not be done unto them – especially if they’ve done nothing to anyone to merit it.

      • Charles
        November 17, 2013 at 11:25 am

        Eric, I disagree with you only on one point: the condemnation. I fortunately don’t spend a lot of time driving. When I do, I have noticed the slow person tends to be the older person. What if it was your grandmother or grandfather? Or your son or daughter who is still inexperienced, just got their license yesterday? Would you still condemn them? Why or why not?

        Just like insults and derogatory comments, condemnation doesn’t accomplish anything useful. I’ve learned to accept the poor drivers on the road. Getting angry at them won’t help matters any.

        I’m familiar with the Golden Rule, and I understand and agree with most libertarian philosophy. I believe the full version of the Golden Rule is properly stated as:

        Do unto others as you would have done unto you, because it WILL be done unto you.

        What goes around comes around. Be nice, forgiving, and help those who need it, including the ignorant and slow pokes of the world.

        Charles

        • MamaLiberty
          November 17, 2013 at 11:50 am

          Sorry, Charles, but “old” and “inexperienced” does not equal inconsiderate, foolish or outright hostile by any stretch of the imagination. I am 67 years old. I drove 300+ miles a day in heavy traffic for 14 years to do my job. (No accidents and no tickets) I’ve had to deal with all kinds of drivers and people, you can be sure. The inconsiderate to hostile “clovers” cover every age group, and the young macho men, gang type are actually among the worst for sheer aggression and stupidity.

          I found, as with armed self defense, that the safest and least emotionally (to me) damaging thing I could do was go around them, avoid where they flock, take a different road, go a different time if possible. Few of them are out and about early in the morning. They’re sleeping off their hangovers. But, of course, they still had to be dealt with sometimes and there just isn’t a good answer in the present system except moving to where these punks and other moochers don’t care to live. Not always the best answer, but probably the safest in the long run.

          I don’t drive much anymore. I never did enjoy it, and I don’ t have any great need to go anywhere now except to town once or twice a week for groceries. But my age has nothing to do with HOW I drive. The day it does, I’m done. I won’t EVER be any kind of “clover.”

          • Charles
            November 17, 2013 at 12:12 pm

            MamaLiberty: no offense intended. I was stating that most I see tend to be older. I was by no means implying all older drivers are awful. I appear to be fortunate enough to not have to drive around the folks you guys are describing.

            However, I’ll stand by my statement that insulting them accomplishes nothing. They may be poor unsafe drivers. They may live off the system. They may get thrills out of cutting in front of you and trying to ruin your day. They may be less evolved than you, in more ways than one. Talking about them in derogatory terms accomplishes nothing, and will do nothing to improve the situation.

            I’m of the opinion that most people today are not a product of their own creation. Not only that, they don’t realize it. The system is designed to create these types of people, as the system thrives off of it.

            Have pity on them, not the “I’m better than you” pity, but the “I’m sorry you don’t realize what you are” pity and pray that one day the see the light and wake up.

        • eric
          November 17, 2013 at 12:01 pm

          Hi Charles,

          I don’t have any problem with older (or inexperienced) drivers as such. I agree, we were all inexperienced once – and most of us will be old someday, too.

          What draws my ire are the oblivious/inconsiderate drivers – irrespective of age or experience. The old coot who drives 40 in a 55 zone and refuses to pull off/over to let the cars behind him get by. This sort of thing is basic etiquette – and everyone who is not mentally challenged knows it and ought to act accordingly. If they are not mentally challenged and do not show consideration of others, then they deserve condemnation as I see it.

          The things we’re talking about are not “I can’t help it” things. They are deliberate actions – or acts of omission.

          I believe people ought to be held accountable not for who they are but for what they do.

          • Charles
            November 17, 2013 at 12:16 pm

            Eric – see my comments to MamaLiberty.

            Also, I would ask who put in a position to judge them? I would wager that there are individuals in the world who are “further along” the path in life than you and I are. They probably didn’t get there by judging those “below them”.

            It’s not what happens in life that matters. It’s how you respond to it.

          • eric
            November 17, 2013 at 12:19 pm

            Hi Charles,

            Your premise is that all such persons are acting in good faith – in which case, I would agree they deserve civil treatment.

            However, not all people act in good faith. Some people – like our resident troll, Clover – are overt control freaks who like to play dominance games. Who enjoy lording it over others. Who believe they have a right to take other people’s things – and control their lives – for “the greater good” (as they define it).

            In which case, fuck ‘em and feed ‘em fish heads.

          • clover
            November 17, 2013 at 12:20 pm

            CloverAgain Eric it shows that you have zero patience. Yes if a driver is driving 15 mph under the speed limit for 10 miles it is going to delay you but I would bet that happens to you less than once a year. If it is only for a mile then tell me who the hell cares? I have been able to follow tractors on the road for a mile or two where they were not able to get off the road and they drive about 20 to 25 mph. Hey Eric I lived! Like someone else posted you are unable to live around others.

          • eric
            November 17, 2013 at 12:52 pm

            Clover,

            Why must I wait for you?

            Your post nicely reveals the basic Cloveritic mentality: Your time matters; other people’s time does not. They must accommodate you.

            Who the Hell cares?

            I do.

            Every minute you steal from me is an irreplaceable moment lost forever.

            “Be patient”?

            Why not just do your thing and not interfere with others who might have other things to do?

            This is pointless, I realize.

            Might be time to put you back in the Clover Patch for awhile.

          • MamaLiberty
            November 17, 2013 at 1:15 pm

            Agreed… yet the problem remains HOW to hold them accountable for what they do. Face to face, that is often possible, but not in traffic. Becoming frustrated and angry doesn’t seem like much of an answer to me. You lose far more of your life that way. Trust me… I’ve watched a lot of angry, frustrated people die of coronary disease.

            And who is going to hold them responsible, how?

            As with criminals in a city full of disarmed victims… who can rationally and practically hold them accountable for their crimes? That is indeed the question.

            Private roads would be ideal, with people the owners hire to persuade people to follow the rules for paying customers who need to be kept happy. That would certainly work. Imagine a clover who’s been identified as such, and is no longer welcome to use ANYBODY’s road? :)

          • Eightsouthman
            November 17, 2013 at 1:51 pm

            eric, I give you one example. By his own admission, my congress rep, Randy Naugebauer, wasn’t successful at the things he tried in life so he became a politician(I sold out, desperately seeking fiscal security). In his newsletter a few months ago he mentioned he’d voted for the NDAA act(might as well admit it, it’s record)so the “military and DSH could get paid”. Of course that results in me getting up, limping around and cussing with dogs and cats lying low. Then I sat down and wrote a letter to him, that got to him after the NSA, et. al. had it. I do remember one sentence that had the words Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit and then calling him out on the duplicity of what he’s written in his address to his “constituents”. Clover is one lucky SOB…..lucky I can’t jerk his sorry ass through the internet.

          • BrentP
            November 17, 2013 at 6:07 pm

            Eric it shows that you have zero patience.

            Really Clover? Why is it that you argue continually about how you and your kind should not have to wait to enter traffic? How you demand that people already on the road make way? You have repeatedly argued that if the person entering the roadway didn’t force drivers on the roadway to slow/stop/take evasive action that they would have to wait. Why can’t you wait?

            Furthermore once entering the roadway your kind can’t even bother to accelerate swiftly to minimize the impact.

            No Clover, it is you that is selfish and uncaring about others. If someone is behind the B pillar, hell even the A pillar of your car you don’t care one bit about those people.

            Furthermore, as a road going bicyclist I know for a fact that your kind can’t stand to go slower than their chosen speed or adjust their driving in any way. Fast drivers 99 times out of a 100 just go. They head to the horizon. They see it is easy to pass me so they just do it. It’s the cloveristic population that goes out of their way to cause me grief.

            You are just projecting your own emotions on to others. That’s how your kind rolls, trolling on the road. You do to others what would anger you.

          • Ed
            November 17, 2013 at 6:25 pm

            “This is pointless, I realize. ”

            I bleeve yo’ mind’s a’comin to you now. ;-)

          • Ed
            November 17, 2013 at 6:38 pm

            “The old coot who drives 40 in a 55 zone and refuses to pull off/over to let the cars behind him get by. ”

            Friday, my old truck developed a bulge in the right front tire’s sidewall, so I had to crawl along at 40 for about 12 miles on a 2 lane highway with few passing zones. Behind me was a minivan whose driver refused to pass me when the passing zones were reached, and a conga line suddenly formed behind me.

