One, when I stated that the cop was the bad guy- the one who was the aggressor, said to me:
Your statement suggests you were there, please recount your version of the events. To do otherwise would put you in the same category as some of the "advocates" who incite foolishness for recognition and profit while having no actual knowledge about anything.
Yet, this statist insists that since I wasn't there I can't know who the bad guy was- who had committed the crime- even though the cops willingly list the crimes committed by Officer Brent Aguilar and can't show a single one (other than the imaginary"crime" of "contempt of cop") committed by Brent Aguilar's victim (whom they quickly "arrested" on "unrelated" charges).
Don't believe me? Let's go through the police version of events. The car was stopped. A passenger in the back seat (Corona) asked why they were being stopped (not a crime or any reason to suspect a crime). Aguilar demanded that passenger's ID (not within his authority and therefore a crime to do so). The passenger refused (not a crime to refuse to obey an illegal order). Aguilar placed the passenger under arrest (not a real arrest, but a kidnapping, since no crime had been committed by Corona. Adding to the crimes Aguilar and the police admit he committed). Then Aguilar added another crime to the crimes he was committing by physically attacking Corona to the point he broke a cheekbone, and to cover this crime, made up the charge of "resisting arrest".
If you copsuckers dispute these events take it up with the police department. The only difference is that you and the police don't consider these things wrong if committed by cops "in the line of duty", which is an unsupportable double standard I do not subscribe to. You can support cops all you want, but they are too dangerous to allow to exist.
The only way to excuse what Officer Brent Aguilar did is to make up an imaginary double standard where a crime can't be a crime if the aggressor wears a magical talisman called a badge. And that's what copsuckers are best at. No double standards.
It's as though we can't pass judgement on a rapist until we know what his victim might have done to "deserve it", even though the rapist admits the rape occurred (but calls it "arresting sex", instead, and says she refused to identify herself, so he had to do it, and she was then guilty of "resisting sex"). We can have video of the rape happening. We can have eyewitness testimony. We can see the physical wounds. But, if we are members of the Brutal Rapist Fan Club, we must reserve judgement until some justification can be manufactured.
If you needed any evidence that copsuckers will contort themselves inside out in support of their badged gods, there you have it.
ADDED: Surprise! This isn't the first time Brent Aguilar has been a brutal thug: "Aguilar used excessive force in taking Melanie Ryan of Clovis to the ground on her concrete porch"
.
Rights! What rights! You don't have any stinking rights! (All hail the imperial State. Dissenters will be shot.)
ReplyDeleteThis should be good news to wife beaters, don't beat her yourself, the state will send someone around who holds the credentials to do the job professionally, and the service is "free" at the point of use.
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether any of Aguilar's girlfriends will give testamonials to the high professional standards he brought to slamming their faces into the ground, when he needed to feel that his authoritah was being properly respected?
I have no idea whether Jorge Corona had done anything previously that would have warranted his later arrest. It doesn't matter if he had! In the stop in question he offered no aggression, showed no hostility and the officer knew of no pre-existing cause to arrest him. He was arrested anyway, apparently because officer Brent Aguilar didn't like his face and didn't like being questioned. He complied with all demands and did not resist, then was assaulted and injured.
ReplyDeleteThis much is apparent simply from the dash cam video. You don't need to have been there to know these things.
Here's my question...would this be getting as much publicity if Aguliar wasn't a cop?
ReplyDeleteNope. Because a "regular" non-cop person would have instantly been arrested for doing the same thing- not just given a paid vacation from his "job". That's why this needs the publicity.
DeleteI referred to the Officer that ran a stop sign while speeding a few years ago and killed a woman in a different reply...and referenced a drunk driver crash which happened shortly after which killed someone...and a crash that happened today which killed someone. A lot of publicity for the crash involving a cop but not for a "regular" non-cop. Oh and I guess I should point out that in both...and several other "non-cop" fatal crashes, the non-cops weren't charged although according to the writing of the statute certain ones should have. But the Officer was indicted through a grand jury and charged. Later acquitted but charged none the less. So please don't just assume that a "regular" non-cop person would have been automatically arrested.
DeleteYou mention double standards a couple times in this article. Let's discuss that a little...if Aguliar is found guilty, he will probably never be able to be a police officer again...EVER. Because of the alleged (an I say that because he hasn't been proven guilty yet) crime and because of possibly lying on a report. Keeping that in mind....Corona's attorney was found guilty of professional misconduct in 1991 and is still allowed to practice law. Should he not be disbarred forever because....once a liar, cheat, guilty of misconduct...always a liar, cheat, guilty of misconduct. What I'm saying is Aguliar may not have any credibility now....shouldn't it be the same for Corona's attorney?
ReplyDeleteYes, it should. On the other hand, Corona's attorney doesn't have the "authority" to accost and kill people- all cops are presumed to have that "authority", so which one is more of a danger? If "we" are to allow cops, they should be held to a nearly impossible standard. Or, they should not be covered by any sort of "immunity" when they do the wrong thing.
DeleteThe rational solution is to end the silly experiment with policing. It was given a couple hundred years and has proved to be too dangerous to both "the public" and the individuals invariably corrupted by the "job".
You know, I'm kind of reconsidering my answer on this.
DeleteAnyone who wants to practice as a lawyer should be able to do so without any government restrictions whatsoever (there shouldn't be "government" at all, but we'll ignore that for now). If the lawyers wish t join together as "the bar" to certify lawyers who they believe are up to certain standards, that's fine, but those who are not certified shouldn't be prevented by "law" from practicing.
In such a case, no, there shouldn't be any way to keep a disbarred lawyer from practicing- and in some cases (such as the bar being obviously corrupt and in bed with government) I might prefer to use such a lawyer. I would need to know what sort of "professional misconduct" is being pointed to.
But, no one should be able to get away with initiating force and keep a job where he interacts with "the public" in a way where he is tempted to initiate force. There are only two real wrongs: theft (violation of property) and aggression (violation of individuals). Being a cop guarantees being guilty of both.
