The Militarization of American Law Enforcement

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted -
In the early part of the 20th century, out of wedlock births among blacks were single digit to the low teens with rates even lower among whites. After decades of social welfare programs, the rates for blacks is ~2/3rds with whites ~1/3. Making people dependent on government has been quite a success!

This claim is racist and illogical to boot. First off, there are more whites on welfare then blacks so if welfare caused high out of wedlock birthrates then whites should be higher. Second, this is faulty logic. Correlation != causation. Higher birth rates could be caused by things other then welfare. It also assumes that out of wedlock births are bad & that it's the state's role to care about it. I'm not defending welfare, I advocate the abolition of the state, just pointing out this error.

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
This is all it really boils down to for you guys. Basically anything the government does, you will b1tch about. I suggest moving to Iraq and see how oppressive our government really is.

The Iraqi dictatorship would probably have been overthrown by now if it weren't for "my" government. They provided him with arms, weapons of mass destruction and other help in the '80s.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

That's why specialized computer workers move out of Wyoming to San Francisco, because Wyoming is oppressive. Or actors migrate to LA or New York. Or investors migrate to New York. I think the #1 reason listed was that they were oppressed. It's called going where the opportunity is, Mr. McVeigh.

Being compared to a mass murderer is assinine, but after all, you are Ted. Yes, opportunities are important, which is partly why I said "probably" and not "always", doh! Millions flock to this country because of anti-freedom policies in their home countries. Millions fled the south because of anti-freedom policies there. To claim this doesn't happen is to ignore history.

Can you do better than that when trying to refute Mencken? I'd love to see how many people have been murdered by governments as opposed to individuals outside of government.

This is all it really boils down to for you guys. Basically anything the government does, you will b1tch about.

Not everything, just some things.

I suggest moving to Iraq and see how oppressive our government really is.

Unless you agree with everything government does, I suggest you take your own advice, hypocrite. Oh, and one not need be murdered to know that slavery is oppressive, duh!

There are alot of people out there who will say that our government doesn't do ENOUGH to help those in need.

So what? Let them help those in need then instead of stealing from others.

So berzerker, you are saying that I can't make these future predictions, yet you yourself just predicted that "this 'vacuum' would be filled by charities and job producers. "

No, I said predicting the disaster you predicted required omniscience. And I didn't say the vacuum would be filled to your satisfaction, only that charites and job producers would move in to help those in need thereby filling the vacuum to my satisfaction. Since you forgot to quote my statement, here it is again - I don't care if "society" runs smoothly.

How do you know that? Because you can predict the future?

No, because that's what people do when others are in need. We got by in this country for more than a century without social welfare programs. How do you explain that?

Once again, caught as a HYPOCRITE!!!

I see you're still hurting from the last thread you polluted with your hypocrisy and insults. Let the past go, let the past go, it's eating you up inside...

I see you didn't bother responding to my argument that social welfare programs are causing major problems. I'm not surprised! You seem to think these programs are manna from heaven, but ignore the problems they cause.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Berzerker]

Joe -

This claim is racist and illogical to boot. First off, there are more whites on welfare then blacks so if welfare caused high out of wedlock birthrates then whites should be higher.

First, how is it racist? It happens to be true. Second, white rates have been climbing too. The number of whites on welfare is greater than blacks, but not the percentage of whites within the white population as opposed to the percentage of blacks within the black population. So that means the percentage of out of wedlock births would be higher within that population with the higher welfare dependancy - which happens to be blacks.

Second, this is faulty logic. Correlation != causation.

The causation is quite obvious. When you create a program that effectively displaces the father and his role as husband and father, out of wedlock births increase because the government is now providing the support usually provided by fathers. While this might not effect wealthier people, poorer people are given an incentive to stay unmarried and for fathers to walk away (or driven away by regulations) from their commitments to wife and family - and many do. I had friends back in LA that remained unmarried and the father could not live with his family because of regulations so the family could get welfare.

Higher birth rates could be caused by things other then welfare.

It's not about higher birth rates, it's about higher out of wedlock birth rates.

It also assumes that out of wedlock births are bad

OH C'MON! Children living in households with a single parent - female - have MUCH higher poverty rates than two parent families. This is NOT an assumption!

& that it's the state's role to care about it.

The state created the problem, it better care.

I'm not defending welfare, I advocate the abolition of the state, just pointing out this error.