            As soon as I noticed the line behind me, I turned off at the next road entrance so everyone could pass. It required almost no effort and certainly didn’t slow me down because my truck was already kinda crippled.

            To my way of thinking, that was just the courteous thing to do, and therefore, the safest way of getting to the tire shop where I needed to go. The minivan was one of those older ones and probably didn’t have the pep to pass in one of the short passing zones, so it just made sense for me to get out of everyone’s way.

            Courtesy is a great defuser of tension, I think.

        • Bobbye
          November 19, 2013 at 12:30 am

          Charles: The idea that ‘good’ people should be nice is destroying society. Good people should do what is right; not what is nice! God told Joshua to kill every man, woman and child in Jericho. Was that nice? Elijah burned alive 400 priests of Baal. Was that nice? Jesus said to the woman at the well, “this one your living with is not your husband, and he is number 6″ Maybe that was a nice way of calling her a slut. Jesus told a man to “follow me” the man said ” my father died and I have to bury him” Jesus said “let the dead bury the dead”. Was that nice? Doing the Golden Rule is not about being nice, it is about doing what is right. Loving your neighbor as yourself is not about being nice, it is about doing what is right. Being nice tolerates evil, doing what is right does not. A nice person might help a Charles Manson dig a hole in his back yard. That is not what God calls you to do.

    • Ed
      November 17, 2013 at 10:45 am

      ” Unions were created to protect workers from abusive employers. Now, in most cases, the unions are quite a problem of their own. Governments were originally created to protect the rights of the people. Now most governments are a problem of their own.”

      I think your examples state a common fallacy. These may be the stated reasons for the establishment of both forms of tyranny backed by violence, but I see no evidence that anything done by either entity has been done with an intent to further their stated purposes.

      • Charles
        November 17, 2013 at 11:30 am

        Ed, point noted. However, I think if you look back far enough (granted, it might be a long way), I think you’ll find in many cases the original intent was benevolent, only for them to eventually be warped and corrupted by self serving individuals.

        Charles

        • Eightsouthman
          November 17, 2013 at 12:05 pm

          Well, Ghandi…er….uh Charles, I have to agree with you on this one. When the robber barons owned the whole system they literally did rob everyone including those skilled workers and farmers as well. The banding together of the farmer and the skilled worker was about the only thing they had going for them. Naturally the predatory class migrated to the union because they saw an opportunity to rob their own or what they wanted others to think themselves as being. One reason why NYC is a bastion of not getting anything done, the teamsters, taken over by mob bosses for their own graft. It’s so bad first responders(I hate that term) and volunteers especially were unable to help simply trying to aid people during hurricane sandy.

        • Ed
          November 17, 2013 at 3:05 pm

          “I think you’ll find in many cases the original intent was benevolent”

          I think you’re wrong. If you think you’re right, go back as far as it takes and find the original intent of the people who were so benevolent. You can then compare that intent to what resulted from their actions. The result is the fruit of their action. By their fruit….what’s the rest of the line?

          • Charles
            November 17, 2013 at 5:09 pm

            You may be right. I’d like to think that the original creators of a “union” had the interests of the workers in mind. Perhaps they had too much of the worker’s interest in mind.

            The crux of my argument, which I may not have implied, is that every organization that is run by godless individuals will be awful. Doesn’t matter what name you give it, if you take God out of the equation, it will be bad.

            I’m open to meaningful suggestions if you believe to the contrary.

          • Garysco
            November 17, 2013 at 5:42 pm

            @Charles – “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

            “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

            ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention

          • Ed
            November 17, 2013 at 6:21 pm

            “I’m open to meaningful suggestions if you believe to the contrary.”

            Suggestions? I don’t know what you mean. My point was that “by their fruits you shall know them” Their fruits are rotten, so their intentions were falsely stated.

          • Eightsouthman
            November 17, 2013 at 6:51 pm

            Charles, whatever you might mean by godless, if it’s organized religion or belief in a supreme being, I wouldn’t qualify. That’s a bit simplistic of my belief. The people I’ve had watching my 6’s have been for the big part, godless as you’d say. Not only do I trust them implicitly, I have good reason since they have had my back throughout my entire life and still do. I have had people who used religion to back out on me. I was raised baptist, and while there are good people there, there are plenty who are the biggest hypocrites I never want to see again. I could never subscribe to the guy in the sky, heaven or hell, since it’s so simplistic it couldn’t possibly be true with all the inconsistencies. For those who believe, I’m happy for them…..but leery when it comes to the nutcuttin, and I’ve had plenty of that in my life.

  25. Charles
    November 17, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    I do believe most people would do better if the knew better. Yes, some appear to have a long way to go. I try to avoid painting with a broad brush. Yes, most politicians are self serving power hungry freaks. But not all. Likewise, I don’t think all Eric proclaimed “clovers” are willfully out to make life miserable for everyone else. In fact, I would think most are not. At the end of your life, do you think you’ll be thinking, “wow, I’m so glad I spent so much time and energy belittling those drivers, those clovers, those people who [I allow] to drive me crazy, and I wish I had more time to feed them fish heads”. Or will it be something better, like “I wish I spent more time helping those who didn’t know they needed help”?

    My perspective is this world is seriously messed up. Clearly the vast majority of us are doing something wrong. This isn’t how the world is supposed to be. We’re all getting what we put out, the boomerang of life. Maybe it’s time to change what we send out?

    Charles

  26. Ed
    November 17, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    Speaking of praying at the suggestion of another person, this guy I used to work with ( back in the early 80s) was a real storyteller. He could tell a story about something he saw or experienced and have the whole crew rolling on the ground, laughing. Ok, so Josey told this one (I’m relating it in the 1st person past tense as he did):

    “Ah-ight, so I was hitchikin through Georgia and was starvin my ass off tryin to get home to SC. So I went to a church soup kitchen in Atlanta to see if I could get some supper. Anyways, I ast ‘em could I go in the chow line there and one of ‘em said ‘Sho ’nuff. Just wait a minute here and pray a little prayer first’.

    I looked up at the ceilin’ and hollered “Lord, please tell these sonofabitches to give me somethin to eat”.

  27. mava
    November 17, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    This is done by the police to further the police state. Officers on the street do not need to be aware of this. “Fuhrer knows better”.

    The way this is implemented is everywhere and always same: Inability to prosecute the police. If your “democracy” was true, actual state of the state, then you would be turn around and have that officer sued for breaking the law. But you can’t, can you?

    That is right, you can’t. The justice simply doesn’t exist once you decide to question the superiority of the law enforcers. I don’t think this democracy ever existed, to say the truth. It was always just a lie, sold to the public.

    As for the slow drivers, the cops want you to hate them. Unless you learn to hate each other, instead of taking the issue with the law that makes two different ways of living to collide, there is always a possibility of the police state not happening.

    This principle can be seen not only in the case of a slow driver. Have you ever tried to beat up the local bully? He would do it over and over with minimum troubles, but for you, the law book will be thrown for sure. Same thing.

    All of the above happens because you start your very first consideration of the government by already believing the biggest lie it sells – that the purpose of the government is to help the people to maintain order. Lol, it is not.

    • MamaLiberty
      November 17, 2013 at 5:49 pm

      Mava, actually the first problem is the false idea that any government or their employee actually has any legitimate authority or right to either “help” or harm – to maintain order even under the most benevolent conditions. Once people accept that false authority, there really is little that can be done to limit it.

  28. MamaLiberty
    November 17, 2013 at 5:44 pm

    Charles, you said: is that every organization that is run by godless individuals will be awful.

    Most of the theft, coercion, and outright murder in the history of the world has been done by those who said they believed in god, and were speaking for “him.”

    Define godless. Who decides that? By what criteria? These have been the subject of countless wars and disasters through the ages.

    The book most of them point to commands clearly that there be no theft, coercion or murder, but that seldom even slows them down. Most of them worship the state, in all its evil glory. The idea of these “godfearing” people being in charge of anything gives me the willies.

    Let each person choose their own god and live in peace, leaving everyone else to do the same.

