Police State?

[Hawker]

Don't blame the police for the decisions of the voters.

Hey, guess what? Just like the individual soldier given a bad order, an individual cop can refuse to enforce a bad law. Cops don't get to say they were "just following orders" either.

Again, you are looking to blame the cop for action of the voters.  That does not make sense.

[myrkul]

Don't blame the police for the decisions of the voters.

Hey, guess what? Just like the individual soldier given a bad order, an individual cop can refuse to enforce a bad law. Cops don't get to say they were "just following orders" either.

Again, you are looking to blame the cop for action of the voters.  That does not make sense.

I'm blaming the cop for the actions of the cop. The voters don't people into cages for trading dried flowers. The cops do. The only person who is responsible for your actions is you. No matter who, or how many, tell you to do something, That doesn't absolve you of responsibility.

[Hawker]

Don't blame the police for the decisions of the voters.

Hey, guess what? Just like the individual soldier given a bad order, an individual cop can refuse to enforce a bad law. Cops don't get to say they were "just following orders" either.

Again, you are looking to blame the cop for action of the voters.  That does not make sense.

I'm blaming the cop for the actions of the cop. The voters don't people into cages for trading dried flowers. The cops do. The only person who is responsible for your actions is you. No matter who, or how many, tell you to do something, That doesn't absolve you of responsibility.

The voters raise the taxes that pay for the cages and demand the laws that require people be put into the cages.  That's where the problem lies.

[myrkul]

Don't blame the police for the decisions of the voters.

Hey, guess what? Just like the individual soldier given a bad order, an individual cop can refuse to enforce a bad law. Cops don't get to say they were "just following orders" either.

Again, you are looking to blame the cop for action of the voters.  That does not make sense.

I'm blaming the cop for the actions of the cop. The voters don't people into cages for trading dried flowers. The cops do. The only person who is responsible for your actions is you. No matter who, or how many, tell you to do something, That doesn't absolve you of responsibility.

The voters raise the taxes that pay for the cages and demand the laws that require people be put into the cages.  That's where the problem lies.

Well, yes, I'd have to agree that having a system which allows people to initiate force by proxy upon people definitely is the root cause of the problem. Which is why I'm an anarchist. But if the people on the "pointy end of the spear," as it were, would refuse to do that initiating, it would also prevent the result. But they don't, and instead fall back on "I'm just enforcing the law."

That excuse didn't fly at Nuremberg, and it doesn't fly with me.

[Hawker]

Don't blame the police for the decisions of the voters.

Hey, guess what? Just like the individual soldier given a bad order, an individual cop can refuse to enforce a bad law. Cops don't get to say they were "just following orders" either.

Again, you are looking to blame the cop for action of the voters.  That does not make sense.

I'm blaming the cop for the actions of the cop. The voters don't people into cages for trading dried flowers. The cops do. The only person who is responsible for your actions is you. No matter who, or how many, tell you to do something, That doesn't absolve you of responsibility.

The voters raise the taxes that pay for the cages and demand the laws that require people be put into the cages.  That's where the problem lies.

Well, yes, I'd have to agree that having a system which allows people to initiate force by proxy upon people definitely is the root cause of the problem. Which is why I'm an anarchist. But if the people on the "pointy end of the spear," as it were, would refuse to do that initiating, it would also prevent the result. But they don't, and instead fall back on "I'm just enforcing the law."

That excuse didn't fly at Nuremberg, and it doesn't fly with me.

If a policeman committed the type of crime on trial at Nuremburg, of course he would be held responsible.

Anyway, the issue you have is with the voters.  Employing a policeman who would not enforce laws would be like employing a butcher who would not cut meat.

[myrkul]

If a policeman committed the type of crime on trial at Nuremburg, of course he would be held responsible.

Tossing a man in a cage for having a flower isn't violating that man's rights?

Anyway, the issue you have is with the voters.  Employing a policeman who would not enforce laws would be like employing a butcher who would not cut meat.

Employing a cop who would not enforce bad laws is like employing a butcher who will not sell the customer poisoned meat, even if he asks for it.

[hawkeye]

Don't blame the police for the decisions of the voters.

And this is one of the many reasons why the state doesn't make sense.

When you say voters, you don't mean individual people, you mean the majority of voters.  Or rather the person who supposedly represents the majority of voters but in reality has his own ideas which may or may not coincide with the majority of voters, and that's assuming that the concept of a majority of people getting to decide what everyone can and can't do is a valid one (which it obviously isn't and can be proven to be false).

