Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Store video catches cop bullying woman
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090720_Store_video_catches_cop_bullying_woman.html?viewAll=y ^ | Mon, Jul. 20, 2009 | DAVE DAVIES

Posted on 07/20/2009 6:03:46 AM PDT by grjr21

Edited on 07/20/2009 6:29:15 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-122 next last
To: Houghton M.
So, if you need a single word phrase: abuse of power.

No, it is not just about abuse of power. It is about a system where there is no ability for the peons to reliably address grievance. This is true whether there is abuses of power or not. You can have (in theory) a dictatorial regime with no abuses of power. If you called a system of forces collectivization 'communism' you would be right. If someone stepped in and said 'no that is not communism, that is just abuse of power' you would argue with them. We were not talking about the abuse of power. We were talking about the lack of accountability, recourse, and the de-facto ruling class. Those features ARE reminiscent of the Feudal system.
81 posted on 07/20/2009 8:39:59 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
He is trying to redefine feudalism to mean ‘honor and loyalty’ instead of a system of governance.
82 posted on 07/20/2009 8:41:01 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

The heart of your dictionary definition is feudum. Which means “faith,” meaning trust.

Even today, land held in “fee simple” is held in fief, in feudum. “Fee” comes from feudum.

It’s the idea that you don’t own your land outright and absolutely. That’s actually still true today (eminent domain).

You have only a dictionary defintion that employs words you don’t understand. Then you read into it all the negative stereotypes you have from the movies and the Black Legend view of the “feudal dark ages.”

What I described is what historians know about how it actually functioned.

A peasant was not personally free but he could not be thrown off his land. The land belonged to his lord but not absolutely. The peasant had a right to sit on that land and farm it. He paid rent from the produce to the lord. The lord could not arbitrarily abuse the peasant—the peasant had legal recourse against it. The lord was obligated by feudum, honor, faith to defend the peasant against outside powerful lords.

Did this work perfectly? No. Plenty of lords abused their peasants. But both lord and peasant had rights enshrined in law, customary law, not whim-law created by nobles.

They had far more legal protection than Soviet citizens or German citizens had under modern bureaucratic totalitarianism. We have not yet reached that stage in this country but we no longer are governed by honorable, virtuous elites either. And the prevailing theory of law is a 100 times worse than what governed peasant-lord relations in the “feudal age” because they believed in ancient custom rooted in a God who would damn to hell those who abused trust/feudum, who abused power.

We don’t.

That is, our elites don’t

believe in such a God. And they have no sense of honor, only “what can I get away with.”

Feudum/fee in your dictionary definition is the key to all this.

But you have it in your head that the feudal system was totally arbitrary sheer naked power by nobles.

That’s garbage, historically. But you don’t know it because you only know what the MSM and the movies have to say about “feudal Dark Ages.”

Am I advocating a return to the Middle Ages? Of course not.

The American system as originally established is about as good as it gets but it depended on virtuous elites running it. It was not rule by the mob or the commmoners. It was rule by noblesse oblige gentry like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton. The problem is not rule by elites. The problem is rule by power-abusing, dishonorable elites.

And that’s always been the problem, no matter what degree of kingship, nobility, market, mercantile, barter system of politics and economics prevailed. All such systems can be reasonably fair and just or horribly unjust.

And we lost our system a generation or two ago when we shifted from noblesse oblige FDR’s technocrats. Read Amity Schlaes, The Forgotten Man. If I had a choice, I’d choose medieval feudalism over what we’ve had since FDR. But I don’t have a choice, so I hope to recover the Nobles envisioned by Adams, Washington, Lincoln, men who lived by virtue and honor.

I have very little optimism that this will happen but I will continue, in faith, to hope.


83 posted on 07/20/2009 8:43:54 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

Abuse.


84 posted on 07/20/2009 8:44:40 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

If you knew anything about current scholarship in medieval history, you would know that the word “system” is rejected. It was not a system of government. It was a network of social structure centered on feudum. That’s a fact.

I used the word “sytem” loosely, but in the sense you are using it, it “systems” of government are modern phenomena, beginning with Hobbes or Locke or 16thc theorists. The closest one comes in the Middle Ages to “systems” is John of Salisbury or other writers who speak of “three orders.”

But all historians agree that “feudal system” ought not be used because it implies something modern. You accuse me of redefining feudalism around feudum because your “feudal system” idea is taken from MSM and movie caricatures.

Feudum was central—everything else varied immensely from place to place. So historians today say about what I said: they all assumed feudum, trust, pledge but it was not a tight system.

But you’d rather have your movie caricature because it permits you a cheap label to describe what you don’t like about our situation today.

I offered you an alternative: what you dislike about what’s happening to us is what already has happened in recent history in the USSR and China and Germany. It’s what Kafka described. It’s a merciless and abusive bureaucratic state.

Such a machinery/system of abusive government was not possible in the Middle Ages. They did not have the techniques to do it. Our problem is the triumph of technocrats over Mensch, over virtuous citizen legislators and citizen-nobles.

I offered you analytical tools better to understand our situation so you can combat it. You prefer a phantom “feudal system” to explain the present problems because it’s cheap and easy but it’s also totally useless because it’s apples to oranges.


85 posted on 07/20/2009 8:53:24 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

I wonder what would have happened to the cop if this had been the mayor’s granddaughter? Why should the consequences be any different if it a regular citizen involved instead, as in this case?


86 posted on 07/20/2009 8:55:10 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

“It is about a system where there is no ability for the peons to reliably address grievance.”

This shows that you do not know what you are talking about.

Medieval peasants did have a system for redress of grievances and it did function, so did nobles, so did bishops, so did kings. Peasant redress was subject to abuse just as our system of redress of grievances is subject to abuse. It is categorically different from totalitarianism (no possibility of redress—except on paper) as was typical of the USSR or Nazi Germany.

You don’t know anything about law, peasants, nobles, grievances, government in the Middle Ages except what you’ve picked up from Enlightenment and Marxist self-serving caricatures of the Middle Ages.

And when I say that the problem is abuse of power and loss of honor and virtue, I have Adams, Hamilton, Washington, de Tocqueville on my side. When you insist that a “noble system” is systemically evil (no redress of grievance) you are going against everything the American Founders believed. They understood that some systems are better than others but they understood that no system free of abuse. They rejected nobility of birth but they assumed nobility as crucial but also as subject to abuse. In common with those who believed in nobility of birth they believed that any elite, of birth or otherwise, could either act nobly or ignobly, faithfully or abusively.


87 posted on 07/20/2009 9:01:55 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: grjr21

Ironically, the cops are always complaining about the “no snitch” culture around Philly.


88 posted on 07/20/2009 9:11:31 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought (I once had an awkward moment just to see how it felt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grjr21

Ironically, the cops are always complaining about the “no snitch” culture around Philly.


89 posted on 07/20/2009 9:11:31 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought (I once had an awkward moment just to see how it felt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grjr21

A draw weapon? A confrontation over a very minor T/C?

What the hell is wrong with these law enforcement officers?

Then the LEOs kid assaults the female?

Good Lord!


90 posted on 07/20/2009 9:12:12 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Abuse?

That doesn’t fit the bill at all.

That is only a very small part of what MrB was trying to convey.

Try again.


91 posted on 07/20/2009 9:14:17 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction, one of the top five worries for the American farmer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus
I don't blame the blond for being outraged one bit.

She had a loaded gun shoved into her, and then was assaulted by the LEOs son...These people are completely out of control. You'd have to be ice cold not to be totally pissed off, angery and outraged over this type of dangerous behavior.

92 posted on 07/20/2009 9:20:10 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Why isn’t the cop in jail on felony menacing charges, assault, abuse of power, filing a false report, filing false charges, etc.???

This is Murtha territory, isn't it? What else can you exdpect?