    • Charles
      November 17, 2013 at 7:02 pm

      My definition of godly: having a good moral compass and doing what’s right
      My definition of godless: doing whatever benefits you, every one else be damned

      Wars are not fought over religion. Wars are fought over intolerance of other people’s religion.

      Again I use the analogy of a loving father/mother. What would he/she do? Any decent parent should be able to relate.

      Yes, it is that simple. It’s man that makes it complicated.

      Those folks that give you the willies? Would you consider them good? Clearly not. Doesn’t matter what they say, it’s what they do that matters.

      I’m in no position to judge anyone but myself. No one else here is either. Live up to your standards, what is right, what is true, what is good. That’s godliness. Some might call it morality. Where does morality stem from?

      Judging others, forcing your beliefs upon others, robbing peter to pay paul to win paul’s vote, intolerance of other people’s beliefs and opinions, that’s all ungodly.

      Unfortunately, thinking about it, I can think of plenty of examples of what’s not godly. Still, at the end of the day, I think most people know what’s right and what’s wrong. And if they understood the law of life, karma, the golden rule, whatever you want to call it, they’d be more apt to follow it.

      • Eightsouthman
        November 17, 2013 at 7:54 pm

        Wars are not fought over religion. Wars are fought over intolerance of other people’s religion.

        I hope you had a d’oh moment when you wrote that.

        “Again I use the analogy of a loving father/mother. What would he/she do? Any decent parent should be able to relate.”

        I have seen countless loving mothers and fathers that were raving racists, bigots and just generally no goodnicks to those they deemed their inferior for whatever reason. Woe unto their children if they should ever do something their parents deemed unacceptable.

        Let’s review WW!!, godless fascist, communists even though church’s in Germany were full to overflowing with good “christians” who had no problem killing Jews.
        Korea, godless Commies, ditto Vietnam. ditto Grenada, ditto all the rest of the wars the US has aggressed against godless Muslims.

        The golden rule to religious people goes right out the window when dealing with those godless of some other persuasion. It must be true, the Shrub said so….and he’s a deity in his own right, just go to his new library.

        • Charles
          November 17, 2013 at 8:37 pm

          I hear what you’re saying. I’m not sure why you’re saying it though? I’m not endorsing their behavior, and I’m certainly saying you should emulate it. I’m not saying get religious, embrace a dogma, and believe you’re better than anyone who doesn’t believe what you believe. As for loving parents, I certainly wouldn’t refer to your examples as loving parents. Would you?

          I’m saying be a good person. You have plenty of examples of what good isn’t. Yes, there are some murky areas between right and wrong, but for the most part, it’s pretty clear cut.

          The best way to be good that is to find God and emulate him. Not a watered down god made in man’s image, the real God. The one who loves unconditionally. The one who forgives. And yes, the one who requires discipline of his children. The one who set the golden rule into motion so that his children could learn what it’s like to be on the receiving side of their actions.

          Oh, and no, it’s not the one that preaches hell and damnation.

          • Hot Rod
            November 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm

            8 said

            “Hot Rod, I’m missing something. A 2000 year old religion is the only thing accounting for the way the universe is? That’s some twisted logic. No, that’s not logic. So what you’re saying if I can decode it, the universe is 2000 years old?”

            The only twisted thing here is how you came to that conclusion? Newton didn’t invent physics, he explained it for other simpletons to understand how it worked. Men don’t invent logic, or truth, but they can choose whether to learn about it, apply it, and embrace it. Give it a try sometime, you might like it.

        • November 17, 2013 at 9:02 pm

          I have no right to say that a person who followed out of fear and killed Jews in Nazi Germany, or kills Muslims in a foreign country, is not a Christian. That’s between them and God. But I would absolutely not call them “Good Christians.” If they are Christians in any respect, their churches have failed them, for refusing to command them to repent, and for refusing to excommunicate them if they failed to do so, as Matthew 18 says.

          Most Christians know now that Nazi Germany was wrong, but they can’t see with a clear eye with regards to the US military. I suspect this will be more popular here than anywhere else I could post it (Some people on RPF can tolerate it as well, I was temp banned from a theology forum for saying similar)… I see no real moral difference between “serving” in the US army, where you might end up having to kill someone that never threatened you, your family, your community, or your country, and being a homosexual or an adulterer. Yes, under the current system of law, these actions are “legal”, but this is no excuse for a Christian to participate in them. (Lest I be misunderstood, I think 1 Corinthians 5 proves that Christians should NOT be trying to criminalize homosexual sex, adultery, consensual polygamy or incest between adults, whatever. I’m not saying that the fact that these actions are legal is a bad thing, I’m simply saying that the fact that these actions are legal is no excuse for a Christian to engage in them.) Homosexuality is rapidly even becoming celebrated in society. But that’s not an excuse for a Christian to participate in or celebrate t. How is being a soldier or a police officer and aggressive against the innocent any better? Most of the people in my church are very ignorant in this regard. I’ve often wondered if I should fellowship with people who support this kind of immorality anymore so than “Christians” who think adultery and homosexuality are acceptable (While I am not the judge of their eternal souls, I know their lukewarm attitude toward those moral issues is offensive to God.) Maybe some day I won’t. Right now, I’m an 18 year old that still lives with his parents, and my dad is the pastor, so I have his ear. And I’m in a church that is “non-political” enough that at least the military and police are not constantly celebrated. I just started my “Liberty and the Gospel” (Click on my username) blog for the dual purpose of trying to show the world what Christianity really is, and trying to show Christians why anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is the Christian, Biblical political system.

          Now, I kind of rambled a little bit there, but I wanted to address the golden rule and its relation to religion. Those who use force against those who don’t agree with them on morality or faith, whether it be Muslims killing apostates, public schools discriminating against Christian teachers who share their faith (Note that I said “Public schools”, not private ones. I would surely expect Muslim private schools to hire Muslims only, Christian schools to hire Christians only, etc. and I see nothing wrong with this), Christians who endorse the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or are OK with the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki, Jews and Christians who want to steal money at gunpoint to support Israel, etc. (This is not an exhaustive list by any means) are all incompatible with the golden rule. So if the “Christians who ignore the golden rule” to which you refer are supporting things like I describe above, or are otherwise supporting aggression, I agree with you.

          On the other hand, if you mean Christians telling non-Christians to REPENT is “Violating the golden rule” than I strongly disagree with you. If I was in a false religion, if I was on the path to Hell, I would absolutely want someone to tell me. So for a Christian to tell a non-Christian that he is on the wrong path, is headed to Hell, and can be saved if he trusts in Christ’s work on the cross to save him, he is NOT violating the golden rule.

          BTW: since you (I think it was you) mentioned Baptists earlier, I should mention that I attend a Baptist church (and would generally identify as a Baptist) and am also an anarcho-capitalist. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have about my rambling above.

          • Eightsouthman
            November 17, 2013 at 9:25 pm

            David, Germans didn’t follow out of fear, they followed because they were convinced from religious writings, the Bible, that they had the moral obligations to kill Jews. Many books other than the bible can provide a path to live by with as much authority as I see it.

            If you have ever studied nature in any depth you’ll know that every specie has homosexuals, some a great majority of the specie. I have friends who are homosexual but are great people. I have never feared any of them for any reason, quite the opposite to be honest. For the most part they have shown a moral character well above their heterosexual counterparts. I don’t equate mores with morality as does the Bible. People who live by the written word alone will always be deceived since the written word can be taken more than one way. Why is it not good enough to simple treat everyone as you want to be treated? You don’t need scripture to understand that, just be human. In a way I think that is addressed in a roundabout way by Fred Reed’s column today. Whatever you might think of it, it is a stimulating piece of writing. http://www.fredoneverything.net/BotFly.shtml I really don’t expect to sleep tonight. This is one of those things a person can think about for many hours.

        • Bevin
          November 18, 2013 at 7:47 am

          Dear 8sm,

          The golden rule to religious people goes right out the window when dealing with those godless of some other persuasion.

          Exactly. Sad to say, most of the devoutly religious people I’ve encountered, with few exceptions, are exactly as you described.

          When push comes to shove, “moderate Christian” disclaimers about “the true spirit of Christianity” are no more convincing than “moderate Muslim” disclaimers about “the true spirit of Islam.”

