jpahmad

No, my first post in response to TheFuzz's introduction was "Wow! Welcome. You've just made my day with your post." Did you not see that MMX2010? I didn't pretend anything MMX2010. It seemed clear to me and others that he was. Furthermore, your explanation of how he wasn't making the argument made no sense to me at all. However, I'm willing to chalk it up as a matter of me not getting what you're saying. So, if he really didn't intend to convey the "just leave" argument, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding. And I'm sorry to you, TheFuzz, for misunderstanding your interaction with Carl, I will try to think about what you type a little harder before typing a knee-jerk response. I never made that claim. So I assume you're not addressing me. "most coherently with your goals and desires", um, that's yet t be determined MMX210 I'm not so sure he is in-line with any principles that we hold up on this forum. That is why we're having this discussion, to probe, and find out what his core principles are, and, if he follows them. Also, if he shares my principles, to see what his strategy is for following those principles while at the same time working for an institution that is almost constantly in violation of those principles. I hold all cops to the same standard with which I hold myself. I used to work in the public education system. When, through careful analytical thought and help from FDR, I realized that my behavior, my very presence in these schools, was completely against my newly formed principles. It caused massive cognitive distortion and a crisis of conscience. So, I did the only thing I could do, I planned an exit strategy and I quit. It was a big risk, but I did it. I am a much happier person now. I don't blame the cops for being in the position they are in currently. But, if they truly share my principles, then what is their exit strategy? What can they possibly do to keep from a crisis of conscience? How long can they keep up the "I don't arrest people for victimless crimes" act? Are not paying taxes a victimless crime? Would they arrest someone for tax fraud? At some point there is going to be a collision between their moral principles and the state.

Yes, we are working on changing the law. The first step is to get people to see the absurdity of it and then petition or vote people in office (if you are one who votes) that will remove the law. But, the first step is always to open up peoples eyes to how awful these laws are. Another way, is to convince cops to stop enforcing it. In Jamaica, for example, smoking and selling weed is illegal. However, no one enforces it period. There are probably less a percentage of people smoking weed in Jamaica than in the U.S. If cops just refuse to enforce it, people will just see the law for what it is; unnecessary. Remember, we're just using marijuana laws as an example. I personally don't smoke weed.

who is the one hiding? Merrifield, this is not an argument, but it kind of seems like you're drifting into fairytale land here

What does that have to do with anything?

Does anyone else here think TheFuzz made the "just leave then" argument? It seemed pretty clear to me. MMX2010 seems to think that he didn't, or that he was just trying to probe Carl or something. I don't see it that way, but if I missed something I am willing to apologize. I have no problem that TheFuzz is a cop. I have a problem that he hits his kids, but, I was willing to take the time to expose him to peaceful parenting philosophy. But, when he replied to Carl with the seemingly "just leave" argument, I figured that he was trolling and not sincerely curious about anything on this forum other than beating his chest and telling us how he is such a "good cop." If I misinterpreted this interaction, please let me know because I certainly don't want to discourage people like him. Remember, I was excited about the interaction until he made that reply to Carl.

Let's see, the OP: spanks his kids puts people in prison, ruining their lives just because someone tells him to do it in a typical un-empathetic fashion, makes the "why don't you just leave" argument. MMX2010, I'll sit back and watch you focus on what's really important. Good luck.

Don't use a metaphor. Just tell me what he is doing. To me, is sure sounds like the standard "just leave then" argument. Also, why didn't he just clarify it himself when I asked him about it? Nope, he just doubled down on it. And I'm not Carl. I'm a little bit in disbelief at this point. I was exited. Really. I thought, man here is a cop who wants to change the system, or at least honesty do what he can. It gave me hope. But, all of a sudden he makes the most jack-ass, childish, meat-head argument of all time. I'm sorry to say that I was a bit naive in my excitement about this thread.

What would you say to someone in your department who makes the same argument about your "activism." What if another officer came up to you and said "hey buddy, why are you preaching to us? If you don't like the job description, then quit the force and leave us alone." What would you say to someone like this?

TheFuzz, I hope you're not trying to make the "if you don't like it you can leave argument." Do you believe in mob rule? If the majority wants to lock up non-violent drug users than everyone else should just go along with it willingly or get out? We should never try to change the system that we were born into? You told us yourself that you are trying to change the mindset of police officers yourself. Do you not see the inconsistency in your above statement with what you yourself are trying to achieve with various police departments?

I just want to re-iterate how exited I am by this thread. It really came at the perfect time for me. Thank you TheFuzz.

I'm confused. Merrifield, You're not the OP right?

Wow! Welcome. You've just made my day with your post.

welcome. the story of your enslavement was also the first stefan molyneux video I watched. I of course loved it.

right on Shirgall

Thank you. This makes sense.

I'm having a hard time understanding how things would change if everyone stopped voting. Someone would still be "elected" or appointed to use the power of the state ans as long as there was force to be used, i.e, the military and police, we would still be subject to their whims. We would have to take away the force available to the these people first. That means we would have to eliminate the police force and the military. Only then, could we just ignore politics. Stefan claims, and I agree, that we must raise children peacefully before anything changes. In this way, no one will want to join the military or police force and those institutions would perish naturally. That's how I'm looking at it. The progressive party has single-handedly destroyed the black family through welfare legislation. They also have been decimating all families through feminism and single mother "empowerment" programs. Broken families produce violent kids. Violent kids become bullies. Bullies join the police force and military. Police force and military enforce political agendas. Now, I suppose you could have a point about both parties being identical and in that case my point is moot. But, find that hard to believe. They both use force, they both violate the NAP, however, one party is definitely more in-line with Christian values and the protestant work-ethic. I think we need to go back there first before we can move forward.

Thanks

I'm not. I just think that it might be a stepping stone on the way to getting rid of the state, in the distant future. I don't really But what if I could influence 2,000 people to vote republican? Hypothetically. Would it be better for them to vote republican or not vote at all. Do we really want Hillary Clinton in a position of power?

Don't you think the welfare state and destruction of the family through the liberal agenda has real world consequences? I'm of course assuming that the republican party is really against the welfare state. I know that "statist gonna state", but, I think we should pick our battles.

I need help working through an issue that I have been rolling around in my head lately. I'm not a statist, I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, however, pragmatically speaking, if I want to see society move closer to freedom faster, why not vote republican for the simple reason that Conservatives tend to remove legislation, support family values, and work to disassemble the welfare state. I know, I know, war mongering, gun slinging, and holy wars are a part of your traditional conservative agenda, along with printing and "borrowing" money, but, at least they don't aim to destroy the family unit. If we lose the family, we will never be able to recover. After all, kids can't be raised peacefully if their home is broken.

Why does is it amuse you?

Wow! Is this for real? It's not like an Onion article or anything right?

Kevin, don't ruin everyone's fun. We are PHILOSOPHER KINGS! We are the creme of the crop, direct descendants of Plato and Aristotle. The fountain of knowledge starts here!

Democrats will destroy the family unit. Once this happens, we're all finished.

Democrats are worse. Much worse.