And society as a whole goes along with the whole sham and wonders why bad stuff is always happening.

"We just need to get the right people in and everything will be OK"   

[MikeH]

if only votes still mattered - when the results aren't fixed as they were with Bush Jr, you still end up with the same Israeli controlled govt.

[Severian]

Don't blame the police for the decisions of the voters.

Joseph Goebbels made the same argument.

[Hawker]

Don't blame the police for the decisions of the voters.

Joseph Goebbels made the same argument.

Actually his shtick was "If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth."

Don't give credit where its not due.

[Severian]

Actually his shtick was "If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth."

That's a good one too. Goebbels had many schticks.

One of them was never holding the police accountable.

[Hawker]

Actually his shtick was "If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth."

That's a good one too. Goebbels had many schticks.

One of them was never holding the police accountable.

No - the Nazis actively had a parallel organisation called the SD that was not subject to the law. 

As I said in another post, breaking down the separation of powers is an essential step in creating a police state. 

[myrkul]

No - the Nazis actively had a parallel organisation called the SD that was not subject to the law. 

So, which US extralegal parallel organization would you like to discuss? NSA? CIA? DHS?

[Hawker]

No - the Nazis actively had a parallel organisation called the SD that was not subject to the law.  

So, which US extralegal parallel organization would you like to discuss? NSA? CIA? DHS?

There isn't one.  All of those are part of the executive.  

The closest big breach of separation of powers in the US is the Supreme Court itself.  Decisions like Roe vs Wade show it is making law which is an infringement of the role of the legislature.

[myrkul]

No - the Nazis actively had a parallel organisation called the SD that was not subject to the law.  

So, which US extralegal parallel organization would you like to discuss? NSA? CIA? DHS?

There isn't one.  All of those are part of the executive.  

The closest big breach of separation of powers in the US is the Supreme Court itself.  Decisions like Roe vs Wade show it is making law which is an infringement of the role of the legislature.

No. Executive orders. That's the president making laws, and instructing the executive branch to enforce them. I don't believe any of them have ever been brought before the judicial, either.

How's that for separation of powers?

[Hawker]

No - the Nazis actively had a parallel organisation called the SD that was not subject to the law.  

So, which US extralegal parallel organization would you like to discuss? NSA? CIA? DHS?

There isn't one.  All of those are part of the executive.  

The closest big breach of separation of powers in the US is the Supreme Court itself.  Decisions like Roe vs Wade show it is making law which is an infringement of the role of the legislature.

No. Executive orders. That's the president making laws, and instructing the executive branch to enforce them. I don't believe any of them have ever been brought before the judicial, either.

How's that for separation of powers?

Interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

It has the fig-leaf that they are used to implement laws and uphold the office of president but the capacity for abuse is there.  Apparently only Clinton did abuse them recently.  

I didn't know that existed.  It's interesting that its not been abused in the way the Supreme Court has abused its role of interpreting the constitution.  Thanks for pointing it out.

[Severian]

breaking down the separation of powers is an essential step in creating a police state. 

Agreed. It's the point of the thread, eh?

[myrkul]

It has the fig-leaf that they are used to implement laws and uphold the office of president but the capacity for abuse is there.  Apparently only Clinton did abuse them recently.  

Are you kidding? Bush abused the hell out of them. Obama's been almost as bad as Clinton.

[Severian]

No. Executive orders. That's the president making laws, and instructing the executive branch to enforce them. I don't believe any of them have ever been brought before the judicial, either.

How's that for separation of powers?

The President has the power to decriminalize cannabis with a phone call to the Justice Department. A majority of the country wants to see legal cannabis and their legislators and their executives aren't responsive to the will of the country.

Hawker, this is why the chestnut about not blaming the cops for enforcing bad laws is in error. The laws aren't representative of the will of the country because laws are passed and enforced through arbitrary powers, not representative powers. It's been this way for many decades here in the US. I don't blame cops for being ignorant of history but I do blame them for being ignorant of the fact, willfully or otherwise, that they're not bound to enforce invalid laws.

[Hawker]

It has the fig-leaf that they are used to implement laws and uphold the office of president but the capacity for abuse is there.  Apparently only Clinton did abuse them recently.  

Are you kidding? Bush abused the hell out of them. Obama's been almost as bad as Clinton.

There is a distinction between using a power in a way you disapprove of and abusing a power.

Savarian - there is a law on the books that criminalises cannabis use.  Not even the widest interpretation of Executive Order would allow a President to order the opposite.