No, perceived errors - erroneous perceptions

[Berzerker]

Ted -

WHICH AGAIN INVOLVES MAKING A OMNICIENT, FUTURE PREDICTION.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

Ted, you're an idiot. We both made predictions about future events if a change was made in US domestic policies. You claimed the ruination of the world and I claimed charities and job producers would move in to take up the slack (to my satisfaction, not yours) for those in need. Making your prediction of a worldwide disaster due to the removal of social welfare programs requires omniscience because it never happened before. My "prediction" that charites and job producers would move in to provide jobs and help for poor people doesn't require this omniscience because I have history to support my position. Yelling hypocrite won't ever replace the proof you need to support such a ridiculous accusation. But we both know why you're so eager to make the accusation, you're still hurting from the other thread in which I exposed your hypocrisy and you are desparate to get back at me.

Nice escape route you gave yourself.

It wasn't an "escape route", it was my attempt to avoid generalizing because obviously there are a variety of reasons people decide to live in certain places. Now that I have shown your critique to be invalid, you accuse me of being disenguous? Good comeback...NOT!

Given that you explicitly listed your reason and none others, we can understand that you actually give it priority.

I wasn't asked for all the reasons people move, duh. But yes, I consider escaping anti-freedom policies to be a major if not primary reason for "brain drains" - intelligent people moving to another place. Why do you think Einstein left Germany?

Maybe you missed that whole...oh what was that thing. I'm having trouble remembering exactly what that was. Damn, I know if I try hard enough to remember, it will come--OH YEAH! That whole Great Depression thing!

Are you now suggesting people did not help each other during the Depression?
Social welfare spending or the lack thereof neither caused or solved the Depression - government policies created it and WWII solved it.

Where charities and private organizations moved in so effectively that 1/3 of people were out of work and the bread lines were longer than the lines to get on the roller coasters at Six Flags!

And what caused the Depression? A lack of social welfare programs?

They were really effective then, weren't they!?!

How many people starved to death during the Depression? Got a number? If you don't, then you don't know how effective charities were, do you? Maybe the reason we don't look back at the Depression and lament all the cases of starvation was because charities were feeding people, doh!

Oh wait, the programs created to tie people over were just about FDR trying to win votes, eh?

Certainly one of the reasons. Did you know what LBJ said when justifying civil rights laws to his inner circle? He said the Democrats will have the n****** voting for us for centuries! Yeah, politicians never think about buying votes with their policies...

You mention all these tyrannical and ruthless governments, but that statement says it all to me.

It says I don't accept your rationale for government. The Nazis made "society" run smoothly given what they inherited from the 1920's, that doesn't mean they or their ideology was moral. And the rest of that statement was, "I care about freedom" which appears in the first post containing that phrase. You don't care about freedom, maybe your own, but what hypocrite doesn't.

You can live in your fantasy world outside of "society" but you need the government and the US of A, nobody lives completely on their own.

And why does "society" need to legalize stealing? It was the fascists who placed so much importance on "society" at the expense of the individual. I see fascism is alive and well...

But whether the USA needs you is questionable.

And the USA needs you? I don't, I just wish you leftists would try to do your own stealing without hiding behind "government". Oh yeah, alot of you do, they are called thieves. At least they have the balls to risk their own necks...

Seeing as how you don't want to be a part of it, I suggest leaving and going elsewhere.

That was quite a tirade, Ted. If we don't want you stealing our money to pay for what YOU want, we are living in a fantasy world desiring to be separate from "society", blah blah blah. Now that is hypocrisy! You live here while disagreeing with policies and tell others who disagree with policies you like to move? And don't put words in my mouth. I know you're at a disadvantage debating people, but debating yourself and pretending you are debating me is just so immature. I see you're still ignoring how social welfare programs end up impoverishing those who become dependants. I understand why, the truth is inconvenient...

"I Legalized robbery, and called it belief" - Mark Knopfler, Dire Straits.

[Wraith]

--"This is all it really boils down to for you guys. Basically anything the government does, you will b1tch about."

Not anything. If it limited itself to Constitutional levels I wouldn't have much to complain about. The problem is that the majority of current federal government functions are not Constitutional, and no attempts are being made to change the Constitution so that they are.

Your picture doesn't work for me, btw. Can't see it.

--"There are alot of people out there who will say that our government doesn't do ENOUGH to help those in need."

Yes, there are. So what? There were a lot of people saying Communism, even Stalin's particular brand of it, was a good thing at the time. They were still wrong, and would remain so no matter how many said it.

--"Even now, with his people starving, he has amassed several billion dollars in personal worth and still maintains several palaces."

Well, yes, since he built that wealth by starving his people.
Looks like the easiest way to get good food/clothing/etc would be to become one of his guards. A few months of pretend (the attrition rate is probably fairly high), and you'd be in a position to do something about Saddam pretty directly.

--"Damn, I know if I try hard enough to remember, it will come--OH YEAH! That whole Great Depression thing!"

This one's been covered here repeatedly. One of the best bits of spin-control ever. The Great Depression was caused by the government, and it was drawn-out because of the government. It was specifically not "solved" by the government, although they got credit for it and not the rest.
Without the massive (and idiotic) government intervention there would have been nothing more than a short recession. Historical evidence backs this position, as it happened many times. It was only government mismanagement of the money supply and the idiotic policies coming out of Congress that pushed it into a Great Depression.

Wraith
"The saddest epitaph which can be carved in the memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Richard Bruns -

You're confusing an opposition to "legalized" theft with Libertarian's opinions about the "average" person's ability to take care of themselves.

These two are inextricably related. If people are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves, then they will petition the government to do it for them. If the government responds to this demand, then it must raise the money to do this. This is done by taxing. If people take care of themselves, there is no need for "legalized" theft. If they don't, there is.

Which of us is more qualified to make your decisions? Are you opposed to letting average people vote? If not, why? Since they cannot take care of themselves, how can they be qualified to vote for others to make their decisions?

The idealist in my wants the world to be run by libertarian principles. But the realist in me knows that this would be almost impossible. Too much of the population has, through education, culture, apathy, and decadence, lost the spirit of self-reliance and responsibility. Thus they vote for the government we have now.

You must realize that when you critisize the government, you are critisizing the people who voted for it. Our government is put in place by the people. It does what the people want. If you believe that our government is doing the wrong thing, then you believe that the people who voted for them should not have voted the way they did.

If you support the democratic process, you have to accept the government that results. Sad but true. I understand that our government is a symptom, not a cause, of the problems in our nation. Attempts to change the government will be doomed to failure if it is the government that the people think they want. Changing things can only be accomplished by educating voters. A Libertarian system will not and cannot work until the population is self-reliant. This is not the case now, and so our government has evolved to fit the attitude of the populace.

The truth is: the Libertarian Party won't make significant headway because most people do not believe in freedom and want the "government" to hand them other people's money.

That is exactly what I said. Exactly. Libertarian ideals will fail because too many people will not take care of themselves.

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Who would have overthrown him?

A coalition of Kurds and Shii'tes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka


A coalition of Kurds and Shii'tes.

Hehehehahahahohohohoho!

Oh, I wish I had time for another episode of the post-gulf war Iraq policy debate.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Wraith]

--". That they CAUSED it is laughable. But again, you government haters, I can see where you'd get that one."

Feel free to consult any of the econ boys that hang around on this one.

--"When the economy goes south, giving goes with it, right when it is most in need. Government help can remain steady or even increase."

I am truly amazed at you here. Sure, it can. Government prints the money, so obviously even if the economy is going south they can increase their payouts. But there's always a price for such things.

--"Is there one country in this entire world where there is a case of charities and private industry exclusively supporting those in need? Where? Name it."

Name a country that isn't run by power-hungry people and you'll find your answer. This is a government function that, however corrupt and inept the reality, can be portrayed as a good thing. Especially now, after years of training in "the evils of capitalism" from the public schools. This is an easy area for politicans to gain power, so it will not be left alone by government long unless they are forced to.

Charities would be in a lot better shape, by the way, if the government weren't a) promising to do their job instead and b) forcing rather large sums of money from people in the name of doing so. Unfortunately, they haven't lived up to a) and spend most of the proceeds of b) to make sure they get elected again.

Wraith
"Unquestionably, there is progress. The average American now pays out twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages."
-- H. L. Mencken

[Berzerker]

Joe - Will you respond to my post dealing with your accusations and claims?

Richard Bruns - I see your point, but the average person IMO is able to take care of themselves. The fact many or even most voters won't turn down a government handout doesn't mean they are incapable of being self-sufficient.

The idealist in my wants the world to be run by libertarian principles. But the realist in me knows that this would be almost impossible.

Yup, it won't happen.

You must realize that when you critisize the government, you are critisizing the people who voted for it.

Oh, I realize this. That's why I express my opinions to potential voters.

Our government is put in place by the people. It does what the people want. If you believe that our government is doing the wrong thing, then you believe that the people who voted for them should not have voted the way they did.

You mean "some" of the people. But as long as the "some" outnumber the rest, we will continue having a system of legalized theft.

If you support the democratic process, you have to accept the government that results.

I don't support the democratic process, and neither did the Founding Fathers.

I understand that our government is a symptom, not a cause, of the problems in our nation.

True.

That is exactly what I said. Exactly. Libertarian ideals will fail because too many people will not take care of themselves.

Agreed.


Ted -

...

Knopfler was showing that the leftist ideology - your ideology - is nothing but legalized robbery masquerading as a "belief" system. But laughing at his statement is the kind of "rebuttal" I'd expect from you, it's so much easier than actually disproving what he said.

After reading that, I'm convinced. You win berzerker.

Maybe you should do more reading than just one quote. If your parents taught you that stealing was wrong, why did stealing become right at some point in your life?

The point is, GUYS, nobody has claimed that the government solved the Great Depression, duh, learned that in 3rd grade.

You used the Great Depression as a reason for having government social spending and did refer to FDR's policies to tide people over, the implication was that his policies helped or solved it. We merely argued that government started it and didn't solve it with social policies, but you're too dense to see this as an indictment of the same government you think solves problems. You argued we need these programs because the Great Depression proved charities and job producers were incapable of helping people in tough times, then ignored my question about how many people actually starved during the Great Depression! So, how many people starved to death because of the Great Depression? Your failure to answer shows you were just mouthing off about something you don't know about. Besides, even if the Great Depression showed how we need social spending in exteme situatiuons, how does that prove we need social spending when times are not as bad?

That they CAUSED it is laughable. But again, you government haters, I can see where you'd get that one.

You can't refute arguments, so you laugh instead, as if laughing is a rebuttal. Whenever I see you laugh at a question or claim, I know you don't have a clue. Monetary policies (the Fed) and protectionism started the ball rolling.

Just like that recent case where you tried to tell us the government "MURDERED" an "author." (An armed extremist who just happened to fire on agents first).

That only shows I can make mistakes. You're immune?

You polluted that thread with your hypocisy and accusations of deceit and I nailed you for your obnoxious behavior. See, history is repeating itself.

The point is that the government serves a secondary function in that it acts as a buffer for people in need, something that doesn't fluctuate. Charity DEPENDS on people giving. When the economy goes south, giving goes with it, right when it is most in need. Government help can remain steady or even increase.

And where does "government" get the money? IT INFLATES OUR MONEY! Why do you keep ignoring the point I made about how welfare programs have led to a massive increase in out of wedlock birthrates?

Is there one country in this entire world where there is a case of charities and private industry exclusively supporting those in need? Where? Name it.

As Richard pointed out, most people don't want to take care of themselves. It's not that they can't, but if a politician comes along promising to rob the "rich" to make their existence easier, then they engage in the same kind of rationalizing you've engaged in to "justify" legally stealing from others. The fact a majority agrees with your desire to steal from others doesn't prove it's a moral endeavor.

There are widespread reports about how charities are falling short over 50% of what they need since September. So what happens when people aren't so generous?

"We" just donated over a billion dollars to help the people affected by the attacks. Just how much do you think they need in addition to all the other non-governmental benefits? Naturally, you've ignored that the attacks would not have happened if not for your beloved government and it's policies overseas

Where is YOUR data regarding charities and how much they helped during the Depression? Thought so.

You're the one who raised the issue of the Great Depression claiming charities failed - the burden of proof is on you! And smugly saying "thought so" in the same post you asked the question is moronic. As I already pointed out, the fact we don't look back and lament all the people who starved to death is proof charities filled the vacuum, duh.

It's all based on anecdotal evidence. I take the words of the people who lived through it and what they have to say about it. You take the words of what you read in "Anti-Government USA Magazine."

Yes, it is anecdotal, and my parents lived thru it and say it was not nearly as bad as you leftists claim. So, where are your numbers for the deaths due to starvation resulting from the inability of charities to fill the vacuum?

And again, berzeker, you are still a hypocrite for making future predictions but dismissing mine.

First, that isn't even hypocrisy you idiot. All predictions are not equally valuable or meritorious. Your "prediction" was the ruination of the world if some people here don't get their welfare checks. Mine was that people help each other in tough times and that the world would not face ruination. Dismissing your jacka$$ prediction and putting forth a much more reasonable prediction is not hypocrisy.

The only difference in your perspective is that you think yours are more accurate so therefore you are allowed to make future predictions and I am not.

You can make them all you want, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them as anything other than the assinine rants of clueless left winger.

[SnowFire]

Random interjectory comment:

The 14th Amendment is illegitimate

DF, how can something in the Constitution be Unconstitutional? You can say you don't like the 14th Amendment. You can say it goes against the principles this country was founded under. You cannot, however, say you are a strict constructionist under the Constitution... "but" one bit.

Unless you're trotting out some tired argument about it being not part of the Constitution because they forgot to dot an i or cross a t in the ratification process, of course.