The police

[davout]

Yeah, accept my apologies, that totally came out of nowhere.

He called you "retard"; you're entitled to make a witty riposte.

Yeah well, I still feel bad about picking on the socially challenged

[1713509551]

1713509551

[1713509551]

1713509551

[1713509551]

1713509551

[1713509551]

1713509551

[1713509551]

1713509551

[hazek]

Hmm yes I did do that. I also apologize. I sometimes fail to contain my frustration with oh so many irrational statements I often come across on teh internetz.

[davout]

Hmm yes I did do that. I also apologize. I sometimes fail to contain my frustration with oh so many irrational statements I often come across on teh internetz.

Private property is not something obvious and universal.

Are your organs private property ? You seem to imply so, but in most, if not all, countries you can't legally sell or rent them. Still private property ?

There are multiple theories of property, and multiple conceptions of it that vary vastly through time, culture and countries : human beings could at some point be owned as "private property", owning land means different things in the US, France and the UK etc.

So my point is that private property is imaginary in the way any mental construct is.

Just be nice to others, and whatever your views are, you'll have a good time here

[gigabytecoin]

If your Bitcoins are stolen, why should the police help you?

If anybody hacked into your computer and stole something of great worth, the police and/or relevant authorities would definitely be interested in such a thing.

[hazek]

I don't want to further derail this thread so this will be my last reply on the topic of private property.

If you were trying to clarify where the concept of private property came from, you are right. It was conceptualized in our minds. But.. that doesn't make it an illusion but rather a concept and there's a big difference between the two, the main being one being a figment of an imagination and the other being a real thing in our reality.

Also a group of people not sharing the knowledge or respect of the same concept does not it make any less real. Even if a country outlaws the concept of private property through a decree it doesn't make the concept of private property any less real.

Also even if the understanding of the nature of this concept may vary from one group of people to another, and it does as you correctly pointed out, it again does not make it an illusion.

I suggest you watch this: John A. Allison, "Leadership and Values" if you really want to understand where I'm coming from and where you might be making a mistake within your thought process.

[Basiley]

just order T-shirt with "retard and proud" label  and start riding unicorns/dragons then, ignoring trolls/offenders.
note: neurons don't recover
/pop-corn

[davout]

just order T-shirt with "retard and proud" and start riding unicorns/dragons then, ignoring trolls/offenders.
note: neurons don't recover
/pop-corn

please accept this picture of a potato as a token of friendship

[commlinx]

please accept this picture of a potato as a token of friendship

That's just insulting, not even roasted! Also a touch of sour cream and sprinkle of paprika would go a long way to proving the authenticity of your jesture

[error]

The police do have a duty to enforce the law - if you report a crime they have to make at least some sort of effort. It's true they have no duty to protect you from becoming a victim of crime in the first place, but after the fact they do have a duty to respond even if they can be incompetent.

This is not true in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has said in numerous cases that police have no duty to provide service to anyone and therefore suffer no consequence for failure to do so.

[Gareth Nelson]

The police do have a duty to enforce the law - if you report a crime they have to make at least some sort of effort. It's true they have no duty to protect you from becoming a victim of crime in the first place, but after the fact they do have a duty to respond even if they can be incompetent.

This is not true in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has said in numerous cases that police have no duty to provide service to anyone and therefore suffer no consequence for failure to do so.

Can you cite actual cases?
I'm deeply skeptical if you're essentially claiming that the police are not required to do anything at all. They may not do their job well (and often are incompetent - like in any profession), but you're claiming that they don't even have the job of law enforcement?

Also, even if you cite US case law, i'm in the UK

[error]

The police do have a duty to enforce the law - if you report a crime they have to make at least some sort of effort. It's true they have no duty to protect you from becoming a victim of crime in the first place, but after the fact they do have a duty to respond even if they can be incompetent.

This is not true in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has said in numerous cases that police have no duty to provide service to anyone and therefore suffer no consequence for failure to do so.

Can you cite actual cases?
I'm deeply skeptical if you're essentially claiming that the police are not required to do anything at all. They may not do their job well (and often are incompetent - like in any profession), but you're claiming that they don't even have the job of law enforcement?

Also, even if you cite US case law, i'm in the UK

As I said, there are numerous cases; a simple Google search turns up pages and pages of them, such as this list and this discussion.

The most infamous of these cases is Warren v. District of Columbia.

[hazek]

garethnelsonuk they have to enforce laws, just not protect and serve the people. Don't mix up those two.

[Gareth Nelson]

garethnelsonuk they have to enforce laws, just not protect and serve the people. Don't mix up those two.

There are laws against rape, murder, theft, assault and various other crimes against individuals - i'd say enforcing those laws de facto protects people. Whether the police do their job well is up to debate, but what their job actually is isn't up to debate.

[kjj]

While they are required to enforce the laws, in general, there is no obligation to any particular individual.

[hazek]

garethnelsonuk they have to enforce laws, just not protect and serve the people. Don't mix up those two.

There are laws against rape, murder, theft, assault and various other crimes against individuals - i'd say enforcing those laws de facto protects people. Whether the police do their job well is up to debate, but what their job actually is isn't up to debate.

Bottom line is this: They don't come and help you because you are in trouble they come and enforce laws against those who are breaking them. That's their directive. Do not confuse their directive with the consequence of them following their directive. You might say well they still helped the victim and I would agree accept that them following this directive often creates victims when they enforce laws that punish victimless crimes such as drug use. The police do not protect and serve the people, they protect and serve the state, period.

[Gareth Nelson]

garethnelsonuk they have to enforce laws, just not protect and serve the people. Don't mix up those two.

There are laws against rape, murder, theft, assault and various other crimes against individuals - i'd say enforcing those laws de facto protects people. Whether the police do their job well is up to debate, but what their job actually is isn't up to debate.

Bottom line is this: They don't come and help you because you are in trouble they come and enforce laws against those who are breaking them. That's their directive. Do not confuse their directive with the consequence of them following their directive. You might say well they still helped the victim and I would agree accept that them following this directive often creates victims when they enforce laws that punish victimless crimes such as drug use. The police do not protect and serve the people, they protect and serve the state, period.

They also enforce bad laws, true - but the argument that you should not report crimes against yourself because the police would also be the ones to take action against you if you break a bad law is just silly. Taking advantage of them for handling crimes against yourself does not mean respecting laws you disagree with.

As a personal example:
I suffered an assault a while back - I pressed charges, the police were pretty useless at handling the case (they only bothered to do anything serious beyond filing a crime report after I got a journalist involved to give them negative PR). At the same time they didn't instantly find all the copyright infringement i'm guilty of even if they did fail a bit at handling the assault.

[hazek]

I was talking about their legal duties and not their actions or consequences of actions. Is it really so hard to distinguish between the two?