"Conservatives" adopt Progressive Principles

[MSimon]

D,

It is really ironic - you arguing against a police state.

And what is more ironic is that those who claim to be anti-Progressive arguing to the death for a Progressive policy. Prohibition.

The best paid segment of the Free Shit Army works for government. I'm thinking of doing the same. I could use the money. But I have no illusions of doing good. It is just that Darth Vader pays better than the Rebel Alliance.

[paperburn1]

Yea, but we have drug testing on the dark side, but we do have cookies!

[TDPerk]

"You characterize Ladajo's position as favoring a police state?"

He has said it himself, admitted it.

See, here is where you are full of shit again Perk.

Show me where I said I favor a police state.

Right here in the blue.

Quote:
A police state is required to keep people from doing what they have a right to do.

So in your world, what keeps people from harming others? Good will?

Or is it that they have a right to harm others? But then you will take them to court and tell them they no longer have that right once they exercise it.

What complete idiocy.

You have never had your ass kicked have you? And I am guessing that you never kicked the shit out of someone to protect yourself from their attack either.

This is also where you, as you put it--before I did--"put your dick on the table".

Conflating the notion that it is police instead of human nature that keeps society safe (as if there could be enough police otherwise) and thinking people acting as they have a right to is harming other people, yes, you support a police state. You think it's normal.

In fact, you've said anything else is anarchy.

And you can't remember from one day to the next what you've posted here.

I bet you're a riot on the witness stand.

[ladajo]

So in your world, what keeps people from harming others? Good will?

So you think this means I advocate a police state???

Are you completely unable to understand simple english???

I bet you were that kid with a million excuses and complaints about others.

Let me help you understand.

I do not advocate a police state by any means (I am feeling repetative here).

I do advocate rule of law and consequences for harming others. You yourself have stated police are required.
I think they are also required. The role they have is to act as agents of the state to interact with those that do harm to others. That said, I do not think that this removes the right for a citizen to protect themselves or others. Nor have I ever.

Those that would do harm are deterred by rule of law that specifies consequences for their actions. These consequences are enforced by the state. The act of bringing them to evaluation by the justice system requires agents of the state. More commonly known as police.

I don't really think you know what you are arguing at this point. I think you are arguing based on half understandings and a simple desire to argue. I am very clear in my position.

You really need to delve into the theories behind what makes a functional society, rule of law and consequence dynamics. This is a large field that I am thinking you have barely touched. You seem to think our system is based in pre-emptive law enforcement, where it is clearly not. You don't seem to get it. Or maybe you don't want to. You prefer to nurse some event based bitterness that clouds your ability to comprehend the intent and actions of the system at large.

Edit: fixed some of my usual typos.

[paperburn1]

“There are people who make things happen, there are people who watch things happen, and there are people who wonder what happened. Which one have you done lately?? I know what I have done and its more than sitting at a computer and kibitzing.

[hanelyp]

I do not advocate a police state by any means ...

I do advocate rule of law and consequences for harming others. ... police are required.

I get the impression that Perky doesn't grasp the distinction between a police state vs. rule of law with police enforcement.

A police state operates by guilty until proven innocent, and the law being flexible or convoluted enough that the police can get anyone they want to. It can broach no challenge to absolute authority.

Rule of law can operate innocent until proven guilty, with simple clear law that is no threat to a civilized man. It can admit civil challenge to misdeeds of government and officials.

[ladajo]

Police states also have pre-emptive policing tendencies.
"Let's round them all up before they do something, because we know they are gonna do something."

One of the first signs of a police state forming is a state desire to disarm the populace.
It is usually accompanied by significant propaganda that enilsts the aid of portions of the populace (the cowards and stupid normally).

And so on, and so forth...