etienneleclerc

A recent audit of the Baltimore Police Department (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3009376/BPD-Findings-Report-FINAL.pdf) concluded "intentional discrimination" by the police. This has been a big point of anger for the Black Lives Matter movement and social justice warriors of all kinds, groups which generally clash with libertarians, especially the more conservative. Should police keep to ideals and not stray to pragmatism in the name of order? If a group of people is committing disproportionate amounts of crime, is it legitimate to target that group disproportionally? Is this a sign of things getting worse or better?

Here Robert Reich makes what I think are 7 pretty solid arguments against a conservative, small government. Any rebuttals? Are any of his points valid?

A positive, masculine trait is supposed to be our propensity to refrain from whining so much. Another is that we should want to give our women the world. Just because an event is mainstream doesn't mean it's bad. A lot of Stefan's ideology bashes single mothers, but not a lot of blame is put on the fathers who have left their children. I think fathers are equally responsible for children. A single parent home is absolutely destructive for a child, but I think too much stress is placed on the argument that "she should not have had sex with that guy" and more should be placed on "he should not have left his child". The responsibility is 50/50. Happy women's day, you beautiful creatures.

If you'd like to have a peaceful coexistence, have that peaceful coexistence. I know some anarcho-capitalists believe that anybody who disagrees with him wants to enslave him, therefore the two cannot peacefully coexist, but this is not my perspective. I don't hold negative emotions to statists, I just think they have not seen the truth yet. For example, my mother is a Canadian-born, green party, 81% democrat according to isidewith.com. Our relationship is not tainted because of our drastically different mindsets, but it makes for good conversation. Bernie voters are not below you or I, but I think if more people are exposed to our rationale in a emotion-free debate, the anarcho-capitalist mentality would at least be considered more readily by the public and not be seen as a radical, treason-inducing, lawless, terrorist mentality (which I think the mainstream would call anarcho-capitalism should it get big and at all aggressive). Some rants I have personally seen, although I agree with them, would alienate common people. I understand the frustration that builds, but as long as you don't attack your wife personally or try to belittle her somehow, keeping it clear that you are just debating, I think you'll find enjoyable conversation with statists. I get my frustration out by attacking the ideas mercilessly, adding in plenty of "which disproves that point definitively," "And even if all that I said is untrue, your point still falls because blah blah blah morals," but be sure to compliment their more logical points before delving into analysis, do not interrupt, and generally keep your temperament. I think you'll find that statists are not a gang of idiots, and from their premises can logically argue for what they believe, and do not think they are stealing or inefficient.

@shirgall "They are not asking for a backdoor" I'd say that the software in question could be considered a backdoor because it allows the holder access to all of the data on any phone which they can get their hands on. Regardless of if this comes by means of decryption or brute force, is that not the definition of a backdoor?

To summarize the following letter from Apple to its customers: The FBI has ordered Apple to design a "backdoor" for iPhones that would allow the government to access iPhones without a password. Apple rejected the order, and explained their reasoning in a public letter: http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ Donald Trump denounced Apple's rejection, calling for a boycott of Apple's products until they submit to the FBI: https://youtu.be/oe9ydy_zwe8 Although his rationale was vague, and I am not personally convinced he understands what the FBI is asking for based on the video ("they should hand over the access code to that phone"), he explicitly took the stance that the FBI ought to have access to any iPhone at their discretion. What do you think? Is this something that Trump just does not understand (the media certainly is not portraying it as such: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/19/donald-trump-apple-boycott/80626758/) ? Has he thought through this stance? Does he understand its implications? Is it enough to sway your vote? Should the FBI be given that power in the first place?