          The claim is always that “The fanatics do not represent the true spirit of religion x, y, or z.” Yet somehow the fanatics who “do not represent the true spirit of religion x, y, or z” invariably seem to be setting the agenda for religion x, y, or z.

          This is no accident. The major world religions that originate in the Middle East, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, adhere to a Manichean world view of black vs. white, good vs. evil, God vs. Satan.

          This dualism manifests itself in proclamations such as Bush’s “You’re either with us or you’re with the enemy,” and in statements by his counterparts in Israel or the Islamic world.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P8U

          As a result, despite the disclaimers, religionist assertions that “the true spirit religion x, y, or z is one of tolerance” has little if any credibility.

          Religious libertarianism is not impossible. But religious faith tends to work against it.

          • Eightsouthman
            November 18, 2013 at 9:36 am

            Bevin, when someone says you have no basis for your morality because you don’t accept Jesus Christ as your savior then the discussion is over. No need to debate someone who will never be wrong in their mind or see there might be another way. Indoctrination from the time you’re small and never letting up is simply another form of brainwashing. If you can never see beyond a book that was written by countless authors, translated by literally tens of thousands of people and put into print by that same number more, you get something but I’m not sure what it is and neither would they be if they could only think past it. It’s stories, trying to impart to people something, but what that is is mere speculation. You have two testaments too and the old one is really something else and it’s so radical that most christians now reject it because it’s ways of dealing with many things would put you in prison or a hangman’s noose pronto in most of the world. Then there’s the FACT that christians split off into countless sects because they can’t agree with one another and can’t even agree with one another at the same church. Hot Rod says he’s never met his equal. Enough said.

          • eric
            November 18, 2013 at 9:49 am

            On ethics:

            I see no need for a religious basis to abide by the tenets of the Golden Rule. If only out of empathy – and self-interest.

            Moreover, I would argue that it’s much to be preferred when a person chooses to reject using violence against others not because he fears divine retribution or expects divine reward but rather because he has come to the conclusion that if he expects not to be done violence by others he ought not to do violence to them.

          • Eightsouthman
            November 18, 2013 at 9:48 am

            Bevin, you said “Religious libertarianism is not impossible. But religious faith tends to work against it.”
            I see this constantly in the very religious writings of some “libertarians”. They, more than anyone else, tend to pigeonhole others not of their religious persuasion.

          • eric
            November 18, 2013 at 9:55 am

            Not me, Eight!

            I’ve explained my own views before, but to recap:

            I, like many people, have opinions as regards the possibility that there is something outside of nature, or superior to it; some guiding intelligence, if you like. However, I also recognize that none of this can be factually demonstrated in the way that, say, one can demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4. Therefore, I refuse to make universal statements about such things as the existence (or not) of God, what this being desires us to do (and so on) much less demand that others agree with me as to the correctness of those statements.

            We must each arrive at our own conclusions – while accepting that others may arrive at different conclusions. We may think they are in error, benighted and so on. But provided neither we nor they attempts to impose their respective beliefs on anyone, then everything is cool.

          • Bevin
            November 18, 2013 at 10:16 am

            Dear 8sm,

            “Bevin, when someone says you have no basis for your morality because you don’t accept Jesus Christ as your savior then the discussion is over. ”

            I know only too well what you mean. Such a declaration is essentially a confession that “I am flagrantly irrational and have no objective basis for my morality.”

            If the individual actually takes his religion’s equivalent of the Golden Rule seriously, I suppose it’s better than nothing. But I’ve never considered faith based morality terribly reassuring.

            As I noted earlier, I’ve found that far more religionists allow their simpistic “us vs. them” Manichean dualism to trump any Golden Rule “live and let live” precepts they might pay lip service to.

          • Bevin
            November 18, 2013 at 10:23 am

            Dear Eric,

            Re: faith based morality

            Agree!

            One of the most reassuring arguments for the Golden Rule for me is Game Theory and “tit for tat.”

            It essentially proves, scientifically, mathematically, that doing the right thing is also doing the smart thing, the thing that works in the long run.

          • Eightsouthman
            November 18, 2013 at 10:42 am

            eric, I was thinking of people who are very religious and ‘libertarian’ also. I see more backhanded pigeonholing of people by them than anyone. I understand you can be very religious and a libertarian at the same time, it’s just a few of them are bordering on not being a libertarian when it comes to religion.
            I have no problem with religion, only the way someone acts towards others. I think for some, it’s harder to be egalitarian if you will than if they had no religion. Just an observation and not something I’d ascribe to every religious person at all. I could care less what your religious affiliation is and respect people who don’t let you know they are religious more than those who put it out there constantly. When I say ‘your’, I”m not speaking of you eric, simply anyone.

          • Hot Rod
            November 18, 2013 at 11:51 am

            8 I can respect your differences from my way of seeing things and I feel no condemnation toward you. I don’t particular like athiest ignoring 90% of the facts of science that prove that the universe is enlightened and alive. I don’t like athiest pretending this whole world isn’t a miracle, or that its just some random one time experience when its more than obvious that the whole thing is jury rigged miracle. But its your life and you can reap whatever you sow as far as I’m concerned.

            Also, I don’t like the one time and that is it atheist pardigm, because its B.S. of the highest degree if anyone ever took a course in mathematics and understood the infinite set and how it works. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again atheist are like teenagers. They are bright compared to a 6 year old that believes Jesus is sleeping under their bed with them. And they like to poke holes in those kinds of people’s limited world view. And they are damn funny too, as George Carlin comes to mind. But an atheist is basically a teenager in rebellion, and though its a stage we all must go through into adult hood, the rebllious stage. Nothing is worse than seeing a man act 14 years old in a 50 year old body. Atheist want to ignore 99% of the miracles of this universe and pretend its a one time accident?

            They want to pretend humanity is the pinnacle of intelligence of this unniverse (Don’t make me laugh). They want to say there is only one life and one world, when mathematics is telling us the world is infinite possibilities? How can someone believe that B.S. that they die and don’t come back if all possibilities must be fullfilled including a second life in an infinite universe? Just blind fold me, no better yet pluck my eyeballs out and make me deaf to reasoning and all the physics and laws of this world and mathematics that prove how insanely briliiant the universe is? Tell me again to live in a safe little box where i can say there is nothing more and I can do as i please because it all doesn’t matter.

            But no atheist always say I wouldn’t hurt someone because I believe in morality without a God. And that is the crux of what I’m saying is inlining. Inlining in software code is where you pluck out a good segment of a reference call routine and put it into your code so that it doesn’t have to go searching. Its plagurism that speed code up and borrows what works and makes it local, why because we know it works so we just accept the truths of a particular code and use it right there. And by the same token atheist stand on the backs of giants (like Newton said of Galileo) and assume the 10 commandments always existed without acknowledging righteousness, morality, and feedback as in intelligent universe. “Oh I believe in morality, never mind I’m using Moses as a foot stool here!”. Or I believe in causality and reaping what I’m sowing and that he world seems alive at judging and feedbacking, but there is nothing more.

            Lets just all go out on a killing purging spree because their is no intelligence and feedback for bad moral works, but I just do good because it suits me anyway and makes me feel all soft and good toward humanity. And though atheist will say I’m not saying that, if they follow through with their premises of simplicity there is nothing to keep them honest. Why the hell shouldn’t they do as they please? But of course there is intelligence behind the scenes that keeps men honest, whether they believe or not. The world is insanely causal and just because men don’t want to reap what they sow, doesn’t mean they won’t.

            Its my observation that this world like people are mirrors. If we hate this universe then it will surely hate us. Try this with other people and you’ll find the same result. This life is one big mirror, there is something jury rigging the scenes.

            As far as the bible, I don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you want to point out the sillyness of some aspects of the bible, I’d be more apt to agree than not. But can you ignore the 98% brilliance in other places because you find something that rakes you the wrong way? Like you said its composed of lots of different authors, some I believe were much closer to God and thus their message genius. Others seem to be fraud, but that is like all other things in life is where critical thinking and discretion and maturity must be used. I’m not going to blame college for one bad professor? What about all the other 30 that did me right?

