Posted on 06/08/2020 2:48:41 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
Yes, white people and every other racial group has violent members but nothing compared to the black community.
That’s sad but true.
And it goes back to the early civil rights movement in the 60’s...
And yes, it is the fault of two groups. One of them being white liberal ‘elites’... The other group Uncle Tom’s not strong enough to maintain leadership after SNCC hijacked MLK’s highly moral and ethical challenge to REAL institutional racism.
The reason police are in those neighborhoods constantly is because people in those neighborhoods call 911 when someone is breaking into their home, beating up their child, fighting with their husband or wife, turning in a rapist...”Yes, and how tall did you say he was?” When the description includes things like “6 foot three and black” the cops aren’t going to drive over to a white neighborhood and pull over short white blond men.
This is a complex issue with incentive patterns that go waaaaaay beyond loot and burn solutions.
So selling cigs to minors is already a crime, but to make enforcement of this existing law possible we need "loosies" laws so police will have a pretext to prevent sales outside of the accepted channels. Sounds kind of like you're making my case for me, to wit:
...laws requiring a police state to succeed as [the law is] intended are a magnet drawing a police state into existence.
Sounds to me that you don’t recognize ANY laws as legitimate.
heheh yeah, it's difficult indeed, especially when you've spent 20 years in California.
I'm in good company though - thomas aquinas and St. Augustine - lex iniusta non est lex" or "an unjust law is no law at all."
Since the law is part of the edifice of Government, and Government is a necessary evil, it stands to reason that a multiplicity of ever-intertwined law leads to a expansion of Government edifice and therefore opportunity to propel Government into the evil beyond the bounds of necessary service to the people.
To me, the proper perspective is to always be adversarial to the thesis that a law is intrinsically good or government is intrinsically good. I prefer to view it as simply better than the alternative, with adversarial caution as a justifiable perspective. In fact, to deride concern over how a law might be unjust implies there is a prima-facie justification of such concern.
p
Same crap some liberal stoner was pushing on my local liberal rag comment section.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.