In your original answer, you said that cops should be held to a nearly impossible standard...so you think a double standard is fine...as long as it is against the cops. Got ya. A few years ago, a Clovis Officer ran a stop sign in his unit while speeding, hit a truck and killed a woman. All the "headhunters" yelled at the top of their lungs wanting him charged with vehicular homicide. They even said the same kind of crap....you know...if it would have been a civilian, etc. However, a couple weeks after the incident, a drunk driver hit and killed someone between here and Portales, and not a thing was said by the public, although according to how the statute is written, the drunk could have and should have been charged, because it actually fit. Earlier today there was a crash, where one vehicle ran a stop sign, hit another vehicle and killed someone. I would almost bet no charges will be filed and there won't be any headhunting. Why....because the driver wasn't in a cop car and wasn't wearing a badge for a living. I agree with you on one thing....there should be no double standards. The laws do not read..."here are the elements of vehicular homicide (or whatever) unless one of the individuals is a cop. Basically what I'm saying is...if people want to scream "no double standards" then they need to understand that means everyone held to the same standard, not a higher one for cops, not a lower one for John Doe.
DeleteAs for your second answer...so if I read it correctly, you believe it's fine for an attorney to lie, cheat, and basically go against all ethical standards and still be able to practice law. So it would be fine if an Officer if found to be guilty of any wrong doing, he should be able to keep his job?
As for what "professional misconduct" is being referred to...as a prosecutor, this attorney misled a defense attorney, judge, and a defendant into believing the arresting Officer had showed up for court, when in reality the Officer hadn't. This led to the defendant taking a guilty plea. Luckily, the defendant pointed out to his attorney that the Officer that Mr. Lindsey was claiming was the arresting Officer didn't look familiar and the defense attorney called the police department and found out the arresting Officer had moved out of state and not showed for court. This defendant could have went to jail. If this sounds all god to you, I hope you don't end up in that kind of situation. You asked in your original reply "which is more of a danger"...well I would argue the attorney could take your freedom away just as easy by doing was Mr. Corona's attorney did as a prosecutor.
Guess what- here is the blog post I wrote about that incident when it happened (you might be disappointed): link
DeleteWhat I'm saying about the lawyer is that there should be no government saying who can or can't practice law. Professional organizations are fine, and they can (and probably should) have standards which forbid lying, cheating, etc. but a person should be able to hire anyone as a lawyer who "hangs up a shingle", and juries would be wise to consider the lawyer's reputation when coming to a verdict.
In other words- remove government sanction of lawyers AND cops, but since cops only exist due to government sanction, without it they would cease to exist entirely. And that would be good. Cops have only existed since the mid-1800s and have proved to be a really bad idea whose time is over. Lawyers can't chase down people, kidnap people, rob ("fine") people, or shoot anyone as a "part of their job"; cops are allowed to- that's the main difference, and that's why a higher standard for cops is NOT a "double standard". If you are permitted power, the higher standard is automatic. Don't like it? Get an honest job.
Prosecuting attorney's are automatically the bad guys since they are working for The State and helping enforce its counterfeit "laws". They (and the cops on the stand) are allowed (and expected) to lie however they have to for The State to "win" its case. A prosecutor and a defense attorney are completely different critters- and a prosecutor who is caught lying and cheating to promote the State's agenda should be banned from ever prosecuting a case again- however, by becoming a defense attorney he has moved to a different job, so has complied with that condition. An attorney who switches sides to fight against the State could be considered to have made some restitution for past wrongs.
On the contrary, I'm not disappointed in you blog about that incident. However, I do disagree with some of it. In it you say "all we should demand is no double standards and that we are all equals under the law regardless of employer". You also said "This indictment serves the purpose adequately." Here's the problem with that statement. According to statute (and a defense attorney, since you seem to like them more than prosecutors), in order to charge vehicular homicide, you must either be DWI or be guilty of reckless driving. Since the officer was not drunk, that leaves reckless driving. Yes he was speeding, however, the NM supreme court decided a long time ago that speeding itself is not reckless. So, the indictment should have never happened. However, the DA at the time didn't have the spine to explain it to the victims family and friends. So your statement of the indictment serves the purpose contradicts your statement of all we should demand is no double standards, because according to statute, a "regular" person would have not been charged. And again like I said before, two weeks later a drunk driver caused an accident and killed someone and wasn't charged when he should have been according to statute. You also said "for a real crime to exist, there must be intent to cause harm to a person or property". So according to you, DWI shouldn't be a crime. No traffic offenses should be a crime. And I could go on. So with this way of thinking,(Based on your words) we should all be able to get drunk, get in a car and drive as fast as we want, putting everyone else in danger, and that's all ok because a drunk driver is not intending to hurt anyone or any thing. I hope a drunk driver never hits you or anyone you love. I agree with your restitution statements. However, at the same time, if it's not wrong to harm someone's person or property while drinking and driving (because there is no intent) how could you justify making someone pay restitution when they didn't do anything wrong?
DeleteNow to your response about attorneys and cops. You say it would be good to have no cops. Yet based on other statements you have made, there are in your mind "real crimes". So if a "real crime" was committed, who would investigate the crime and make arrests? As for the kidnapping statement, would you please look up the legal definition of kidnapping. I understand you don't think there should be any fines or certain laws. Could you tell me how a lawless society would work? I mean do think it would be ok if we all could just drink and drive, drive as fast as we want, park wherever we want, etc.(you know all the so called victimless crimes). Society has rules and regulations (AKA laws) to prevent chaos. With such rules, there must be a penalty when you break them, you know just like when you were growing up. Obviously as an adult you're not going to be "taken to the woodshed" as a punishment, therefore there's fines. As for your double standard statement...two different standards for the same situation makes a double standard. You say higher standard, if it's different than the "regular" person, it's a double standard. Your honest job statement...I believe ANYONE who has a job and not living on welfare, HAS an honest job. No matter what it is. Your statement of the prosecutors and cops lying to prove win a case. I've sat and watched several court cases. Most of the time, there are more witness testimony than cop testimony, and the attorneys don't testify. The lies come from the defense attorneys, although they are just speaking for their clients which are lying most of the time. I mean it's kind of hard to show your client is not guilty of DWI when there is blood or breath results proving it. I know, you probably think that shouldn't be a law anyway. You say a prosecutor who is caught lying, cheating, etc. should be banned from ever prosecuting again...but it's ok if a defense attorney lies, cheats, etc. to...I don't know...let's say, get a murderer off. Good Lord I hope no one ever kills anyone you care about. Dishonesty is dishonesty. I don't care who you are.