            Finally, when I said I’ve not met my equal this is not condescending as you might have taken it. We are all unique and we all have exceptional capabilities, experience and knowledge. Just because I find that a majority of people don’t apply themselves or think exceptional at anything extraordinary doesn’t mean they couldn’t if they tried. But sadly most people are lazy fools, how many people do you know continue to excercise calculus, differential equations, expand their engineering knowledge after college is done? How many people do you know go investigate and think they can solve a problem not in a texbook and then solve that problem? Most people just glide and accept what other regurgitate them and sadly that is what makes me unique and why I don’t bother arguing with know it all teenagers that can’t think outside of the box.

            As far as Jesus, I’m convinced that the guy was a genius. I’ve found his explanations of life after death, agree with state machines. How could I deny this and his other genius for being a near caveman -2000 year ago? If I take Jesus as being a lord a local God ruler that is exceptionally leader because he is fucking brilliant big brother that is my own belief and I don’t ask anyone to follow it. Most people though are drawn to this man. History is obsessed with his genius and western society stand on his giant thinking. Though I never saw him turn water into wine, just some of the other mundane concepts he conveyed to judgmental ignormus back then says he is beyond unique for his time. He was a truth teller and he was of God. I’d listen to anyone that was exceptionally well knowledgeable. Enough said.

            Regards,
            Hot Rod

          • Eightsouthman
            November 18, 2013 at 12:45 pm

            Hot Rod, I’m missing something. A 2000 year old religion is the only thing accounting for the way the universe is? That’s some twisted logic. No, that’s not logic. So what you’re saying if I can decode it, the universe is 2000 years old?

          • Hot Rod
            November 18, 2013 at 2:21 pm

            8 said (posted in wrong place so reposting)

            “Hot Rod, I’m missing something. A 2000 year old religion is the only thing accounting for the way the universe is? That’s some twisted logic. No, that’s not logic. So what you’re saying if I can decode it, the universe is 2000 years old?”

            The only twisted thing here is how you came to that conclusion? Newton didn’t invent physics, he explained it for other simpletons to understand how it worked. Men don’t invent logic, or truth, but they can choose whether to learn about it, apply it, and embrace it. Give it a try sometime, you might like it.

          • Boothe
            November 18, 2013 at 3:17 pm

            Actually Eight, the two thousand year old religion you refer to was based on the teachings of a man that was attempting to correct the false message of that day and time’s organized church by telling the truth (i.e. the Gospel) to the people. The original message from the prophets of the religion of the Old Testament (which is now five thousand years old, at least) was already long dead and buried by the theocracy. It didn’t take long after a certain young Nazarene was nailed to a post, that ambitious men set about “organizing” His message of individual liberty (free will), the Golden Rule and the admonition to “love one another” into a money grubbing religious power base from which to fleece and control the masses once again. His actual messages were taught in parables so that we, each of us individually, would have to seek out their meaning through prayer, meditation, fellowship and discussion with the likeminded. You know, much the same way we hash things out on this site. We don’t need an “Internet pastor” to sort things out for us, do we?

            Yeshua (Jesus) challenged the organized church of his day which included the lawyers, scribes and Pharisees, et al and they didnt’ like it one bit. The “churchians” of Yeshua’s day couldn’t have this young man wandering around teaching the unwashed masses that they were the ones screwing the widows and orphans, handing out divorces like candy, stoning harlots to death while giving their partners a free pass and reserving the best seats in the temple for the wealthy. Or worse, that the individual’s relationship with their Creator doesn’t require the clergy to run interference for them. Each individual can seek their Creator on their own, no church or clergy needed. That’ll cut down on donations to the temple for sure. Can’t have that, now can we?

            It was those same churchians that saw to Yeshua’s execution as well, all the while trying to make the Romans bear the blame. Pontius Pilatus knew better and went so far as to publicly wash his hands of the murder. And ever since then, the greedy, the ambitious, the opportunistic, the churchians, have twisted that young man’s words and fabricated outright lies to serve their own ends and feather their own nests. Where humans are involved, you can bet there will be corruption. Some things never change.

      • November 17, 2013 at 8:38 pm

        With all due respect, I think this shows exactly why atheistic, agnostic, and utilitarian (Yes, I know they aren’t all the same thing, but they are related) libertarians mean well, and even defend their positions far better and with more detail than I am capable of doing at times, are nonetheless inconsistent.

        You state here, on the one hand, that you have no right to judge anyone else. On the other hand, you say that “robbing Peter to pay Paul” is wrong. But… you just contradicted yourself. If its wrong to judge, its wrong to judge period. If there is no absolute standard, there is no moral standard at all, INCLUDING a moral standard that says don’t judge. Is murder wrong? Why? Is theft wrong? Why? Both of these things are “natural.” So why are they wrong? Why do we prohibit them? Because we can? Doesn’t that remind you of the statists?

        Now, I don’t know what you mean by “intolerance of religion” so I may or may not agree with you here. If by “Tolerance” you mean not forcing anyone to subscribe to any religion, and living peaceably with everyone as long as they do the same for you, than I agree with you that all peaceful religions should be “tolerated.” This is Biblical. Any Muslims who kill “apostates” are wrong, as was the Spanish Inquisition, the murder of Michael Servetus (Although I should point out here that John Calvin wasn’t actually the one who did that, it was the Genevan civil authority)… I could list examples of abuses of faith that are clearly unbiblical and immoral over and over again.

        But some take “tolerance” to a whole different level to mean that even peaceful attempts to cause someone to accept the true religion are wrong, and with that I wholeheartedly disagree. As a Christian, I believe very strongly that the only way to salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. And I strongly believe that if one refuses to believe that Christ died to cover their sins, they will be eternally separated from God in Hell. Is that harsh? Sure, but its also true, the Bible tells me so and I believe it. If I didn’t proclaim this truth to unbelievers, I would actually be showing hatred toward them. It would be like a doctor who knows the cure to his patient’s deadly ailment, yet assures the patient that he is not sick. Which is exactly what Satan said to Eve in the Garden: You shall not surely die.

        I get into more detail here: http://libertyandthegospel.wordpress.com/the-most-important-question-ever-asked/ but for now, let me simply explain how this applies to morality. The Bible tells me “Strive not with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.” (Proverbs 3:30.) Jesus says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Luke 6:31). 1 Corinthians 5 says that an incestuous person outside the church should be left to God to judge, but that those who are sexually immoral in the church should be excommunicated. That sure sounds like anarcho-libertarian voluntary association to me. Yes, in the Old Testament nation of Israel they did have laws against homosexuality, adultery, and idolatry that were enforced, but those laws were specifically for Israel in the Old Testament as the divinely ordained theocracy (And even then, there was no centralized state, no bureaucracy, no laws because of what “might” happen, etc. as a whole it was a MUCH freer society than the modern USA.) I could expound on this with a more complex argument, but let me simply say this: God created human beings, he gave them the rules to live by, which includes laws against theft, murder, and coercion. Yes, many Christians don’t believe what the Bible says about these topics (Or haven’t thought about it) but the Bible is nonetheless the foundation for why coercion (among other things) is wrong. Because God declares it so. Without God, there is no absolute morality, and thus no real argument against the statism that we see rising around us. Atheism (Real or practical) has led us to an absolute State. While there are a few atheists who are libertarians, the reality is that atheism as a theological system logically leads to a “majority rules” system of politics, because there is no absolute standard.

        • Horse Badorties
          November 17, 2013 at 8:54 pm
        • Charles
          November 17, 2013 at 9:44 pm

          David, you and I agree on most points. I alluded to the fact that morality stems from God. Most individuals who believe in God believe the Bible is the source of God’s truth. Therefore the 10 commandments still hold true, which is where basic morality originates from.

          As for judging, I think we’re getting in verbal semantics. Someone earlier said if he could he’d strangle with his bare hands a certain politician who claimed he spoke with God daily. That’s judging in my book. Saying I disagree with him as his actions speak otherwise, and that robbing peter to pay paul is wrong is not judging. To me judging is declaring and serving justice. Courts are supposed to be filled those deemed worthy to represent law and justice. That of course begs the question who makes that distinction? The people are supposed to have discernment to know who is a worthy representative of God, and who isn’t. That comes from finding God and knowing God.

          My definition of intolerance of religion is your first definition. I find it highly ironic that the so called Pilgrims fled to America to escape religion persecution and then they persecuted the “savages” who believed other than they did. Hypocrisy at its finest.

