Please read the entire article before responding. Posting this here as a debate forum.
You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
An Ethical Case For Cop Killing | Call For Debate
I really didn’t have to read the whole article to see what the problem is here. The article brings TWO concepts together and paints them with the same brush, and that is why it is so difficult to get a solution for the problem. First “COP” stands for Constable On Patrol – where the primary function of the Constable is PEACE-KEEPING. That differs greatly from today’s Law Enforcement Officer, especially when they are poorly screened for deadly social defects and brain washed with government-policies. Just because someone adds the adjective “Ethical” to a discussion doesn’t make it so. This article would make more sense if it were titled an Ethical case for Politician-Executions, or School-Administrator-Executions, because the violence in society problem is more the fault of the way people are “educated” than the way “police” react to the violence. If you are falling prey to this kind of rhetoric it is because you don’t know enough about Language for the realization that you are being manipulated just to keep you divided and arguing instead of working on a “REAL” solution.
You’re wrong. The term “cop” in the sense of “police officer” is related to the copper coated badges they used to have. You’re also wrong that you don’t need to read a whole ethical case before you determine that it’s invalid. You are wrong on every count, and you don’t know enough about etymology to not have some folk theory as the basis of your criticism. I suppose you also think “fuck” means “fornication under consent of the king”? I used to argue with people like you when I was in the third grade. The difference between us is that I matured beyond that point. Don’t discuss how little I know about anything until you’re willing to come back with some actual discourse on the subject I raised, and don’t even start with me on language, because my knowledge of etymology clearly “fornication under consent of the king”s you up.
Why shouldn’t one “start with you on language” Language is the tool that we all use for the expression of thinking. WHEN the construction of language that you have been taught IS clearly “fornication under consent of the king”s UP, then anything that YOU say or anything that I say using that same-corrupt-language is nothing more than twisted-opinion. When you can show me that you took your “etymology” back 8500 years and can still make the same “CLAIMS” THEN I would be listening to what you have to say.
I guess I need to describe this to you. the phrase “don’t start with me” implies that you are an inappropriate person to give someone a lecture on etymology when you provided no accurate etymology yourself. I challenge you to find me an 8500 year old acronym, much less your acronym for cop, which is factually contradicted by even cursory research. Your language is corrupt, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. If you can’t, I’ll repeat… don’t challenge me on etymology. Even if you do manage to prove it, you’ll have proven yourself an inadequate representative of the field.
I was taught the same “conversational-language” that you were taught and thought that it was OK until someone pointed out the flaws in that “conversational-language” In this case all that I did is repeat a statement that I heard- “Still other theories explain “cop” as an acronym, standing for “Constable On Patrol,” Go look up Peace Officer: “a civil officer appointed to preserve the public peace, as a sheriff or constable.” Using a “popular” meaning for the word cop doesn’t change the nature of my point, which is that the job of individuals who work for the “state” used to be: the keeping of the peace instead of the enforcement of the law. The Peace Officer was there for the stopping of law breaking, while today’s LEO is busy trying to figure out who broke the Law, then go catch the perpetrator. The later method is backwards and is BAD for both society and the”cops. “If your etymology is so “accurate” why are there so many different definitions for words? Why do we have Law Dictionaries, Medical Dictionaries and soooo many “English” dictionaries? I have a counter-challenge write just one-complete-correct-sentence with a: subject, verb, and predicate. Show the rules for the syntax of each word. If you can’t do that it is your language that is corrupt.
Again, don’t start with me on language. You have no basis for your claims, as you’ve not provided me one source that proves what you say. Etymology is more than “because I said so, and it would make sense”. It’s cultural anthropology and history, and basic logic. If your argument rests on anything else, it’s invalid, and a prime example of folk etymology, and there’s nothing more to discuss. I have no patience for the musings of an intellectual drunk, and you’re highly inebriated.
I have a nice archive on this subject:
Suffice it to say that I am on the pro-side of this debate.
Hmm… would you mind submitting these to my site? TimeToFree.US is running a series of articles on this subject this next week. You could include a link to your Patreon, and publish antigovernment content whenever you wanted.
Would this also apply to some degree to those who reap the benefits of state power? Because while the police are the enforcers, they maintain a revenue stream and a set of laws that feeds a whole lot of other people. And if someone steals something and gives it to you, then you are also guilty as long as you knew the goods were stolen and there were reasonable steps you could have taken to not accept the goods.
I am not sure that the author realizes that the contemporary police, despite its inherent aggression (after all it is a state institution), has another, extremely positive function, namely, protecting people from common criminals. That is the reason why the author lives in a developed country and therefore can use internet and find time to write in blogs as this one. Nobody questions the fact that police is far from what could be wished, but this what is available at present and there is no alternative (pity!). Anarcho-capitalists for some reason tend to see just one side of the coin and forget (neglect) the other one.
I am just curious: Why kill just cops? After all it is not only cops that initiate violence. Why not kill bankers for instance? They dilute the money and thus rob us. You could also kill politicians, etc. How is that different? Why are cops more important than the others?
Just to mention that cops do not exist in a vacuum. A lot of people agree with the way their organization functions, much more that 50% of the population. They do not like the way police does its job, but nevertheless not only support it, but would go to the streets if somebody offers an alternative way and decides to implement it. How about their rights? Or may be their opinion does not matter, because it is not an anarcho-libertarian one? Note that cops exist because the mentioned people support their way of operation.
One does not kill cops. One tries to change people’s ideas because until the contemporary ideas are widespread there will be cops, independently of how many the author kills. If however there was no public support for their way of operation then police structure would change and adapt. The author tries to break a wall with his head, so to say. And in the mean time turn people against cops which would only bring more violence.
@yninov I offer this for your view of police: http://www.zerothposition.com/2015/02/13/on-american-sniper-and-human-farming/
The reason to attack enforcers is to strike the root. If there are no agents willing to carry out the edicts of the state because the people have made it too dangerous to perform that job, then the politicians and civil “servants” become irrelevant.
Those who violate the rights of others are estopped from claiming the same rights for themselves.
So your idea is to increase the demand of officers by making them appear more necessary than they really are.
@purelypositivist The demand is irrelevant if there is no supply because those who think about becoming agents of the state decide to do something else because they would rather not be killed by people acting in self-defense against them.
That would explain why all branches of the military disappeared a long time ago…
I think the article that you linked is an OVER simplification of the picture of a society. In particular the individuals in the sheep category have all kinds of “backgrounds” including having been in the military. This would mean that such individuals would probably recognize wolves and may still have sufficient shill for the defense of the self. Other parts of the analogy work fairly well, but generalizing the human race is a dangerous thing.
There is merit to much of Youliy Ninov says. The cops are handed many of these potentially violent situations by the “laws” that the politicians write and by the “interpretation” of the meaning of the laws by today’s Courts. Cops are a pretty small portion of the population as far as what they might do to effect the way that laws are written, but they will still be left holding the bag where “bad” laws are concerned. This is NOT an endorsement for any bad or corrupt branch of government.
Discussions like these remind me of why I never apply the label “Libertarian” to myself without beginning with a few disclaimers at first.
I agree that police are granted many powers denied to everyone else that aren’t justified, but the conclusion that you seem to be promoting (kill them in response) does not follow.
Currently looking through the various links posted too. I might post a longer response here to those soon.