Delete"the NM supreme court decided a long time ago that speeding itself is not reckless...two weeks later a drunk driver caused an accident and killed someone and wasn't charged when he should have been according to statute"
DeleteYes, "laws" are arbitrary and harmful, as are courts. Does that surprise you? Looking for justice from the "justice system" is a fool's quest.
"So your statement of the indictment serves the purpose..."
Do you honestly believe you (assuming you aren't a cop or other government employee) or I wouldn't have been indicted under similar circumstances, by which I mean if "pubic opinion" were against us? The "system" punishes accidents all the time. Cops are much less likely to be punished than non-cops, and their accidents are more likely to be deadly.
Punishment is not justice, either. Punishment is revenge, and makes you the bad guy. I understand the desire to punish, and have felt it myself, but it is wrong.
"DWI shouldn't be a crime. No traffic offenses should be a crime."
Of course not. "Crime" is a nonsense concept invented by statists, anyway. Most "crimes" anymore are not wrong. And many things that are wrong are not "crimes". Consider the "pink market". Sure, sometimes "Crime" equals "wrong", but not so much anymore.
Really being drunk, not simply "impaired", and driving dangerously is wrong because you are a credible threat to others. You could stop someone from oing so and be justified by self defense. (But you are never justified in setting up a checkpoint hoping that by molesting everyone you might catch some people who you couldn't tell by watching were drunk- and financing your "patrols" by theft is also never right.) But the DWI "standards" have been watered down to the point of ridiculousness. And driving dangerously, whether drunk or sleepy or while "running plates" on your onboard cop computer is dangerous- and causing harm while doing so places you in debt- a debt you may not be able to pay. But The State and it's "laws" have nothing to do with it. And no debt has been incurred unless actual harm has been caused.
"how could you justify making someone pay restitution when they didn't do anything wrong"
Because you can do nothing wrong, and still create a debt. It happens every day. But, DWI doesn't create a debt- causing damage by your driving, drunk or not, does.
"So if a 'real crime' was committed, who would investigate the crime and make arrests?"
DeleteYou could have investigators that are paid voluntarily- by subscription, or on a case-by-case basis. People who don't wish to pay for their services, wouldn't. And they would be personally accountable for their actions if they "arrested" the wrong person or harmed an innocent person or their property.
"Arrests" are not something that would be common in a free society. In almost all cases "arrest" is just a euphemism for kidnapping, and doesn't further the cause of justice. Only a person who was a credible threat to innocent people could be "arrested", and in most cases, if they were that dangerous, one of their intended victims would have probably killed them in defense. And, yes, I realize that "legal" definitions are carefully crafted to exempt government employees' actions. Just like "theft" is taking something that belongs to someone else, which they would rather not part with, under threat of violence- unless a government employee is the one doing it "officially", and then it's "taxation" or "eminent domain" or "asset forfeiture". Making twisted exceptions for government employees doesn't alter the nature of the act.
If a crime is victimless, who is harmed? Once you start punishing people for things which haven't hurt anyone, where do you stop?
"Society has rules and regulations (AKA laws) to prevent chaos."
Societies rules are not the same as "laws". Societies rules are more likely to follow Natural Law- regulations and "laws"- statutory "law"- are often the opposite of Natural Law and contribute to chaos.
In his book "The Law of the Somalis", Micheal van Notten expalins Natural Law: "[Natural law] permits all activities that do not infringe upon the person or property of another. It takes priority over all other principles and rules that shape human society, including rules legislated by parliaments or established by contract." Natural Law always trumps statutory "law" and invented regulations, while reinforcing the real rules of society.
"With such rules, there must be a penalty when you break them"
And with Natural Law, there always is, and no one is needed to "enforce" it.
"...therefore there's fines"
DeleteHow does giving money to someone who wasn't the victim and wasn't harmed serve justice? I don't want anyone "fined" on my behalf; not for anything. If they harmed someone, let them pay restitution, but don't give government one cent of that money.
"I believe ANYONE who has a job and not living on welfare, HAS an honest job. No matter what it is."
So the prostitute who supports herself with renting her body, the meth cooker, the mafia hitman are all equally honestly employed to you? Do you then support sending cops to "arrest" them? To me the hooker and the drug maker are honestly employed, even though "criminals" according to your statutory "laws". The hitman is not honestly employed because by the nature of his job he initiates force- and is paid with stolen money. Just like a cop. Go back to my link above about the Pink Market.
"...and the attorneys don't testify"
Prosecutors don't have to testify to lie in court. They lie in much more insidious ways, in case after case.
"You say a prosecutor who is caught lying, cheating, etc. should be banned from ever prosecuting again...but it's ok if a defense attorney lies, cheats, etc."
That's because it is better for a thousand guilty people to go free than for one innocent to be found guilty.
I don't really want the State "winning" any case, ever. Like I say, there is no "justice" to be found in the "justice system" anyway. It's all just a dog and pony show to feed the punishment lust of bored, ignorant people and to enrich the prison industry.
"Good Lord I hope no one ever kills anyone you care about"
It has already happened a couple of times. And "the law" didn't bring them back to life. Whatever punishment the killer got (in one case, none) didn't bring justice to anyone.
The funniest thing is you are so anti government, but do you understand that it was a form of government that wrote the constitution giving you the right to post stuff like this. IF you are so against our government why don't you run as an independent and abolish our government...or find a place where this is no government. Just asking. You believe there should be a lawless society and if that's your believe, good for you. However just remember in a lawless society (think back a couple hundred years ago) someone could kill you just because you called them a cheat or a liar. Good luck sir. Oh and BTW, I served over twenty years of my life in defense of this country and your right to say whatever you want. Just one quick note on your last post...you think it's better for a thousand guilty to go free than for one innocent go to jail. Although I agree that no innocent individual should ever go to jail...I also don't believe ANY victim would want the guilty party to go free. Again...good luck with your quest to abolish the government.
DeleteOh and another quick note on whether or not I think you or I would have been indicted. No we wouldn't have. There was an accident recently at CR6 and MLK...a vehicle ran a stop sign, hit another vehicle, killed someone. NO charges have been filed. I understand you said in similar circumstances referring to "if public opinion was against us". Therein is the problem...public opinion would NEVER be against you or I like it was against the Officer because it will never get the publicity from the libtards and the media. The ONLY reason that Officer was indicted was because the DA at the time was a spineless idiot that didn't want to make the tough call he was being paid to make and because the car the Officer was driving just happened to have lights and a siren on it. I ask you (because I will be) keep an eye in the newspaper and see if someone is brought up on charges for the crash I'm speaking of. I'd bet you anything there will be none.
Delete"...it was a form of government that wrote the constitution giving you the right to post stuff like this"
DeleteRights can't be created or abolished, but only respected or violated. States always violate more rights than they respect, or they couldn't exist. You and I (and people in North Korea) have the absolute human right to write or say anything we want, whether the government "allows" it or not, and whether there is a First Amendment or not. Abolishing the First Amendment wouldn't change that right, it would only give the statists justification for killing those who write things which aren't state-approved.
If you believe the Constitution created rights, you don't understand what a "right" is. Rights pre-existed any form of government- they are inherent in the nature of being human. All the Constitution did was make it illegal for government to violate (some) rights. But it failed. This is like those people who believe the Second Amendment "gives" them the right to own and to carry guns, rather than what it really did: make it a serious (real) crime to pass or enforce any anti-gun "law".
"IF you are so against our government why don't you run as an independent and abolish our government"
I actually did that- but then realized you can't defeat the bad guys by becoming one of them. Also I discovered the FEC has processes to prevent anyone with principles from running a "real" campaign. It isn't "our" government, unless we both work for it in one of those pink market "jobs". I don't. Abolishing the State won't do any good until enough people finally realize that government is an unnecessary evil. Until that happens, they would just demand a new government be set up in the old one's place. It's like cutting out a cancerous tumor and shoving a dead cat in the hole before stitching the patient back up. Not a helpful thing to do. I can wait it out.
"or find a place where this is no government"
Where would you suggest? For the first time in human history, there is no frontier to get away from government in. It's a situation that can't last without serious detrimental consequences.
"You believe there should be a lawless society..."
DeleteNo, I believe almost all of your "laws" are arbitrary and harmful because they are counterfeit "laws" which violate Natural Law. There's a difference. We are talking again about Rightful Liberty/Natural Law, which Thomas Jefferson described as: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." The "law" you advocate is exactly what Jefferson was warning against; the tyrant's will and violates the rights of the individual.
"someone could kill you just because you called them a cheat or a liar"
Someone can still do that now. Your "laws" and your government don't stop it; they only make it "illegal" and allow the State to punish you (unless you're a cop, then you can just claim to be in fear for your safety and get away with it). What stops most people from doing that now (and stopped most people from doing it back then) is the realization that some people will defend themselves from your aggression. People who will murder on a whim like that don't think ahead enough to worry about what will happen when they get caught. They usually don't believe they will be caught. Only the spector of immediate death will cause some to reconsider. The others won't be stopped no matter what.
"I served over twenty years of my life in defense of this country and your right to say whatever you want"
No, you served in defense of the US government and made it stronger, more tyranical, and helped bring about the current police state. Again, rights don't come from government.
"...you think it's better for a thousand guilty to go free than for one innocent go to jail.
I have reconsidered that. I actually think it's better for ALL the guilty to "go free" than for one innocent to be punished. Prison doesn't "help" anything, so I don't want any guilty to go to jail. If someone needs to be caged, they need to be killed. And, not by The State, either. The only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything else is just revenge.
"I also don't believe ANY victim would want the guilty party to go free"
Believe what you want. I have been victimized in the past. I didnt want the bad guy/s in prison, I wanted them to make it right. They didn't, and because of the existence of The State and its "laws", there was really nothing anyone could do about that. Your system does more to protect bad guys from the real-world consequences of their actions than to help the rest of us. "Going free" or not is irrelevent.
"good luck with your quest to abolish the government."
You mistake my quest. I don't care what happens to any government; I would just like to help some people realize it is unnecessary and harmful. And I am accomplishing that better than I ever expected.
About the traffic accidents- Like I say, I don't ever want anyone indicted for an accident- cop or non-cop. It's not the government's concern- except as an intra-gang matter when the driver is a government member. Then they can do what they want to their own guy- just leave the rest of us out of it.
I decided to entertain your natural law theory. I agree it would be great. However, with that being said, everything I've read on it...definitions always include things like moral principles and laws determined by nature (hence the name). This would be great. Unfortunately not everyone has good morals. Laws of nature really means the biggest and best get what they want and the weak die off. You know, kinda like how the lion is the "king of the jungle". Hey great, cause I know where I would be because I'm fairly big and just take what I want right? And since that would be the law of the land based on nature, then no one could do anything to me, well except for trying to take it from me. Maybe I will try this for a while, I'll start by taking what I want from you. I know you wouldn't call the cops, cause you don't believe in them, right? So as long as I'm bigger and better than you it would be ok. Yes you would and do have the right to attempt to prevent me from taking what I want, but I can guarantee you wouldn't be able to. Not to degrade you, I'm just that confident in my abilities and training. What I'm getting at is just because I could, wouldn't make it right. Trust me, I would love a perfect world, but until we have nothing but perfect people in this world (which will never happen because humans will never be perfect) there will always be a need for some sort of repercussion for those who do wrong to the weak and the weak can't defend themselves or make the idiot that does them wrong "pay" or "make it right". I may not believe in all the laws this country has, but most of them are necessary, if nothing else but to attempt to deter idiots, and to give some sort of penalty for not have the morals one would need to make the perfect world.
Delete"Unfortunately not everyone has good morals"
DeleteWho said they do? Do your statutory "laws" change that? No. They simply try to give some people "authority" to punish those with bad morals (I'd rather base the argument on ethics, but we can use morals, instead.) Natural Law doesn't try to pass that authority off, but keeps it right where it belongs, and the only place it can ever truly reside: with each of us as individuals.
"Laws of nature really means the biggest and best get what they want and the weak die off" That's the "law of the jungle". The "laws of nature" are not the same as Natural Law. Laws of nature aren't based in rights or ethics because a mouse has no right to not be attacked and eaten by a cat. A deer has no right to not be hunted and killed by a human (or a cougar). A human also has no right to not be attacked and eaten by a tiger. Those are examples of the laws of nature. But a human has the right to not be attacked by another human- no human has the right to attack another human. That is Natural Law- as explained a couple of times in earier comments.
Your entire scenario of "might makes right" is showing that you have conflated the two. Similar names; different things. Natural Law is a small part of the law of nature, but one that applies among humans, but not between us and other species or forces of nature. Because Natural Law is a ethical law, and other species are not ethically obligated to each other or us, and neither are the weather, gravity, or electromagnetism.
"What I'm getting at is just because I could, wouldn't make it right."
Exactly! And just because the "law" says you can, "legally", doesn't change the nature of your act.
"I would love a perfect world, but until we have nothing but perfect people in this world (which will never happen because humans will never be perfect)"
As would we all. But I'm not advocating a "perfect world"- which I don't think could ever exist, since what is "perfect" for one person would be Hell for another. The imperfection of humans is the biggest strike against The State. That is why I advocate liberty, instead. Because, as Robert LeFevre very wisely pointed out, “If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one.”
"...there will always be a need for some sort of repercussion..."
Yes. Obviously. But the "authority" to carry it out doesn't belong to a coercive, thieving monopoly.
"repercussion for those who do wrong to the weak and the weak can't defend themselves or make the idiot that does them wrong "pay" or 'make it right'."
The existence of "government" has become a crutch. Many people can justify not doing the right thing and stepping up to defend the weak because "that's government's job". And, yet, people still do it anyway. Some choose to do it the wrong way, by joining government, but those who want to help the weak would do it some way, no matter what. I have personally stepped in to defend the weak, and "make it right", a few times in my life. You seem to imply that's an impossibility because I am not a government employee, and therefore I'm not "authorized" to do it. A cop or bureaucrat or "social worker" who does the right thing is to be praised, but not because of their "job". At most, all the job did was make it more likely for them to be at the right place at the right time. People would fill that role in a free society without doing the bad things ("taxation", aggression) that go along with every Pink Market "job".
"I may not believe in all the laws this country has, but most of them are necessary"
DeleteThen you really don't have a clue what "laws" there are. How about the 3 or so felonies YOU commit every single day, without ill intent or causing anyone any harm whatsoever? Are those "necessary" too? (Read "Three Felonies a Day") Arbitrary and harmful "laws"- you violating them isn't wrong in any way.
" if nothing else but to attempt to deter idiots, and to give some sort of penalty for not have the morals one would need to make the perfect world."
Then they are utter failures. Idiots, by definition, can't be reached with reason. They don't think of future consequences, but act in the moment. The only penalty that works is immediate consequences to either change their minds, or eliminate them. And most of the statutory "laws" you advocate have nothing whatsoever to do with penalizing idiots or "morality". Is a person an idiot in need of being penalized (and therefore enriching The State) for not wearing a seat belt? For having a forbidden plant in his yard? For forgetting to get a building permit to add a deck to the back of his house? Your "laws" are vile. I want no part of them.
So, here's a deal:
I promise to never initiate force against you, not to violate your property in any way. If, however, I do initiate force or violate your private property, I have broken my end of the deal and you have the right to defend yourself from me (which doesn't even need to be said- it's a given). Even if you send "government" after me in this case I would not have grounds to complain.
If you initiate force against me or violate my property (or any innocent person or their property, and I witness it) I will defend myself (or your victim) from you in whatever way I see fit. I will never send "government" or its enforcers after you.
You keep your filthy "government" and its made-up "laws" to yourself, and we'll be fine.
I agree with one thing you said...idiots can't be reached with reason...you're proof of that. I get it...you and everyone has the right and should have the right to protect themselves and their property. I'm good with that, but i can guarantee that if I wanted what you have or wanted to end your life...you would loose. You say for me to keep my filthy government...ok...and since my filthy government just happens to be part of the greatest country in the world, I'll be happy to keep my country, feel free to leave. Its not to far of a trip to get to another country. I'm sure you aren't a hermit...in fact according to your Facebook page, you occasionally write your crap for the news journal at McDonalds. Lets see what you do when you're a real victim. Have a nice day, and again good luck in your quest. Lol
DeleteSo, I'm now an "idiot". LOL! Thanks. I guess you ran out of ideas that you thought were unique- that no statist in history had ever before tried to use to justify his aggression and theft- so the ad hominem was all you had left in your tool bag.
Delete"if I wanted what you have or wanted to end your life...you would loose."
The word you are looking for is "lose"- but, OK. You are advocating "might makes right", which is what the very foundation of statism always comes down to. It doesn't shock me to see you keep going back to that. So, if a murderer gets the drop on you, and you, to your great surprise-, due to your confidence in your ability to kill- end up lying in a pool of your own blood in your garage, that means you should accept that the murderer's way is right, because he can kill at will? That seems like a poor way to discern the truth. The truth is that there are violent bad guys out there. They will often "win" because they devote a lot of time to practicing the evil they do- lots more practice for hurting people and stealing things than good guys put in. It changes nothing about what they are and the evil they do.
"my filthy government just happens to be part of the greatest country in the world"
You are confusing the US government for America. The US is the government infesting America- the "laws", cops, bureaucrats, regulations, etc- while America is the individuals, the land, the natural resources, and the principles of Rightful Liberty. In other words, the US is everything that has been killing America and doing all it can to bring America down to the level of a third world dictatorship. The US is the greatest threat America has ever faced- it may not survive.
"I'll be happy to keep my country, feel free to leave."
There we go. LOL. The statists' losing whine. I knew it would crop up eventually- it always does. You forgot to tell me to go to Somalia. But guess what- if anyone were to need to leave, it would be those advocating a police state: they would be happier in North Korea where they can have all the government they desire. Leave America to those who honor and advocate the principles on which it was founded- not those who seem to believe "patriotism" is spitting on everything America was supposed to be. But, as I say, if you could abide by the principle of Rightful Liberty (which is all that made America great), I wouldn't demand you leave. That's the statist way, not mine.
I guess I was wrong. ad hominem wasn't all you had left to fling. In fact, you managed to use up all the rest of the statists' desperate measures in one short comment. And then ended with the most desperate one of all- the veiled threat. Or, is it "veiled"? I guess I'll find out. It's fitting (and very telling) you felt the need to hide behind anonymity. I may not know who you are, but I know what you are.
I understand what you want...you want the government to go away. And you think that would be great. Here's the biggest problem that I see with your way of thinking. First off, let's say there wasn't any government, no military (since you are obviously against the military also), and everything was just natural law. You would be happy right? I believe your answer would be yes. So, you would be happy until, another country with a well trained military invaded America. Now you can say, "then the people would just take up arms and defend the country". However, with technology today, the average "Joe Public" couldn't compete. And you could argue that any pilot could fly an F-16, F-18, etc...and I would agree to an extent. They could fly them, but they're not like a crop duster or airline jet. If the technology was still the same as the Revolutionary War, and that's all every nation had. Then great. But unfortunately it isn't.
DeleteContinuing...Speaking of the Revolutionary War, you do understand that it was the military that fought in and won that war right. Yeah, you can call it a "well organized militia" if you want, but the bottom line is the members or at least some) had rank, someone was in command, and they were expected to obey orders. After they defeated the British, someone decided our country needed of government to be "in charge". So they developed a government. Which you obviously don't believe we need, but I ask you this, if we didn't have a government, then who would be making the decisions when/if another Pearl Harbor happens. Oh wait, your way of thinking is if it doesn't concern you, your property, or your life, you don't care. As for the "statists losing whine", whatever. Let me put it another way, if you hate it so bad, change it. And by that I mean, don't sit on a computer and bitch about it, actually change it. If you're not willing to, then leave. I mean if I was so miserable in a situation that all I could do was bitch, I would change my situation, one way or the other. Makes more sense than being miserable and bitching about it on a computer, which btw, won't change anything. You might get others to think your way, but it won't change anything.
Delete" let's say there wasn't any government, no military (since you are obviously against the military also), and everything was just natural law. You would be happy right?"
DeleteI'm happy now. If you had been reading this blog for a while you would understand I don't believe in Utopia. There will always be bad guys trying to attack and steal. Government is just how the most cowardly of those bad guys choose to operate, but it certainly isn't the only way. I just prefer to pull the veil of false legitimacy off them and their actions, and let people see them for what they really are.
"until, another country with a well trained military invaded America"
You really haven't thought that through, have you? The US government is the motivation for other militaries to invade- its actions around the world have made lots and lots of enemies, and made invasion and terrorism attractive to people who are tired of being antagonized.
Also, when a "country" invades, what is the goal? It is to become the new ruler (and, therefore, looter) of an area. They take over the role filled by the ruler they defeat. They use the government infrastructure already in place to declare themselves the new "government". How do they accomplish that against a prosperous society with no "government" offices to co-opt? With no "tax" records, no gun records, no presidents, mayors, congressvermin, for the people to see "surrender" and bow (or die) before the new ruler? How do they "win" when there is no one who can "surrender" on behalf of anyone but himself? And, in the absence of "government", do you think all the weaponry that has been looted through "taxation" from the people will just vanish into thin air? Or, will it end up back in the hands of those who paid for it? Will the knowledge of how to use those weapons evaporate, or will the people who once operated them for The State still know how to drive tanks, fly fighter jets and helicopters, and fire missiles once they are free? No one is suggesting killing off all the former military employees as long as they don't keep initiating force and stealing.
And, yes, individual people still own a huge number of individual "small arms" and it only takes one bullet to stop an invader- and "we" will always outnumber "them", and will always be more motivated to defend ourselves than they will be to subdue or kill every single individual- since there is no other way to "win" against a free society. How many invaders might choose to defect in such a case?
"...you can call it a 'well organized militia' if you want, but the bottom line is the members or at least some) had rank, someone was in command, and they were expected to obey orders"
DeleteWhich is all perfectly fine and good as long as it is consensual and not financed by theft. However, you also need to realize that the revolution failed in its stated goal. Violently kicking out one set of rulers and replacing them with another set of rulers- which is now many orders of magnitude more tyrannical than the old rulers ever dreamed possible- didn't advance the cause of freedom one bit. That's why revolution isn't the solution. Until people- most people- come to realize government is arbitrary, unnecessary, harmful, and just another gang of criminals, they'll keep supporting it. That's why I keep writing.
"who would be making the decisions when/if another Pearl Harbor happens."
Already addressed that above.
"your way of thinking is if it doesn't concern you, your property, or your life, you don't care"
So, I suppose you are under the impression I have never stepped out of my comfort zone to help anyone. You would be wrong. And, everything I have written above should make you recognize that.
" if you hate it so bad, change it."
I am.
"don't sit on a computer and bitch about it, actually change it"
Since the only way to "actually change it", permanently, is to educate people, "sitting on a computer" is a necessary part of that. But I also do my very best to live it- to give a living example.
What else would you suggest? Politics? That game is rigged and no matter how the election turns out, The State will always win. Organize a revolution? I've already pointed out why that fails.
"if I was so miserable in a situation that all I could do was bitch..."
Why do you assume that's all I can do? Because I haven't started assassinating politicians? That's your way- the way of the statist- not mine.
"You might get others to think your way, but it won't change anything."
You are mistaken. That's the ONLY way to permanently change everything.
You said the US government is the motivation for others to invade...its actions around the world, etc. Can you explain WWII and Pearl harbor then please. As far as I know this country was minding its own business when Japan attacked. The US was attempting to stay out of that war. Let me guess you're going to say I was brainwashed...well then I guess my grandfather who by far was better than any history teacher I ever had, brainwashed me then. You said you want to be a living example...again like I said in my earlier post...stop paying taxes..any taxes. Which means you can't buy anything from a store that is taxed. Don't pay income or state tax. Be that living example, otherwise you are feeding into the government also. You said something about not killing off the former military as long as they don't continue to initiate the force. I know you'll disagree and I don't care, but the military has never initiated force. If others were being oppressed and asked for help, help was given. You have indicated you're all for giving help. And do you honestly believe if we had no government, no other country would invade and force their government on us. You sound like a somewhat intelligent person, please don't tell me you're that ignorant. If another Hitler popped up and wanted to take over a country, any country, and that country had no government, do you really think they wouldn't invade? BTW and I probably won't respond anymore because I'm growing bored with you...the way you talk in circles around most of the possibilities I propose...you would make a great politician, you already answer like one.
Delete"Can you explain WWII and Pearl harbor then please"
DeleteYes, I could, but others have done it in a much more scholarly way than I could.
Basically it comes down to the punishment that was imposed on Germany after WWI which destroyed their economy and practically guaranteed someone like Hitler would come to power. The US government was a huge part of that- but not the only guilty government.
FDR pretty much goaded Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor- because he knew he needed an attack like that to silence the opposition to the war he wanted.
If you seriously want to know more about the history involved, there are better people than me to ask. Maybe some of my other readers can assist you.
"the military has never initiated force."
That's all it has ever done. Plus, it is completely financed through theft, which would negate any good it might have otherwise done.
"If others were being oppressed and asked for help, help was given. You have indicated you're all for giving help."
You can't do good by doing evil. "Taxation" is theft. "Collateral damage" is murder. Help, using your own money or money voluntarily donated to you for the cause, and accept personal responsibility for any property damage or innocents you kill while on your adventure, or don't do it. People in other lands who are defending their homes, friends, and family from foreign US invaders are behaving in exactly the same capacity as you and I would if all those Chinese invaders you fear were brought here by the Chinese government. Invaders deserve to die in their attempt.
"And do you honestly believe if we had no government, no other country would invade and force their government on us"
How could they if there were no extant government for them to take over and use? Would you honestly roll over that easily? "All hail our glorious new overlords!"?
Why would they if we were no longer a military threat to them, and there were zero trade restrictions or "taxes" to get in the way? There has to be some "profit" in it, and there wouldn't be.
"If another Hitler popped up and wanted to take over a country, any country, and that country had no government, do you really think they wouldn't invade?"
Again, how would it benefit him, and how would he get "the people" to go along? He could lie, but that's getting harder to pull off successfully with the internet (and other social technology) around.
"I'm growing bored with you"
Call it whatever makes you feel better.
"...the way you talk in circles around most of the possibilities I propose..."
The reason I "talk in circles" is because you keep rephrasing your same tired objections, but coming up with nothing new. I keep answering the same questions over and over because I care. I know your life would improve if you'd grow out of your superstition.
How do think the Officer was acquitted, his attorney went into court with several cases in hand where "non cops" were in the same situation and no charges were filed. The court was held in the 10th judicial district, Quay County. Yeah...I sat and listened to it.
ReplyDeleteAs I say, I would have voted to acquit.
DeleteAnd for the record...no I don't agree with what Officer Aguilar did...based on what the video shows alone.
ReplyDelete"...it was a form of government that wrote the constitution giving you the right to post stuff like this"
ReplyDeleteWOW. I'm curious, Anonymous...do you seriously believe that? Do you honestly believe that some person or group of people, can GIVE you your rights? If so, why do you believe they're entitled to do that? IOW what makes them so different from you?
I mean, you don't believe YOU can give other people THEIR rights, do you? So how come they can give you yours? I know that's a bit off-topic, but I find it fascinating that you might actually believe what you wrote. If you do, I'd be grateful to learn why. If you don't, then a simple retraction takes care of it.
I stand corrected Mr. Klein....I shouldn't have wrote "giving", I should have written in an attempt to protect your rights. My point being this...I agree all people have inherit rights. Those rights can and have been infringed upon or taken away from other by the "biggest one on the block" since the beginning of time. When this happens and the weak can't stand up for themselves, what are they to do? Pay for protection? (what if they don't have enough money) Rely on family? (What if they have no family). Rely on the goodness of others...that's a real big joke. It's hard enough to get someone to stop and help fix a flat tire let alone if someone is getting the crap beat out of them. Mr. McManigal is so anti government and anti cop, he believes everyone should just "handle their business". I agree this would be great, however, again as long as the biggest preyed on the smallest with no chance of any punishment because the weak can't defend themselves, the biggest will always infringe on the rights of the weak. It almost sounds like Mr. McManigal just wants to "weed out" the weak. You know survival of the fittest. It would be great if there would always be someone to stand up and help. Unfortunately people, for the most part are selfish. As long as they aren't being bothered, they don't care...or they have the "if I get involved, I might bet my butt kicked" attitude.
Delete"Pay for protection? (what if they don't have enough money)"
DeleteWell, when they foolishly look to government for that "protection" they are robbed at gunpoint and/or caged when they can't afford to pay. So, afford it or not, they will pay, somehow. Funny how that doesn't look like a net benefit to me. Paying bad guys who will rob and attack you if you can't pay, for protection from bad guys who might rob and attack you. Amazing anyone ever fell for it.
"Rely on the goodness of others...that's a real big joke"
What have you done to people that no one will come to your aid? People have helped me, and I have helped others. What makes your personal experience so different?
"as long as the biggest preyed on the smallest with no chance of any punishment because the weak can't defend themselves, the biggest will always infringe on the rights of the weak"
You've just described "government" in a nutshell. Your viewing those "biggest" bullies as legitimate doesn't change a thing. They still prey on the weakest, have almost no chance of being punished or paying restitution as long as they do their preying within the bounds of the rules they invented to allow themselves to prey on others. They have made up rules that forbid anyone defending themselves from them. And they couldn't exist without infringing on- no, without completely trampling the rights of "the weak".
"It almost sounds like Mr. McManigal just wants to 'weed out' the weak."
So, making the bullies face the justice that comes from attacking and stealing is somehow looking to kill off their victims. Gotcha.
"Unfortunately people, for the most part are selfish"
Yep. Nothing will change that. It's why the worst of them gravitate toward positions of "authority" or "power"- because they are selfish and cowardly, and know it's safer to violate people when you can hide behind your "job" in "government". Smart people figure out that it is in their own best interest (therefore "selfish") to not initiate force, not steal, and reciprocate kindness. People volunteer because of its benefit to themselves- it makes them feel good about themselves and makes other people praise them. Selfishness isn't always bad, depending on how you feed it.
"As long as they aren't being bothered, they don't care."
So this is why I risk scorn and derision (and threats) by standing up for people I don't like, who are doing things that annoy me, but that I know no one has the right to forbid? Your premise fails.
I'm getting the feeling someone could totally agree with you and you would still argue. Or should I say find a way to argue. I say bullies...you automatically say government...I'm talking about the bullies on the street sir. The people you, I and everyone else would deal with daily, in person. You said something about making the bullies face justice, but at one time you said the victim should be the one administering the justice. I pose the question as to what if the victim can't, and you can't answer it...or you blame the government again. You said we will always outnumber others...I believe China has more people than we do. (Just a guess). Oh and you asked what else can you do...I'll ask this...do you pay taxes...EVER? If you do, stop...I mean since you hate the government so much and believe it should go away....if you pay taxes...ANY taxes...you also are helping to fund them. Let's see how far you are willing to go for your believe. I expect to see your face in the paper for not paying taxes....just for the principle.
Delete"I say bullies...you automatically say government"
DeleteReally? Let's look at that claim.
I've gone back and, using the "find" feature, found every place in this thread where the word "bullies" was mentioned. There are 5, until this comment. Two of those times were in my previous comment just above your last comment, and three times in your comment I now answer.
If you are only speaking of free-lance bullies, and arbitrarily exempting governmental ones doing the same thing in the same, basic way (and who are much more common and dangerous) please specify.
But, OK, let's focus on what you intended to say, rather than what you actually said.
The comment I suppose you are speaking of referred to the biggest preying on the weak, and the most common example of this happening is government.
Free-lance bullies are much easier to deal with, because no matter how large and rich their gang, it is tiny and poor compared to the gang of government. Almost no one really gets worked up if you shoot a free-lance bully, but shoot a cop who is guilty of doing the exact same thing, and statists all get worked up, and hundreds of cops drop everything to focus on catching you. And they don't care how much stolen money they spend on the effort- it's not their money after all.
"I'm talking about the bullies on the street sir. The people you, I and everyone else would deal with daily, in person."
Again, I wonder what kind of person you are to experience so much free-lance aggression in your daily life, and to be forced to face them alone. Do you walk around looking like a victim, or like you have a chip on your shoulder you dare someone to knock off?
I have dealt with a few bullies in my time- not many outside of government school. Most of them were government employees feeling empowered by their "job" or office. The very few free-lance bullies were easily defused by myself, or in one case, a sudden wall of people coalescing between him and me to dissuade him from his self destructive course.
"You said something about making the bullies face justice, but at one time you said the victim should be the one administering the justice"
I've never said "only" the victim should make the aggressor/thief face justice. The intended victim or a rescuer are the only ones who have a right to use defensive force against the bad guy. But justice can be assisted by anyone at any time, through arbitration, restitution, or shunning/ostracism. Yes, even you can help do that- as long as you don't initiate force or finance your assistance with stolen money. Either donate your time and effort, or take voluntary contributions.
"I pose the question as to what if the victim can't, and you can't answer it...or you blame the government again"
DeleteAgain, if the victim can't, you or I or anyone can help them. "Taxing" everyone is just adding to the problem; not really helping matters. You can't victimize in the name of helping victims. Doesn't matter if you call yourself a government or a mugger. You are making up distinctions where none exist.
"You said we will always outnumber others...I believe China has more people than we do"
Yes. Do you think the Chinese government will be able to send every person in China to America to take over? That would leave China vacant, and open to... well, not "invasion" since it would be abandoned. Statists always dream up impossible scenarios to try to support their fears.
"...if you pay taxes...ANY taxes...you also are helping to fund them"
I am no more responsible for what the State does with money it steals from me- under threat of death- than I am for what the mugger in the alley spends the stolen money on. Nice try, though.
All "taxation" (and every "law") is always enforced with the threat of death- and with the guarantee of death if you refuse to comply long enough. If you manage to keep some of your money safe from a thief by hiding it in your shoe, for example, you have done nothing wrong. You don't "owe" the thief your property. You are not "cheating" him by not paying all he would take if he knew about it. That he'll kill you for keeping your own property doesn't make him right- it just makes him more evil.
I don't disagree just for the fun of it. If someone is wrong, I won't (usually) pretend they are right to spare their feelings- unless I think they are too stupid to understand and think debating them would be a waste of time and effort.
DeletePeople have gotten me to change my mind on many different things over the years. By being consistent, and rational, and presenting a good case that stands up to scrutiny. After all, long ago I thought some government was good and necessary- just as you do. People pointed out the silliness of that position, and instead of desperately looking for any loophole I could dream up, I actually considered and weighed their arguments. And I figured out I had been wrong. And I was willing to leave that idea behind.
The only way this kind of nonsense is going to stop is to make the consequences of such acts severe enough to act as a credible deterrent.
ReplyDeleteIn fact this is one of the few types of heinous crimes for which capital punishment is appropriate. Cops (or other government agents) who exceed their authority, violate the Constitution, violate their oath of office, and/or abuse the rights of citizens, should be put to death upon being found guilty of such high crimes.
Found guilty by whom?
DeleteThe only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack, by the intended victim or a rescuer. Anything else is simply revenge and has too great a risk of killing the wrong person. Of course- choosing to wear the uniform is a pretty clear admission of guilt.
Great comment, Kent. I think it's less the risk involved than the error of revenge in the first place. While "defense" is NOT synonymous with "reactive," revenge on its own is the Fallacy of Tu Quoque.
DeleteThanks for your clarification on rights, Anonymous. Kent seems capable of answering your points, so I've just got two details for you...
ReplyDelete"It almost sounds like Mr. McManigal just wants to 'weed out' the weak."
I've been reading Kent for years, and I see absolutely no indication of that whatsoever. I don't think he thinks it's his business to "weed out" anyone, except those who seek to weed out him. Sounds eminently rational to me. On the assumption that this is what he's saying, I completely agree and stand with him.
"The only way this kind of nonsense is going to stop is to make the consequences of such acts severe enough to act as a credible deterrent."
Dr. Phil---"How's that workin' for ya?" Well meaning or not, this imagined "deterrence" has managed to institutionalize the very thing you say it's meant to prevent, and caused us all to be "weak" in the fashion you mean. The part you don't get IMO is that in making each of us weak, the oligarchs have managed to make the very worst among us strong. IOW it has acheived the exact opposite of what you intend.