Makalakumu Posted December 27, 2014 Posted December 27, 2014 Aloha Community Just in case this letter gets lost in the loads of FDR mail, I wanted to post it here for discussion purposes. John Aloha Michael First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is John. I live in Hawaii. I teach at a private international baccalaureate world school, a local private university, and I run my own businesses. One of my businesses included the planning and guiding of international wilderness tours where we travel to far flung locations and visit the natural wonders of those lands. The other is a martial arts dojo, which becomes relevant later in this letter. I also love Freedomainradio! I came to Libertarianism from the Left and was exposed to FDR through Stef's appearances on some of those big platforms. I typically listen to FDR when I'm working out, so I get some philosophy time at the during the time I spend developing a healthy body. I have a very busy life and multitasking is important because I want to make sure that the bulk of my free time is devoted to my wife and two children. My wife and I are peaceful parents. My children, daughter age 13 and son age 10, have not been spanked or intimidated. We committed to the non-aggression principle at home and find that this commitment has enriched our lives. Anyway, I wanted to give you some background on myself and where I'm coming from so that any objections I might raise don't seem to be rising from the unempathetic internet mists where trolls abound. There were some points in the show I noted in the subject line that I wanted to address. I am interested in calling in, however the time difference and family commitments would require some scheduling on my part in order to accomplish. The first point I want to raise is regarding the moral responsibility of the police in the Eric Garner case. Stef stated that the police were not responsible for Mr. Garner's death because they could not know that Mr. Garner was unhealthy and that he could die as a result of this altercation. In the video in question Stef gave some information regarding the effects of different kinds of chokes and what was legal and what wasn't and I think this parses a couple of angles that need more thought. First of all, I am a martial arts expert who has been participating in teaching people self defense skills for the last 15 years. I've practiced martial arts for almost 27 years. I have a 4th degree black belt in Karate, a 1st degree black belt in jujutsu, and many of my teachers have been responsible for training police and military. I want to clear up some misconceptions about chokes. All chokes are potentially lethal. In my dojo, we are very careful about the application of chokes to any person. A good rule of thumb is that if a person is over 40, the choke has the potential to be more dangerous because of the prevalence of unseen health conditions that could arise from complications. If Eric Garner had walked into my dojo in his obvious physical condition, I would not have taught or used that technique without firs observing him for many months so that I could be clear about his condition. This is because, as a private citizen, I need to purchase an insurance policy for my dojo from professionals who have studied the effects of these techniques and the risks involved. Part of my training as a martial arts teacher included understanding these risks so that I could utilize best practices to protect myself and my students from risk. When I teach chokes to students, I make the point that these techniques are potentially lethal and that they should only be used in situations that warrant potentially lethal responses. This trained discretion protects me and my students from criminal and civil judgments...which brings me to my point. Police have different rights than the average citizen. They are protected class who is charged with the initiation of force upon the citizen regardless of the moral nature of the laws. This absolution of risk and responsibility has corrupted police training to a point where many dangerous techniques become commonplace. This is because they will not be held liable for any damage they cause. If a private citizen had initiated force against Mr. Garner in the same way the police would have, they would very likely be held responsible for Mr. Garner's death. At the very least, they would have a heavy civil judgement against them. When security services are privatized, they need to purchase insurance and train in such a way that they protect themselves from risk and protect the people they interact with. That is what would happen when security professionals are treated with equal moral responsibility in a free society, in my opinion. My second point regards the moral nature of the shopkeepers who called the police because Mr. Garner was possibly selling untaxed cigarettes outside of their stores. Stef said that the selling of these untaxed cigarettes victimized the shopkeepers because they were following the rules and Mr. Garner was undercutting their business. Whilst I understand that this belief might be contextually held by the shopkeepers, I do not think it probes the moral nature of what was happening here. Mr. Garner is not committing an immoral act by selling un-taxed cigarettes. He is not committing an immoral act by persuading customers to purchase his tobacco over the shops. If the shopkeepers came out of their stores, tackled and choked Mr. Garner to get him to stop selling tobacco for cheaper prices than what they were offering, they would be held liable for his death in the same way I noted above. Even if the same laws applied and it was illegal to sell untaxed cigarettes, they would still be held to the same standard as any private citizen. So, when the shopkeepers called the police, they were essentially outsourcing the violence that would be needed to support their higher prices on tobacco. By calling the police to remove Mr. Garner, the shopkeepers set in motion the apparatus of State power that would initiate force against Mr. Garner and result in his demise. The shopkeepers are not victims. They are perpetrators of violence and I think this distinction is incredibly important for people to understand. The third point regards the historical and philosophical understanding of racism in America. I believe that Stef has made a number of errors in the formulation of his thoughts. There are a couple of books that I think would shine some light on this matter. 1. American Nations - a history of the eleven rival regional cultures of North America http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143122029/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687582&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0380578859&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1F6AGFWRN935R65B2PQD 2. A Renegade History of the United States http://www.amazon.com/A-Renegade-History-United-States/dp/1416576134 I'll attempt to summarize my point here, because it is rather involved. In order to understand racism in America, one needs to understand that it takes many forms and it is shaped by the culture who is pushing the view. The particular culture that is pushing the view that is racist in regards to many of the cases in which Stef has commented on is the Puritan Yankee culture that dominates the area where I grew up and where Stef has lived for a long time. This culture has no problem forcing it's beliefs about how people should live their lives. There are many examples of laws where it has been decided that one cultures peaceful and non-violent activity is immoral and that the State should initiate force in order to stop and change these groups of people. I think the Drug War falls into this category. Therefore, if we look at cultural groups that fall outside of these cultural norms, we shall see an increase in state sponsored force initiation and criminality that is based on these norms. Right now, Black Culture is at a point where some have assimilated and many others have not. The people who have not assimilated are being actively oppressed by the State. We can take this point further by understanding that the Yankee view of racism is such that any group that does not accept the puritan values of that culture is deemed of lesser quality than those that do. This view is historically recorded in the various treatises on Eugenics and is now known as Scientific Racism. This view paints many people who would not normally consider themselves to be racist as racist. The Welfare State targets minorities who do not assimilate into Yankee culture and removes moral responsibility from them, an act that is deeply racist and easily traceable to thinkers who believed that blacks truly were of lesser quality than whites and needed to be infantalized. I think the Eric Garner case and many other cases fall into this category of racism. Taxes are raised on cigarettes in order to dissuade people from smoking and in order to provide the government with another source of income. Force is not only being used to protect the flow of income, but also to enforce an artificial incentive against behavior that the dominant puritan Yankee culture has decreed as bad. This force is targeted at people who are not assimilating and they happen to be black. This summary is not going to be enough to fully flesh out the idea, but it's all I have time for right now. Thank you for your time. Or has we say in Hawaii Mahalo Nui Loa John 1
MMX2010 Posted December 28, 2014 Posted December 28, 2014 I've three objections to your argument. (1) The comparison between yourself teaching martial arts and police trying to arrest citizens is invalid. Unless you were just leading into your point that police officers need to be better trained to use non-lethal force holds, which I agree with. (2) Your desire to assign moral responsibility to the police is misguided, because in this current system police ARE NOT DESIGNED to make moral decisions. So if you want to give the police more power to make moral decisions, or if you want to hold police officers criminally responsible for moral infractions, then you'll need to design a completely different system of policing. (3) Here's a short video. Before you read any further, watch it and determine who, in your opinion, is most responsible for the boy's death. (I will also add that a second video, which I couldn't find, indicated that the dispatcher failed to notify police that the caller said the boy's weapon was probably fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xEIEXk4Nc In my opinion, the caller is, by far the most responsible. If he was certain that the gun was probably fake, then he shouldn't have called the police. He should've either ignored the situation or called upon himself and his neighbors to handle it. What percentage of people do you think agree with my position? I like it's less than 10% of people. Everyone else just doesn't understand that: (1) Pointing a fake gun at people and scaring them either is not or ought not to be a criminal offense, and (2) the police aren't designed to intelligently and compassionately enforce moral violations. (4) The Eric Garner case revealed two very important, (and rarely mentioned), truths about the American people. The first is that the majority of them are not police, have never been police, and have no interest in being police. The second is that the majority of them are not lawyers, have never been lawyers, and have no interest in being lawyers. But despite this double-ignorance, the majority of people are 100% confident in their opinions about police conduct and legal verdicts, and it's nearly impossible to get them to slow down and examine their opinions philosophically. As far as the police use-of-force is concerned, I use three four simple categorizations. Using words is much less forceful than using your hands. Using your hands is much less forceful than using your fists. And using your fists is much less forceful than using weapons. Once Eric Garner resisted following the officers' words, the officers resorted to using their hands. No fists were used; no weapons were drawn. So, in my mind, the police did well - but the majority of citizens, (who themselves don't study martial arts, either), feel 100% confident in their assessments of what a "choke" is and how "dangerous" it is. As far as the Eric Garner case went, I use one simple definition: the purpose of the court is to determine whose behavior was criminally illegal. It is not to determine whose behavior was morally wrong. However, the majority of citizens, (who, again, don't study law and have no interest in studying law), presume based on nothing-but-wishful-thinking that the police and the courts are designed to enforce moral violations. From this wishful thinking alone, the majority of citizens act as if a moral outrage occurred whenever a police officer fails to be criminally indicted. It is this ignorance and wishful thinking which is almost solely responsible for their outrage. (5) The word "racism" is irresponsible every time someone uses it. During the call-in show, Stefan indicted that he couldn't be 100% sure that genetics doesn't play some role in the disproportionate use of aggressive behavior from Blacks. When the caller heard this, he became visibly shaken and said, "I don't know how you could say that, given your knowledge of how parenting influences future behavior...especially in early childhood." Meanwhile, if there's a genetic component to the disproportionally aggressive behavior of Black people, the ONLY truth that would emerge would be that, "On a large-scale social level, Black people would suffer a disproportionally larger portion of the negative consequences of aggressive behavior." Other fearful consequences are either based in falsehood, such as, "We should automatically disassociate with all Black people, because they're more aggressive." and "We should automatically discriminate against all Black people, because they're more aggressive." OR completely impossible to solve, "Some people will either refuse to associate with Black people or commit violent acts against Blacks, when hearing that Black people are disproportionally aggressive." So, to me, the caller let his own personal fear of what would happen IF Black people were proven to be genetically more aggressive close his mind against what Stef was saying. Lastly, some people believe that Blacks are inferior to Whites. Some say it's genetic inferiority, and others say it's cultural inferiority. This belief causes them to voluntarily refuse to associate with Blacks, unless they're close friends of people within their social group. The same Liberals who swear that the Eric Garner case was a race-motivated tragedy will swear that this attitude is racist. Meanwhile, the people who refuse to associate with Blacks will counter-argue that the Liberals' desire to use laws and police to create racial equality is also racist. So two groups of people, with extremely opposite viewpoints, are both guilty of "racism". This is just one of many examples of this phenomenon. Collectively, these examples mean that the word "racism" is irresponsible every time someone uses it.
Wuzzums Posted December 28, 2014 Posted December 28, 2014 Stefan was arguing that under the current system the cops did not break the law thus they are innocent in the face of the law. The police weren't exempt from the law, they were protected by the law. He was explaining how things are, not how things should be.
Makalakumu Posted December 28, 2014 Author Posted December 28, 2014 1. The initial point regarding chokes was to point out that the police are a protected class of citizens and this has changed the training they received. They train in ways private security never could because of differences in liability. 2. Your second point regarding the moral responsibility of police is part of my first argument. 3. People who call upon the State to solve problems are responsible for the effects.
Makalakumu Posted December 28, 2014 Author Posted December 28, 2014 4. The force continuum that you are using is over simplified. There are many restraining techniques that utilize non lethal and less dangerous methods than choking. All strangles fall into a lethal force category and this raises the bar in regards to how they can be employed. 5. I think you are going to have to go and read what I wrote in regards to racism. It certainly does exist, but maybe not how you've been taught to think of it. 1. The point I was trying to make was that police are a protected class of citizens and that this has affected the training because they can get away with employing techniques that private citizens could not get away with. For example, if I was hired as private security, I could not tackle and choke someone unless it was as a response to potentially lethal aggression. It's not just an a argument for better training, it's an argument for privatization. 2. Your second point is part of my first point. 3. People who summon state power to solve problems are responsible for it's effects.
shirgall Posted December 28, 2014 Posted December 28, 2014 "Brandishing" is the act of displaying a weapon with the intent to threaten or cause concern for safety. If the 12-year-old intended to intimidate the police by brandishing what is immediately recognizable as a likely firearm, we know what the result of that will be. It is an interesting question as to how a free society would deal with such an action. Would it become like a Klingon empire where brandishing an intimidation are commonplace? Would it become some other culture where acting defensive in any way is considered uncouth and provocative? At the risk of a non sequitur, what does seem clear to me is that entitlements paid by forced labor and reinforced with victimization propaganda lead to contempt. I feel it is that contempt that leads to posturing, aggressive postures, and bad attitudes. Race doesn't enter into it, in my experience.
Makalakumu Posted December 28, 2014 Author Posted December 28, 2014 I've three objections to your argument. (1) The comparison between yourself teaching martial arts and police trying to arrest citizens is invalid. Unless you were just leading into your point that police officers need to be better trained to use non-lethal force holds, which I agree with. (2) Your desire to assign moral responsibility to the police is misguided, because in this current system police ARE NOT DESIGNED to make moral decisions. So if you want to give the police more power to make moral decisions, or if you want to hold police officers criminally responsible for moral infractions, then you'll need to design a completely different system of policing. (3) Here's a short video. Before you read any further, watch it and determine who, in your opinion, is most responsible for the boy's death. (I will also add that a second video, which I couldn't find, indicated that the dispatcher failed to notify police that the caller said the boy's weapon was probably fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xEIEXk4Nc In my opinion, the caller is, by far the most responsible. If he was certain that the gun was probably fake, then he shouldn't have called the police. He should've either ignored the situation or called upon himself and his neighbors to handle it. What percentage of people do you think agree with my position? I like it's less than 10% of people. Everyone else just doesn't understand that: (1) Pointing a fake gun at people and scaring them either is not or ought not to be a criminal offense, and (2) the police aren't designed to intelligently and compassionately enforce moral violations. (4) The Eric Garner case revealed two very important, (and rarely mentioned), truths about the American people. The first is that the majority of them are not police, have never been police, and have no interest in being police. The second is that the majority of them are not lawyers, have never been lawyers, and have no interest in being lawyers. But despite this double-ignorance, the majority of people are 100% confident in their opinions about police conduct and legal verdicts, and it's nearly impossible to get them to slow down and examine their opinions philosophically. As far as the police use-of-force is concerned, I use three four simple categorizations. Using words is much less forceful than using your hands. Using your hands is much less forceful than using your fists. And using your fists is much less forceful than using weapons. Once Eric Garner resisted following the officers' words, the officers resorted to using their hands. No fists were used; no weapons were drawn. So, in my mind, the police did well - but the majority of citizens, (who themselves don't study martial arts, either), feel 100% confident in their assessments of what a "choke" is and how "dangerous" it is. As far as the Eric Garner case went, I use one simple definition: the purpose of the court is to determine whose behavior was criminally illegal. It is not to determine whose behavior was morally wrong. However, the majority of citizens, (who, again, don't study law and have no interest in studying law), presume based on nothing-but-wishful-thinking that the police and the courts are designed to enforce moral violations. From this wishful thinking alone, the majority of citizens act as if a moral outrage occurred whenever a police officer fails to be criminally indicted. It is this ignorance and wishful thinking which is almost solely responsible for their outrage. (5) The word "racism" is irresponsible every time someone uses it. During the call-in show, Stefan indicted that he couldn't be 100% sure that genetics doesn't play some role in the disproportionate use of aggressive behavior from Blacks. When the caller heard this, he became visibly shaken and said, "I don't know how you could say that, given your knowledge of how parenting influences future behavior...especially in early childhood." Meanwhile, if there's a genetic component to the disproportionally aggressive behavior of Black people, the ONLY truth that would emerge would be that, "On a large-scale social level, Black people would suffer a disproportionally larger portion of the negative consequences of aggressive behavior." Other fearful consequences are either based in falsehood, such as, "We should automatically disassociate with all Black people, because they're more aggressive." and "We should automatically discriminate against all Black people, because they're more aggressive." OR completely impossible to solve, "Some people will either refuse to associate with Black people or commit violent acts against Blacks, when hearing that Black people are disproportionally aggressive." So, to me, the caller let his own personal fear of what would happen IF Black people were proven to be genetically more aggressive close his mind against what Stef was saying. Lastly, some people believe that Blacks are inferior to Whites. Some say it's genetic inferiority, and others say it's cultural inferiority. This belief causes them to voluntarily refuse to associate with Blacks, unless they're close friends of people within their social group. The same Liberals who swear that the Eric Garner case was a race-motivated tragedy will swear that this attitude is racist. Meanwhile, the people who refuse to associate with Blacks will counter-argue that the Liberals' desire to use laws and police to create racial equality is also racist. So two groups of people, with extremely opposite viewpoints, are both guilty of "racism". This is just one of many examples of this phenomenon. Collectively, these examples mean that the word "racism" is irresponsible every time someone uses it. 1. The main point I was trying to make is that the police are a protected class of citizens that is allowed to do things that private citizens would not be able to. For example, private security would never be allowed to tackle and choke someone because of the liability issues. The argument is for the privatization of police. 2. Police have different standards for liability and risk because their job is to enforce all of the laws, even the laws against peaceful and non-violent activities. 3. People who summon the State to solve their problems are responsible for the effects of that application of power. 4. Chokes technically use the hands, but these are classified as lethal techniques. If a private citizen responded to non-lethal force initiation with a choking technique, they could be held criminally and civilly liable. 5. My point here is to show that different cultures in America have different methods for expressing racism. Most people think the Deep South style of state enforced caste based racism is only way someone can be racist. This isn't true because there are many ways that a persons views can diminish a group of people. Yankee racism is the racism of low expectations and victimization. This is why Jamie Foxx can get on SnL and say that his role where he kills white people is so good. The moral standard is removed for blacks because they can't handle it. Also, I would be very careful with research that shows genetic disparities in intelligence. The history of this kind of research is fraught with error and bias.
Dgdockins Posted December 28, 2014 Posted December 28, 2014 One more quick thing. When this first happened I read that the police had been called b/c of a fight. Eric Garner had been there during the fight and tried to break it up. The police recognized him and thought he was there selling cigarettes. In this situation the argument that he was victimizing the law abiding shopkeepers goes out the window. Was that part of the story in error initially or was the narrative better for the media and the police with that part left out?
MMX2010 Posted December 28, 2014 Posted December 28, 2014 1. The main point I was trying to make is that the police are a protected class of citizens that is allowed to do things that private citizens would not be able to. For example, private security would never be allowed to tackle and choke someone because of the liability issues. The argument is for the privatization of police. I don't think you were merely arguing for the privatization of the police. I think you were advocating for both the privatization of the police AND assigning moral responsibility to police for (supposedly) racist behaviors. So you basically want the police to both enforce the law and produce racial equality. In my opinion, it's impossible to produce racial equality because either: (1) the races are genetically unequal, (2) the cultural ideas that races adopt are unequal, and some of those ideas are automatically, objectively, and universally better than others, or (3) a combination of both. Also, I would be very careful with research that shows genetic disparities in intelligence. The history of this kind of research is fraught with error and bias. So is the research which shows that there are no genetic disparities in intelligence, meaning that all differences between races are "social", implying that all racial differences could be eliminated if we just "educated everyone correctly". I'm stuck not knowing whether you want the police to ensure racial equality or not. Which is it?
Makalakumu Posted December 29, 2014 Author Posted December 29, 2014 "Brandishing" is the act of displaying a weapon with the intent to threaten or cause concern for safety. If the 12-year-old intended to intimidate the police by brandishing what is immediately recognizable as a likely firearm, we know what the result of that will be. It is an interesting question as to how a free society would deal with such an action. Would it become like a Klingon empire where brandishing an intimidation are commonplace? Would it become some other culture where acting defensive in any way is considered uncouth and provocative? At the risk of a non sequitur, what does seem clear to me is that entitlements paid by forced labor and reinforced with victimization propaganda lead to contempt. I feel it is that contempt that leads to posturing, aggressive postures, and bad attitudes. Race doesn't enter into it, in my experience. What if the dominant majority culture was using the police to force the minority culture to adopt it's social norms? Perhaps race would become a factor if the race in question was not assimilating into the dominant majority culture?
Recommended Posts