93 posted on 07/20/2009 10:16:13 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20 (There is not enough combined intellect in the beltway to jumpstart a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Shouldn’t the cop’s son be charged with assault? He is not a cop, yet he assaulted the young woman.

In that sewer? You gotta be kidding.

94 posted on 07/20/2009 10:27:17 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20 (There is not enough combined intellect in the beltway to jumpstart a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrB
try Communism

Socialism

95 posted on 07/20/2009 10:40:50 AM PDT by ASOC (Who is that fat lady? And why is she singing???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ASOC

Those terms were not defined at the time of the middle ages, the “age of nobility”, which I specifically stated to be excluded.

I have a reason for this - the terms Communism, Socialism, or Fascism are, these days, very loaded, and will just be rejected as “hate speech”.

But, if you point out the parallels to “nobility and peasants”, leftist apologists don’t dismiss your argument and actually look at what is going on.


96 posted on 07/20/2009 10:51:41 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, save Bowman for later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
“It is about a system where there is no ability for the peons to reliably address grievance.”

This shows that you do not know what you are talking about.

Read it again. I said RELIABLY.

Medieval peasants did have a system for redress of grievances and it did function, so did nobles, so did bishops, so did kings. Peasant redress was subject to abuse just as our system of redress of grievances is subject to abuse. It is categorically different from totalitarianism (no possibility of redress—except on paper) as was typical of the USSR or Nazi Germany.

Yes I did already know all that.

You don’t know anything about law, peasants, nobles, grievances, government in the Middle Ages except what you’ve picked up from Enlightenment and Marxist self-serving caricatures of the Middle Ages.

You know nothing about where I got my history. I read you the dictionary definition of the word and evaluated its use based on the wide usage of the term. Get the ship off your shoulder and take up your issues with society's use of the word.

And when I say that the problem is abuse of power and loss of honor and virtue, I have Adams, Hamilton, Washington, de Tocqueville on my side.

I have read their writings and Blackstone besides. You are vastly oversimplifying what they said. If that was all the thought there was too it then they would not have set up a system where 'all men are create equal'.

When you insist that a “noble system” is systemically evil (no redress of grievance) you are going against everything the American Founders believed.

I never said it was 'systematically evil'.

They understood that some systems are better than others but they understood that no system free of abuse. They rejected nobility of birth but they assumed nobility as crucial but also as subject to abuse. In common with those who believed in nobility of birth they believed that any elite, of birth or otherwise, could either act nobly or ignobly, faithfully or abusively.


You, sir, have some massive confusion about what I do and don't believe. The necessity of honor-ability, virtue and faith in those with power is something I am not questioning. You are arguing apples and oranges.
97 posted on 07/20/2009 1:36:06 PM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
Take up your long winded arguments about word semantics with ‘Dictionary.com’. I could not care less whether you use ‘system’ to describe a system or use ‘hurlyfurly fugledrums’. As system is a system. Governing people in any way shape or form can be called a system. Tribes have a ‘system of governance’. Families have a ‘system of governance’.

You have a lot of confusuion over what you think I believe about the 'middle ages' (am I allowed to call it that or is 'current scholarship' against me there?). As a Catholic I could take your ear off about the ways that era is missunderstood.
98 posted on 07/20/2009 1:44:17 PM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
You know what? I am not even going to read all of that post because I am sure it is just another long winded history lesson interspersed with insults about my knowledge and completely misses my point. Again.

I will respond to the first line

The heart of your dictionary definition is feudum. Which means “faith,” meaning trust.

The heart of the definition of the word is NOT ‘trust’. That is the root word. Most words roots and dictionary definitions are not in alignment.

99 posted on 07/20/2009 1:47:58 PM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: grjr21

Some people just can’t handle authority. Unbelievable.


100 posted on 07/20/2009 1:53:29 PM PDT by Future Snake Eater ("Get out of the boat and walk on the water with us!”--Sen. Joe Biden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-122 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson