I don't mean to pick nits, but drawing fine distinctions is one of the burdens we must bear if we are to reason with one another. So, I don't think that's an accurate statement, in and of itself. Conservatives are wary of excessive government, of government doing things that are better left to the people to do themselves, of the notion that innovation and novel social ideas, rather than tradition and experience can lead to prosperity and liberty. Conservatives are often accused of being fuddy-duddies because we insist on individual responsibility, restraint and public decorum as a necessary consequence of the liberty that we seek to restore. I could go on, but my point is this: Libertarians have long been reflexively skeptical of government, in and of itself, as distinguised from the conventional conservative position that asks "what government? doing what, how and where?" I will readily agree with the Libertarian position that we have far, far too much government today, but that is not the same as saying that I want no government at all. Hamilton and Madison's famous quote comes to mind, here.
...the cops ARE the government.
No, the police are employed by the town or county government, and are accountable to it. I will stipulate that the local level, like the state and federal has become too extensive, but it remains the most accessible, and most readily accountable to the people. It's far from a perfect system, but this (very old and traditional) practice we have in this country of pushing law enforcement down to the most local possible layer of government is the right idea. It's a part of the "old America" that the current administration hates, but it's well worth preserving, and remembering that if there is a sense among the law-abiding, tax-paying solid citizens that their cops are too aggressive, the city council and mayor are ulitmately responsible, and can be forced to take action, or be replaced.
I don't know where all of the boot licking conservatives have come from.
Is that really necessary? Or conducive to a reasoned discussion? I ask because it occurs on every single one of these threads, and reminds me of the nonsense during the 2006 border threads. What's the purpose? Cleary you're not trying to persuade me of anything with this, so what am I missing?
I'm not convince that it would be a good thing for every one to put on blinders and ignore possible wrong doing.
I'm sure that would not be a good thing, but there are ways that do that that don't a) interfere with the legitimate business of an officer or b) expose you to arrest yourself. Remember George Holliday? He started the whole ball rolling, and managed to do so without a bunch of useless drama, at least on the evening in question.
I'll accept that.
No, the police are employed by the town or county government, and are accountable to it.
I stand by my assertion.
I will stipulate that the local level, like the state and federal has become too extensive, but it remains the most accessible, and most readily accountable to the people.
That may very well be, but they are also the ones that can most readily deprive us of our rights…all the way up to that “life” thing. They need a very short leash (rather than putting citizens on one)
Is that really necessary? Or conducive to a reasoned discussion?
Obviously it is not with you. I fear that I am out of my league (no sarcasm). Still, it is de facto level of discourse on most of these threads. I’m not usually one to go there…
I'm sure that would not be a good thing, but there are ways that do that that don't a) interfere with the legitimate business of an officer or
That seems easy enough
b) expose you to arrest yourself.
That is proving to be difficult. If the cops had seen George Holliday videotaping them, he may have ended up face down next to Rodney King.