          From there, however, I think we disagree. Your definition of religion is different than mine. You have every right to your beliefs, as I do mine. I would ask why you believe that a manuscript that has been copied by hand over more than a millennium has not been altered in any way? Furthermore, what’s left of the Bible is subject to wide interpretation. Many can use it to support just about any argument. For example, based on your commentary, I’m certain you don’t believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation blows the whole God of damnation to hell, so it had to be removed and its supporters persecuted. Without a God of damnation, you can’t control the people. It is all about control, remember. Yet the Bible is full of references could be interpreted as supporting reincarnation. A quick google search will show you that. Here’s one: http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-bible-verses.htm.

          I would also ask why you believe what you were taught in church, bible school, sunday school, whatever? Did you take at face value, unquestioning, or did you internalize it, digest it, and decide for yourself if it’s true or not? Are you your own creation, or that of those around you?

          I have a really hard time believing that a baby who dies that wasn’t baptized yet, or doesn’t have the cognitive abilities to understand how to “Accept Jesus as your lord and savior” would go to hell. Come on, seriously? Are you a father? “Sorry son, you didn’t have a chance to understand or embrace the true faith, therefore I’m going to pop you into this oven where you can burn. Eternally, no less.”

          You and I believe most of the same things. The divide that separates us is your God of damnation, and the lack of belief in reincarnation, karma, and our higher selves. If you’re a typical die hard religious fanatic, if my prior commentary didn’t do it, this prior statement will probably invoke your statements of divine wrath, going to hell, blasphemy, etc etc etc.

          I stand by my statement that this world is horribly messed up. Every organized religion, yours included, doesn’t seem to be making much headway in changing things. Doesn’t that lead any free thinker that believes in God to suspect something or many somethings is missing from today’s religions?

          Find the real God, the all loving, all forgiving God. Listen to him, learn from him, emulate him, and BE him. As children of God we’re supposed to follow in his footsteps, mature, and then become one in his likeness.

          Then we’ll have real change in the world.

          • Hot Rod
            November 17, 2013 at 10:48 pm

            Charles I agree with 90% of what you believe and the other 10% is pure speculation at least on my part. It does seem that the world was bipolar in every aspect such that man has free will to choose. The problem is that this world also exhibits equilibrium between opposite forces that seem to control and limit snowball effects both good and bad, the world has negative feedback control loop to limit uncontrolled forces that ultimately would destroy such world left unbalanced. Therefore one shutters to think could a God harden a heart of someone already closed off to him, and use him to acheive overall balance in the universe. This is what is most imperative that bright men always must try to know the truth and morality so that we do not slide into being reprobate. That is especially hard in religions where threats of violence (implied to be God) by a preacher man assuming to be God in flesh.

            And when we look at good (creation in God’s image) and evil (destruction in some other image) we realize that a whole heck of alot of people live on the wrong pole of the bipolar, and when I say wrong pole I mean destructive to them and everyone around them.

            To me it follows then that this world is composed of opposites constantly grinding each other down and checking and balancing, and sometimes opposites working together symbiotically (rarely) when proceeding towards a common goal. I literally get annoyed with my anti-particle. What goal though would transcend all differences? You’d hope truth, production, creation, greatness, and morality (God’s attributes defined by all religions) all being the same would motivate everyone the same by inspiring. But it seems that some are doomed to like and love deteriation. And these people of like mind do love each other too. Ever met a man that gets great joy out of the misery of others? And that of course is a rhetorical question, but as we know the answer being citizens of God already.

            Atheism is a waste of time as its obvious that the universe is self aware and observant. This comes out of the fact of Heisenberg that shows that observation is required part of creation, and the fact that the world is mostly objective. Then who or what is observing if human’s in their feeble abilities and time spans are not there to observe at all time sof history and to the atomic level and universe level. And the answer is the same thing that is checking and balancing all things in this world. Its also without a doubt that the world is infinite (even if the big bangers are right on a particular cycle repeating sometimes the fact that infinite seems more probable then not is because mathematical thereoms work so well with the infinite set).

            And the billion dollar question that athiest have to bang their head on the wall is if the world is infinite then life after death is not only a possible outcome, but in infinite possibilities everything must come to exist and coexist in the God’s infinitude including the next world after this for our existence in its infinitude. Heaven and hell therefore are outcomes just like this world in the possibilities of its infinite existence, and that of causality of reaping what we sow. I rather like the idea after living on this particular plane of having my opposites placed in other mansions (or shack) away from me. Sound non-frictious and entropy be damned.

            I’ve always been pretty pragmatic when it comes to God because I find that alot of people make shit up about it. And I don’t believe everything a minister tells me or even necessarily what is in the bible, I judge everythinng by the fruit it bears. But as Ed said you can tell greatness by the tree that bears great fruit. Jesus or Yeshua definitely had some delicious fruitfull ideas that have impacted us beyond the wildest of wet dreams of men after him. The obvious impact is so inlined that even athiest can’t conceive how they and rest of the western society have embraced the philosophy of Jesus and it can never be seperated out of society again. I’ve always said that I would consent to someone only if he were brighter than me. I’ve met no such man in physical form in my life, but have no doubt that such a character as Jesus could outwit me, and as far as the infinitude (God) I submit as anything else would be foolish and egotistical.

            Best Regards,
            Hot Rod

          • November 17, 2013 at 11:36 pm

            I will look at the link you posted, but before I do, I want to address some things.

            You keep talking about the “God of Damnation”, which shows you don’t understand the glory of the gospel message. The gospel is not the message of how we are damned, but about how we can be saved! Praise God that he even provided a way for sinful human beings to be reconciled to God! While I do not claim to have a full understanding of God, he is perfectly just. He will not send anyone to Hell who does not deserve to go there, nor does any such person exist.

            I didn’t say infants go to Hell. To say that, you’d have to assume two things. First of all, you have to assume that infants can’t believe. And second of all, you have to assume that no infant is saved without personal belief.

            1 Samuel 12:23 is a common proof text to say that infants can be saved if they die as infants. Its not foolproof, there are other interpretations of this passage. I don’t know if its possible for an infant to be saved without personal belief or not. I leave them to God’s mercy.

            However, the first proposition is false, IMO. I don’t think its impossible for an infant to believe. I didn’t really want to “go here” since most Christians do not understand this when they first get saved, but I am a Calvinist. As such, I believe salvation is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is ultimately given to every person who he died for, and I also believe that God chooses who those people are. This is not unjust because everyone ultimately deserves Hell because they rebelled in Adam. So, those who he does not choose do not get worse than what they deserve, but those who he does choose get far, far better than what they deserve, an eternity in communion with God rather than separation from God. Now, as to what form the torment in Hell will take, I don’t know. Is it a literal fire? Is it symbolic of something else, such as the pain of being eternally separated from God? I don’t know the answer to that, and I don’t see how knowing for sure is central to the gospel message, or would make me a better Christian. I do know that those who believe in Christ will be eternally in union with him and those who do not will be eternally separated from him, but I’m not going to presume I know more about what that looks like than I really do in order to “scare” anyone into a conversion, or anything like that.

            The Puritans… I honestly don’t know how much of the “official story” is actually true, I have a feeling the anti-religious public schools exagerrated the truth somewhat, and I haven’t studied the issue in any kind of depth. But to the extent that it actually is true, there’s no excuse for persecution of any kind. As Calvinists, the Puritans were also hypocrites to the extent that they did this. Trying to persecute someone into accepting a message that they can’t accept of their own strength anyway is doubly stupid.

            Finally, as for the “control” thing, a friend said this to me recently. Ultimately, I believe it is government, not religion, that does the controlling. America in the early days (except for slaves, unfortunately, but I think even this could not have been sustained were it not for what government they did have) was way more religious, and way more free, than we are today. As I said, a friend at my college campus told me this same thing about religion and control recently, so I think its a topic I want to take on on my blog soon (The link is in my username if you’re interested, I talk about both political and theological subjects), so I’m not going to go into too much depth right now. But just real quick, Josef Stalin is a clear example of an atheist who murdered millions. Hitler is an example of someone who claimed to be a Christian (Even though he clearly wasn’t) who did the same thing. What do both have in common? Massive, totalitarian governments. Walter Block addresses this topic on LRC as well pointing out that governments have killed 173 million people, VS about 10,000 by the Spanish Inquisition. Keep in mind that the Inquisition was also done by the Catholic church, which is the closest thing to a church-state fusion that you can find, and you can probably figure out that government, not religion, is the real problem.

      • Bobbye
        November 19, 2013 at 12:41 am

        ” Still, at the end of the day, I think most people know what’s right and what’s wrong.” If you are raised properly in your cannibalistic culture you know that it is right to eat your enemies heart and take his women. That is the moral code.

    • Eightsouthman
      November 17, 2013 at 7:17 pm

      Mama, I would actually have used my bare hands to kill a certain high(est)politician who said he spoke with God on a daily basis. So many dumbasses sucked that crap up….while they had a Bible in their hand and looked at everybody who didn’t show up at church as something less than they are. And that’s the problem with any religion, everyone else has no morals. You’re going to hell. No, not my religion, YOU’re going to hell, and so it goes ad infinitum.

      • MamaLiberty
        November 17, 2013 at 7:33 pm

        I would not kill him. I would have no right to do so, unless he attacked me. But I would love to take them all and put them out into the desert, alone and unarmed. They would be naked and exposed fully to the creator of the universe, and they might truly hear him there.

        Maybe they would learn something. If they survived.

      • November 17, 2013 at 10:01 pm

        I’ll be addressing this comment first, and also addreessing your other comment to me.

        I’m not saying that non-Christians don’t have any morals. I’m saying that they don’t have a sound foundation for their morality. And I’m saying that even if a non-Christian lives in a moral manner, he is still guilty for the crimes he has committed against God. Think about it like crime (real crime, not victimless crime;) ) on a divine scale. Let’s say a man commits murder. Can he get off because he was a “good person” the rest of the time? Of course not. There’s a price to be paid for his actions, and somebody has to pay it. Now, it is not necessarily the case that just because he committed this one act of murder that he wasn’t “moral” the rest of the time. I’m not denying that a man who kills someone in the heat of an intense argument might have been a great father, given to charity, whatever you would see as necessary for a “good person” but the reality is he just committed a grave crime, and there’s a price to be paid, even if he was “moral” the rest of the time.

        Jesus Christ died to redeem his people from their sins. He died in the place of all who would put their faith and trust in him. If you put your faith and trust in Christ’s sacrifice, you are saved. Not because you’re a “better person” for believing, VS not believing, but because somebody else paid your fine. I’m not denying that you might be “more moral” than me even as a non-Christian, but the difference between me and you is that when I die and stand before God (You might say you don’t believe, but Romans 1 says that you know there is a God in your heart even if you won’t admit it to me here), I won’t be relying on my own works in order to get into heaven. I’ll be relying on Jesus Christ, and his finished work on the cross, for my salvation. This isn’t a “I’m more righteous than you” kind of thing. Any “Christian” who thinks that way is probably a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or at absolute best, struggling with their faith. If I had to rely on anything in myself for my salvation, I’d be just as damned as any other sinner.

        Now, as for your other comment, I do believe that some Germans followed out of fear of what would happen if they didn’t, but ultimately you’re right that it comes down to bad theology. As do most world problems, honestly. Dispensationalism and Postmillennialism have been responsible for all too much statism in the US. I have no doubt, even with little study, that anti-semetic theology did similar in Germany.

        Regards the homosexual thing, you say you know moral homosexuals… who says they are moral? You? Now, I brought up homosexuality because it is something that Christians are generally known for condemning as sinful. If I had said “Habitual liars” or something like that, it probably wouldn’t have had the same effect, even if it probably should. My goal wasn’t to bash people who are gay, or to imply that they didn’t have the same rights as anyone else. In fact, and this may shock you, but I really don’t care if a lost person is in a homosexual relationship. Now, if they’re claiming to be Christians I care, but if they know they aren’t, I would just preach the gospel to them. Trying to make gay people not engage in homosexual relationships without telling them about Christ and his finished work on the cross is like trying to treat a disease by treating the symptoms.

        That said, there is nothing “moral” about homosexuality. And that’s just frankly because the Bible says so. You say homosexuality appears in nature. So does “murder.” Animals kill other animals all the time. Now, as a human exceptionalist, I don’t think that’s inherently “wrong” to kill animals, and I don’t really think animals are capable of doing “wrong” anyway, since they don’t have souls. But if you’re trying to derive your morality from nature, why is killing wrong?

        As for other books, I suppose someone could try to tell you the same thing about the Qu’ran, or any other “holy book” as I’m telling you about the Bible. I can’t really solve this problem for you. I could point you to prophecies in the Old Testament that come true in the New Testament, but beyond that, ultimately you can only come to the faith if God is drawing you. I can’t really persuade you into becomming a Christian. That’s not my job. All I can do is proclaim the gospel for what it is. All people are sinners. Everyone was born into Adam’s guilt, and by his very nature does evil. Oh, that evil takes different forms. Some will flat out murder, rape, etc. Others will do “good” things with selfish motives. But ultimately, everything the unsaved man does is sin, because it is not done for Christ.

        • Eightsouthman
          November 17, 2013 at 10:43 pm

          David, we differ on so many levels I won’t debate you. You are firm in your commitment and that’s good as long as you don’t try to do something to me because of it. I am firm in mine too. You speak of murder, rape etc. but not to one of the worst crimes of all, bearing false witness. You might have merely neglected that one innocently enough. Your beliefs are based on a book, a book that could well be nothing more than fiction in my view, but one that has been drilled into you for so many years you can’t see past it. That’s fine too. Mores, morals, it changes with the tide…..unless you think that a book is good for all times and that is fine with me too. I know too many Christians who think hell is right here on earth and only heaven exists in an afterlife. I don’t claim to know.

          • November 17, 2013 at 11:38 pm

            I believe the Bible is moral for all times and places. But at least you’re consistent enough to “tolerate intolerance.” One thing that irks me about most “tolerant” people is that they’re never tolerant of Christian exclusivists.

            But of course I wouldn’t do anything to you because of it. That would be wrong. I’ll tell you that you can only be saved if you trust in Christ, but I would never, ever “Do anything to you” because you didn’t believe. That would in and of itself be sinful.

          • eric
            November 18, 2013 at 8:05 am

            You’re my kind of Christian, David!

            I tolerate anything – except aggressive violence.

            I may think it’s bizarre or kooky to believe the tenets of Scientology, or Mormonism – or mainline Presbyterianism – but so long as you keep it to yourself and don’t try to impose your doctrines by force on others, I will vigorously defend your right to believe in whatever floats your boat.

            I only ask the same in return!

    • Charles
      November 17, 2013 at 7:24 pm

      There was a chemistry test once that had this essay question on it: Is Hell endothermic (absorbs heat) or exothermic (emits heat)? Why?

      One answer given started out by saying since every religion says if you don’t believe in them, then you’re going to hell, and you can’t possibly be part of every religion, therefore everyone is going to hell.

      My point is that most religions today are messed up, watered down, and/or downright corrupt. That’s not God’s doing, that’s man’s doing. For without God, we can be manipulated and distracted and used. Yes, evil does exist as well, and what it fears the most is God and his children who not just know, but live as his children.

      God is out there, look for him, he is there. If someone says you have to belong to thus and such church or religion to find him, they’re misguided at best.

      • Charles
        November 18, 2013 at 6:50 am

        It’s back to a normal work week, so I’m limited in my time to reply here. The linked replies on this board only allow you to go so deep, so I’m replying to myself technically, but the reply is intended to David.

        David, my brother, I’m glad to see you have a somewhat open mind about things. That’s encouraging. We need more of that in that world. However, you started out by saying:

        – As a Christian, I believe very strongly that the only way to salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. And I strongly believe that if one refuses to believe that Christ died to cover their sins, they will be eternally separated from God in Hell.

        That’s a pretty absolute statement. It means all native americans “indians”, all hindus, all muslims, and those few tribes out there who are blessed to have never encountered white man are going to hell. I hope hell’s a big place, because every day people are being born who will never believe as you believe, and therefore are going straight to hell! That’s what I refer to as your God of damnation.

        The original Church controlled government. Now government is the new church, and you’re condemned if you don’t believe it.

        Science and religion aren’t supposed to differ. I’m a highly logical person. Are you? Therefore I don’t buy the “Jesus died for your sins” mantra that most Christianity preaches. As you sew, so shall you reap. No getting around that. I also don’t buy the “only son of God” line. Are we children of God or not?

        Our beliefs do converge, once you make the leap across the reincarnation chasm that separates us.

        Here are my beliefs, somewhat summarized due to lack of time.

        Jesus is the most well documented, and possibly the most recent individual who did we’re all supposed to do: matured as a son of a God (A, not THE) and proved mastery over the physical realm and so called death. He, among other things, provided the example that it is possible, something we can all strive to. He also provided the dispensation that makes it easier for us to ascend back to God. Prior to him, you had to balance 100% of your karma from all lifetimes, “every jot and tittle”. A pretty difficult feat, to put it mildly, yet he did. That’s what makes his achievement so awesome. Now it’s 51%, plus a few other important tasks that we need to do before we can return to God. That doesn’t mean the other 49% doesn’t have to be accounted for, just that we don’t have to take care of it on the physical realm.

        And if you don’t succeed this life? You get to come back to try again, picking up where you left off. That’s karma and reincarnation for you. And hell? Hell is your own creation. When you die, you will likely dwell in the realms of your making before you’re allowed to return. And with the horrible fact that we continue to allow abortion in this world, coming back isn’t as easy as it’s supposed to be. In other words, you’ll probably have to get in line. When you do come back, your life circumstances will be dictated by your prior lives, with God’s mercy mixed in as appropriate.

        So, make the most of your life. Find God, listen to him, obey him, and BE him. It may be a long time before you get another chance to do so. I pray you, I, and everyone reading this, do not have to come back. There’s no guarantee the world will be a better place if we do have to return.

        It’s up to us to make this world a better place. It’s enlightened self interest, because if we play it wrong, we are part of the future generations that’ll have to deal with the mess we left behind.

  29. Anthony
    November 17, 2013 at 10:31 pm

    ‘many states, there are laws on the books requiring slower-moving traffic to yield to faster-moving traffic. Have you ever seen a cop enforce this law? ”

    The Chief in the town of Hopkinton RI recently pull over a Asshat who thought he could travel in the left lane, holding up traffic.

    Story here
    http://www.wpri.com/news/12-for-action/man-gets-ticket-for-driving-too-slow

    • Eightsouthman
      November 18, 2013 at 10:03 am

      Anthony, he got nailed cause he was going to make the police chief have to pass on the right. That’s great although it so seldomly happens I can take little solace I’ll ever see it. In the 70’s I saw some people get together to block traffic. The results weren’t good for them since people respond badly to that. Another trucker once asked me if I was trying to breed that car in front of me. I told him I was just sick of it and hadn’t been able to see the car for a mile. Now that’s stupid, his part and mine, but I was totally pissed and at that point didn’t much care what happened to that guy. Given any normal situation I couldn’t imagine putting someone’s life on the line but after having my temper build mile after mile it just became too much for me. Of course the guy was staying ahead since he wasn’t THAT stupid but he didn’t get to continue running 55.

    • BrentP
      November 18, 2013 at 2:10 pm

      It’s so rare it’s news!

      When states started toughing KRETP laws the LLBs came out of the woodwork to object to their control freakish passing lane blocking behavior being illegal. Trouble is, it’s not enforced. In Illinois, after the toughing of the law on interstates, the ISP wrote less than a 100 tickets (perhaps even including written warnings) state wide. It is such a common activity that if a cop wanted to he could make his numbers writing nothing but yet they wrote something like 79 tickets state wide in a year.

  30. Brad Smith
    November 17, 2013 at 11:15 pm

    “GEORGETOWN — A former Texas prosecutor who won a conviction that sent an innocent man to prison for nearly 25 years agreed Friday to serve 10 days in jail and complete 500 hours of community service.

    Ken Anderson also will be disbarred and fined $500 as part of a sweeping deal that was expected to end all criminal and civil cases against the embattled ex-district attorney, who presided over a tough-on-crime Texas county for 30 years.”

    Considering a case like this can end with 10 days and a $500 fine for willfully sending an innocent man to prison, I would think that cops know, that they too are above the law.

    • eric
      November 18, 2013 at 8:08 am

      What an affront.

      25 years in prison … “compensated” by a $500 fine and 10 days in the county lock-up.

      It’s this sort of thing that drives people – understandably – to go berserk.

  31. bucko
    November 18, 2013 at 12:53 am

    Very interesting site you have here. Discovered via lew rockwell. Since the subject was originally about law enforcement, I’d like to pose a question regarding an article I read in the local, Sierra Vista, AZ newspaper. Please check link :

    http://www.svherald.com/content/sierra-vista-news/2013/11/09/362574

    Does anyone know anything about this “International Accreditation” ? This sounds worrisome, to say the least.

    • captcow
      November 19, 2013 at 3:56 pm

      A bunch of departments here in NY got “accredited”, though I can remember if it was the same organization. Friends at one department told me it was just a brilliant scheme to suck up more tax money. To become accredited one department assigned a Sgt and allowed him unlimited overtime (came in around $50,000 in OT) he in turn filled out a bunch of paperwork about how things were done, it got checked off and a fee paid to the accreditation service, 6 months later the town got a sticker for every patrol car and a fancy proclamation. The police commissioners claimed it would help them get grants and would “pay for itself”

  32. Hal
    November 18, 2013 at 1:09 am

    Cops are the number on reason I want to leave the United States. I’ve talked to my friends and family about moving to Mexico and all I hear is about how corrupt the police are down there. Stockholm syndrome at its finest.

    The corruption in Mexico is much more efficient because you can just simply give the cop $20 and be on your way. And they wont bother harrasing you over trivial bullshit like “speeding” “building codes” or “drug laws”

    • BrentP
      November 18, 2013 at 1:36 am

      Unless of course you’re not mexican and they think they can get more out of you. Same as in the USA, the cops target those where they get the most for their efforts.

    • eric
      November 18, 2013 at 8:00 am

      I have relatives in Mexico, Hal – and have been there several times myself.

      It is as you describe: Corrupt, but without the unction and officiousness we suffer here. You hand the cop $20 – and that’s it. No crap lecture about “safety” – and no court crap.

      The real-world personal freedoms there are greater, too. Mostly, you can do as you like – and that includes smoke, walk into a bar with your dog (or have a bar that allows people to smoke and walk in with their dog for a drink).

      The USSA is one of the least free places there is these days.

      We have choice - in the sense that we can buy Pepsi or Coke, or Chevy vs. Ford – but very little real freedom.

  33. Tor Libertarian
    November 18, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    Cop trying to beat people gets dropkicked
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrsXOaTDATU

    Cop/Plantation Overseer has special parking privilege not allowed mundanes/Slaves
    http://imgur.com/a/5Y0xu

    Which Plantation Overseer is more heroic: Cop or Firefighter?
    http://i.imgur.com/96HksPd.jpg

  34. Tor Libertarian
    November 19, 2013 at 4:03 am

    This App in Sweden sends out an alert to anyone nearby trained in CPR. Not the costumed specialists tens of minutes away, but everyone in the immediate vicinity who is registered and qualified to help.

    Heart Attack Alert Software
    http://thundermaps.com/swedish-heart-attack-software-shows-the-way/

    This exact same technology could also be used for anyone who needs a “fireman” or a “policeman.”

    In a more prosperous voluntary society, anyone could become a certified fire specialist and register with the software.

    Anyone could become a certified police specialist and register with the software.

    Imagine if we all lived in the same county and we paid to get this application developed and then registered qualified people to respond to alerts as “first responders.”

    Imagine if we had a real robust network of qualified responders in all kinds of disciplines. Anyone who uses the system would be served on credit. Payment would be made or else collection proceeding would be commenced.

    Go long enough without payment and you would be kicked out of the system for good and other remedies as appropriate.

    It could be operated at breakeven or a small profit, whatever was determined to be appropriate. Tyranny would wither away, if we become self-sufficient and stop needing or feeding the corrupt system.

  35. Tor Libertarian
    November 19, 2013 at 4:37 am

    Why did the libertarian chicken cross the road? None of your damn business, am I being detained?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *