However it becomes disingenuous when you compare the contextual basis such as the slave catcher's reasons to current police institutes reasons. There is no doubt that they came "before", because it is evidently so through linearity.
The slave catchers were upholding laws just as the current police are, nothing more, nothing less.
But the current police institute coming "after" is not the same as coming "from" whatever came before it in time.
It's not? Please enlighten us why and how that is.
On the whole premise that the police were created to maintain law and liberty. You're only objecting to the liberty part and disregard the law part. In your words you've omitted that for your own position, but in my perspective liberty is the means for the people to live and maintain themselves under the law. This is what was intended by the founding fathers as the means to "liberty" as well, so there HAS to be a body that will enact what happens to someone who disregards the law and liberty.
And further, it is what I consider "equality" to be; the law applied to every and all peoples equally.
Law and liberty are used interchangeably, meaning that you agree that the SS were exercising their liberty and law. I haven't actually omitted it at all, I was pointing out that at the very end, saying that is disingenuous right now, because liberty in your context means under the law, and not liberty, so they are the exact same things/circular reasoning.
The founding fathers means to liberty was done in secrecy and disingenuously to the actual context of the meeting, which was to ratify the articles and not abolish them. To claim that they sought to bring about liberty through the police is ridiculous as they had actually sanctioned slavery in the constitution, slavery is as against liberty as it gets lol, plus they were acting as a need to bring about a central authority over the states, as law and liberty was there and there were detectives tasked with investigating crimes, and not patrols of the community. Someone who disregards the law AND liberty requires a body to enact what happens, and exactly who was responsible for that in the disregard of law and liberty by the founders themselves?
Any set of power to enforce it's laws, it's called army, and the state in all its functions. It can be both private or monopolized as is evident all over the world, some cultures have no need for police and still maintain liberty and law, the people of Zomia for example have been doing that for over 2000 years without a body to maintain LOL and Liberty.
It is that that degree that we don't give into a "police state" like the ones you mentioned and the outcome you so verily been implying towards.
That is how you are a hypocrite, you're either
in my perspective liberty is the means for the people to live and maintain themselves under the law
or
It is that that degree that we don't give into a "police state" like the ones you mentioned and the outcome you so verily been implying towards.
The fact that you lied is not disputed just evaded:
I can remember knowing exactly where the conversation was going to lead, as it did. Whether I ended it in on purpose then forgot, or simply just forgot, who can know at this point.
That is another contradictory statement and it repeats your prophetic powers, meaning that you already formed an expectation of the outcome and biased that expectation into all your thoughts thus far, and either you forgot, or you ended/abandoned it then forgot, obviously it's no that important to remember but its worth pointing out, regardless that it was a stab to see if you would address it at all and resort to pointing out that it's not mutually exclusive, and not really the point as a hypocrite you remain, now because of your own admission and not inferring into your ideologue.
Yet again we've reached the massive divide that is how we approach this topic. It's most evident with this:
and
I'd talk about nuance, but it's pretty much pointless now. I really am getting tired of this because all you're doing is talking principles of the matter, and only that. What's next, you're going to argue that I'm literally Hitler because I breathe air?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
To point out that we reach a divide by quoting me and not explain yourself one bit but hinting at NUANCE is a pathetic attempt at establishing your moral standing when you have none, you are a demonstrable idiot and a hypocrite:
You use Liberty and Law interchangeably,
In my perspective Law is the MEANS for the people to live and maintain themselves under Liberty.
See, DEMONSTRATED YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
The hypocrite comes out when you speak of the degree of not giving into Law and Liberty.
To conclude that there's nuance without any reason or method to back that claim up is the same thing as arguing that I have no moral integrity because I compared the slave catchers, their MO and being an established and state run function to the paroling police which differ immensely from the previous investigating detectives and are immensely similar in all aspects to their predecessors the slave catching patrols, and distorting that reality by claiming that they are different without any reason or method for such distinctions, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, while arguing that laws cannot be maintained without a body to enforce them, when I have pointed out that in the past detectives did that, the military and just about every function of the state itself minus the police, while other societies have lived under Rules and without masters, in complete anarchy for over two thousand years, negating any need to enforce laws.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yup, I'm an idiot. Just believe that and move on with your life.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Its a demonstrable fact, not a belief and certainly not something I'm the least hung up on. You can be as sarcastic about the fact as you wish but the fact remains.
You said I omitted the law part of the police's purpose, when I've exemplified that the police and the slave catchers were established to do just that, and you used the term liberty to mean something outside it's defined meaning and abused its inherent meaning to the convoluted and interchangeably agreeable with laws definition, to the point that its demonstrated and logically sound, even more than your initial statement about liberty, that, making you an idiot and a hypocrite, tag onto it a liar, and this post is about as "anarchist baiting" as it gets, relying on emotions and your comments turning statement of fact into mere sentiments, the hypocrisy is possibly symptomatic of your own hate and prejudices against anarchists, the hypocrisy that laws need to be respected and then that we should not allow such a police state to form through legality.
And to dismiss my demonstration of your hypocrisy because you insinuate nuance without reason or methodology to back up your claim and argue repeatedly that we are at an impasse without, again, reasons or methodology for that claim and dismiss your prejudice and not address your prophetic knowledge as another bias, makes you a willful idiot.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If you haven't seen it yet. Here
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit