slug.com slug.com
5 2

As a libertarian, I'm genuinely curious as to why so many Republicans are so quick to "back the blue" when the police are merely another arm of the government that Republicans claim they want to be smaller. This recent unrest has focused too much on police corruption as a race issue, when it affects everyone. But because of tribalism, since democrats say there's an issue, Republicans have to staunchly deny it and say "it's only a few bad apples, no profession is perfect". Officer-involved killings aren't the only issue, there are countless hours of videos on YouTube showing cops all over the country violating of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights of people regardless of their race, and facing no repercussions. Even when there is a payout for these violations, it is the taxpayer who foots the bill. Libertarians and Republicans agree that there is mass surveillance and censorship of any ideas promoting self responsibility and self-reliance, because the state wants everyone dependent on them; so why do you have to be so quick to blindly support the arm of the government which directly violates so many rights? The state has successfully tricked a large portion of Republicans into defending tyranny. What's the explanation?

DuvergersTrap 5 July 30
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I don't believe in the sanctity of either the Republican or the Democratic party and belong to neither. I do however find that I usually support Republican candidates over Democrats. I think the reason Republicans support the police is that they truly believe in limited government and that without police society would devolve into a state of anarchy. Anarchy may sound progressive when one analyzes the abuse of any hierarchy, but, abuses aside, there are very bad people in the world and for people who are accustomed to the stability of a hierarchical order, without the buffer of police, the actions and influence of those bad actors would surely turn anarchy into a chaos that can only be cured by a government that is anything but limited. Part of the nature of limited government is the structure of laws. Laws mean nothing if they cannot be enforced; hence we have law enforcement. Yes there are abuses and lack of accountability in law enforcement. There are abuses and lack of accountability in every profession in the world but to call for the abolition of any of them is short sighted and frequently just plain stupid.

I'm not saying the police need to be defunded at all and their existence is necessary for a civil society, but the justice system is grossly corrupted to protect bad cops. I acknowledge they also serve an important role in fighting the cultural Marxist insurgency we are witnessing. Unfortunately, these opportunistic parasites (Antifa et al.) highjacked a legitimate call for accountability. Granted, the movement focused too much on the problem as a race issue, while ignoring police corruption where white people were the victim. I'm not intending this to come across as accusatory or inflammatory, but please watch the footage of Daniel Shaver or Kelly Thomas being outright murdered by police on video and ask the question "Why were there no repercussions for outright murder?" Alternatively, read about how LAPD fired 103 rounds into a truck of the wrong make, model, and color of the one they were after in the Christopher Dorner manhunt, and faced no punishments. Modern police in the US are above the law, and many conservatives (which I also identify as, a conservative libertarian/classical liberal) dismiss the legitimate need for serious reform, claiming these cases represent a few bad apples, minimizing and dismissing the very serious issue. People in every profession make mistakes, but if it costs someone their life, they are fired and/or lose their license. Just because every profession has corruption doesn't mean we shouldn't endlessly try to root it out. The purpose of life is continual self-improvement to better be able to reflect God's love in the world.

3

I find the most harsh criticism towards police officers
Come from people who do not know what are actual
Jobs are — please get involved , ask for a copy of the standard operations manual from the police dept.
Educate yourself in the qualifications to be a police officer
The background checks local, state and federal, the required physical and mental tests.
Ask to Ride along, ask how many active arrest warrant there are in your city, then county and state. We are family people who go to church, join civic organizations and are trained to go after the worst in our society. The Supreme Court
Ruled police are public officials.are governed by
Local civil, state civil, state criminal, federal civil and federal criminal, we are privy to your personal info, we try to root out bad actor police officers and hope the bosses take care of employee problems . We know we are being watched
24-7 by our supervisors- gps and radio
Try to go to some community policing meetings.

All I'm seeking is more accountability. "It was a mistake" doesn't get you off the hook for running a red light or any other mistake that breaks a law, so why do officers get away with their unlawful mistakes? If you haven't, please look into the cases I mentioned in another comment to see where I'm coming from. The officers in the Shaver and Kelly Thomas cases were looking for excuses to do harm, and they faced no consequences. Neither did the officers who burned a baby with a flashbang grenade during a raid on the wrong house in GA. Mistakes like those deserve legals consequences. These cases I'm presenting show that cops are regarded as being above the law.

2

As a registered Republican who has been on the fence about the Libertarian party I'm curious why the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, Jo Jorgensen, said that it is not enough for Libertarians or Americans “to be passively not racist,” and they must instead “be actively anti-racist."

I've been on the fence about my vote as of late due to the out of control identity politics that have been going on for years. I support all of our service members, but believe in reform. I'm open minded ideas on making changes but I'm against radical ones like defunding and abolishing the police immideatly as blm has demanded in the middle of nationwide riots.

I'm against collective thinking, Marxist ideology, anti white, anti blue organizations being the foundation for change. Since I'm all about freethinking, I'm open to suggestions.

I 100% see where you're at. I voted Libertarian the past 2 elections, but I can't this time, largely due to the point you made. The party has been compromised.

I'm curious, what concerns you about the use of the word "anti-racist?" Is it the perception that there is a nefarious conspiracy behind it? Do you think racial issues should not be discussed in public? Do you feel threatened by that line of thinking--that you might lose something if it's followed to its conclusion?

@WilyRickWiles Anti Racism teachings are designed to take away any independent thinking and become a part of the collective mind. If you question them, they are also designed to put it back on you rather than answer the question. An example would be "I'm not racist". In "White Fragility", being defensive is a common white reaction which is the kind of thinking you need to reflect on in order to understand white privilege. When guided further they also say "It's not good enough to say you're not racist. You need to...(multiple answers apply). Then the loop circles back again.

One of the key bullet on the anti racism chart was to break out of your comfort zones and speak with people who look and think differntly than you. Which I agree with. So, this is how I personally feel:

I'm perfectly ok with being white. But, I've never felt better than anyone else, so I'm not about to start now. It seems to me the racist thinking lies within anti racism. Being hyper focused on race creates the very racism it's intended to destroy. Saying certain races have more power over another sounds vaguely familiar in history. Which, yes, is a scary thought to me. Breaking the remnants of a highly racist past that already has made immense progress in equality by putting more focus on race isn't productive.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, although I believe that the Democrats are taking advantage of the movement and politicizing it. I think discussing race issues is important. I just think in the blur of blm, anti racist, protest, riots, and political chaos, that a little bit if perspective might be good. People are free to believe what they believe. If they think these steps in the anti racist chart helps them then I think that's great. I just don't feel that way. I don't feel threatened, but a little annoyed that it's being taught as a cure to racism? I'm unsure how to put that. This is an ideology, much like a religion it's based more in faith than fact. I'm not about to talk someone out if believing this. I do have an issue with it being implemented throughout our government. I believe in the separation of religion and state.

@saramarylop3z You say that you don't think it's a conspiracy, but you also made a lot of generalizations about anti-racism. There is certainly much to criticise about books like "White Fragility," but there seems to be a tendency to use one problematic example to invalidate all public discussion and study of racism.

I think one of the things that "White Fragility" glosses over is that there are different facets of racism. There are the attitudes, of course. E.g. my relatives in the panhandle of Florida have racist attitudes and I do not. But they probably have more natural interactions with Black people in their community whereas I have more unconscious baggage to work through to really see and understand Black people, having come from a mostly white community and only seen Black people on the nightly news. And of course, most of that is inconsequential if we don't have the power or aren't willing to use the power we have to confront systemic racism in our workplaces, government, and other institutions.

@WilyRickWiles Fair enough. I tend to lean my personal beliefs with more discussions among immideate family members as well as friends, like how you talked about the differences in community. I do tend to generalize in my understanding of different sides of these issues because I see less conversation taking place and more of an unquestioning statement of it all coming back to systemic racism rather than recognizing the growth we've made. Or, that systemic racism doesn't exist at all and not recognizing areas that need change. It's been difficult to find the best way to bridge this gap.

I can't speak for the entirety of a white race just because I'm white. So, I can only speak for myself. I find it racists to try to speak for all whites in the anti racists manner in which whites hold all the power and must use that power to help POC. Because I don't see POC as powerless. I believe in individual as well as community accountability when it comes to fixing issues like crime, education, and growth.

Malcom X said something to the extent of a people who can not learn to love themselves can not learn to love another. Making whites the only group that is not allowed to love themselves creates a begrudging attitude for POC. Since I feel no animosity to POC and I'm ok with the color of my skin, and I don't feel that makes me anymore powerful than another race, I can't allign my views as anti racists.

@saramarylop3z I'd just say that that's not how I view anti-racism, but maybe just because I'm not particularly dogmatic about it. I take the pieces that make sense to me and combine them with a class analysis. There is always going to be racial discourse that is overly focused on the workplace (and wrongly extends those workplace ethics to all of public life), ignores larger power dynamics, and is used only opportunistically (often "punching down" ), and I will continue to steer clear of that.

@WilyRickWiles "Trees have no Dogma. Turnips are singularly broad minded" -G. K. Chesterton

I find the philosophy that surrounds Dogma, it's varying definitions, and examples pretty fascinating. While I'm not as well versed in the subject, I believe a lot of people have personal values they to use to guide them. Some of these values whether it be religion or culture for example tend to be more of the foundation of the path they choose for their other beliefs. Not all beliefs are based in science, and many can't be swayed by science. Whether this creates an inability to have true open mindedness is debatable.

I try to be respectful of others beliefs and values. But, there are definitly times where that's made difficult when it contradicts the foundation of my views. In those cases I tend to focus on the root of where my issues lie before I can understand the rest of the picture. The bigger the value is to me, the greater the counter argument is needed.

It may not lead to mutual understanding. To me, that's ok. Because often times in those conversations, I've had moments that have led me to do some more research into areas I didn't know of before. That in return has changed the way I look at something a little, which to me is a win. While my foundation may not be swayed, my outlook on a particular issue has.

5

I'm not American, but if I were I would be a Republican.

The thing about backing the blue (especially in the current situation) is that the thin blue line is a crucial part of our protection against a communist revolution, which is the sole aim of the Black Lives Matter Global Network. At the other side of a communist revolution would be a massive, overbearing government.

I want the lesser evil.

The thin blue line represents corrupt cops covering each other's asses, and the BLM organization wants a Marxist cultural revolution. Both can be true at the same time. I support the existence of police departments and believe they are a necessity for a civil society, but our police are way too militarized and far too often get away with violating our 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights, even murdering people and getting away with it (Daniel Shaver, Duncan Lemp, Kelly Thomas, and on and on). There were cops in Georgia who threw a flashbang grenade into a baby's crib during a raid of the wrong house, giving the baby severe burns; there were no repercussions. There is a serious need for reform, and many people who identify as republican dismiss these cases as "just a few bad apples" or "isolated instances", when it's really a corrupt justice system.

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

As for the lesser of two evils view, that's what got us to the situation we're in. We've been conditioned for generations to believe there are only two sides on any issue. There can be a third side, the side of true freedom. This is the whole principle behind my username and the video in my bio.

@DuvergersTrap A system run by human beings that has no corruption and never makes a mistake is called an oxymoron.

Unless you want to arm yourself to the teeth and take your chances with anarchy, you need a police force that is sufficiently equipped, trained, authorized, and indemnified to fearlessly neutralize criminal threats. If you want to disempower the police, be ready to have criminals without consciences violating your rights with impunity.

@DaveO276 I'm not saying humans don't make mistakes, but civilians receive punishment for their mistakes if they break the law. All I'm seeking is more accountability. "It was a mistake" doesn't get you off the hook for running a red light or any other mistake that breaks a law, so why do officers get away with their unlawful mistakes? If you haven't, please look into the cases I mentioned to see where I'm coming from. The officers in the Shaver and Kelly Thomas cases were looking for excuses to do harm, and they faced no consequences. Same with the officers burning a baby with a flashbang grenade during a raid on the wrong house in GA.

@DuvergersTrap I looked into those cases you mentioned. Yes - they are absolutely horrific and inexcusable!

Yes, there are clearly police who are getting away with things they shouldn't. We absolutely need to look into what reforms can be reasonably implemented to deal with this very real issue and make positive changes where possible.

I still believe police need to be sufficiently trained and equipped (armed) to appropriately neutralize any threat they are reasonably likely to encounter - for the sake of the civilian community they serve, as well as themselves.

I also believe it is crucial for officers to have some qualified immunity. The situations in which police officers might make mistakes are often much more complicated than running a red light. Who wants to put their life on the line for a stranger when, under the pressure of that situation you might make a mistake that could get you prosecuted? And so you get the Blue Flu...

Maybe there needs to be some conversation around exactly what qualified immunity should cover, but it needs to exist in some form.

0

Few people are really for small government. BLM wants to abolish carceral systems and provide more funding to social programs. Conservatives want to abolish social programs and provide more funding to carceral systems. Defunding one necessarily requires more funding of the other to maintain order, especially with a growing population.

Just how would "abolishing" carceral systems work? I'm just curious to see what "social programs" BLM would implement to address murder, rape, kidnapping, pedophilia, arson, robbery etc. Would they arm the social workers or simply trust that without prisons all these criminals would just be good, reasonable and cooperative citizens?

@Geofrank There are root causes of violence like housing insecurity and education inequality. It is also more effective to confront things like mental health crises and domestic violence with social workers. "Abolishing" is a goal and organizing principle, not something that happens overnight.

@WilyRickWiles For two generations the Department of Housing and Urban Development has pumped billions of dollars into housing initiatives; and for more than a generation before that, its predecessors from the New Deal and onward had done likewise. I am all in favor of housing for the homeless if it can be developed to a level of efficiency that adequately provides for the needs of the homeless without encouraging further decline into homelessness of at risk segments of the population.

The Department of Education has resisted calls for its abolition for forty years-almost as long as it has existed- but still there is something you call "education inequality". It is not like money has not been thrown at the problem. How would you define and how would you implement true equality in education? Do you mean equality of opportunity or actual equality of knowledge? And how would you provide equality of instruction without depriving the more capable of an adequate education to their capability or does that even count as a concern in education.

What has not been adequately acknowledged or addressed is the destruction of the nuclear family and its effects on crime, mental health, education and job security. It cannot be ignored that federal welfare policy has encouraged out of wedlock births and the resultant single parent culture that has ensued.

I have been a social worker and know that you are correct about mental health and domestic violence. What is not spoken of and is a great factor in the success of such initiatives, is the effect on the social worker of dealing with these problems day in and day out; and mental health issues and domestic violence don't comply with anybody's 9-5 schedule and severely impact the personal lives- and the physical and mental health- of the social workers. Simply saying more money for social programs is not the answer.

I am not against helping those who are in need but government bureaucracy- any government bureaucracy -can only do so much. It must be met with the personal initiative based in personal responsibility of those who would receive the benefit of the government benevolence. These people have a right to these things as human beings but rights do not exist without responsibilities.

@WilyRickWiles I would add that--and this applies to the poor and the wealthy as well--having rights without responsibilities is just another form of tyranny.

@Geofrank Those programs hardly had a chance. HUD was effectively shut down permanently when Nixon shut down George Romney. Now the two agencies only engage in technocratic tweaks or enriching private interests like Trump's real estate buddies and the DeVos family, respectively, while the GOP works to abolish them.

@Geofrank Without the federal government, education and housing rely on local property taxes, a system that reproduces inequities. Because the federal government failed to insure public pensions and regulate their funding like they did for private ones decades ago, state budgets are overburdened already. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is buying corporate bonds. At minimum, the Fed must ease state budgets to solve these problems.

@Geofrank "What has not been adequately acknowledged or addressed is the destruction of the nuclear family and its effects on crime, mental health, education and job security. It cannot be ignored that federal welfare policy has encouraged out of wedlock births and the resultant single parent culture that has ensued."

A function of capitalism and our carceral system (and the drug war). Imagine if we hadn't decapitated Black gangs and political groups. Consider other countries like Japan where gangs have some legal legitimacy.

But still, the larger problem is how underfunded poor Black and brown communities are.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 24

Photos 11,776 More

Posted by GeeMacMexico admits it is a hotbed of drug trafficking, but not of drug use, according to its top politician.

Posted by JohnHoukReprising ShadowGate Documentaries: With Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukLest YOU Are Brainwashed to be Happy in an Age of Transformation Tyranny: Videos & Commentary to Refresh YOUR Memory to at Least Awaken Personal Resistance! SUMMARY: An examination of saved videos...

Posted by Weltansichtwell....doggies

Posted by MosheBenIssacMetoo in action

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukConnecting the Dots! Some AI Truth – What Used to be “Playing God” is Really “Playing Devil” SUMMARY: … Satan – the foe – has only one delusional recourse: Brainwash human souls ...

Posted by JohnHoukMy Intro to Documentary, ‘Let My People Go’ SUMMARY: Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny – A Look at mRNA Danger & COVID Bioweapon Exploitation SUMMARY: Medical Tyranny has become a fact of life that the brainwashing Dem-Marxists, RINOs and Mockingbird MSM work hard ...

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukIrritated With Transformation Yet?

Posted by JohnHoukVOTE TRUMP – Overcome Dem-Marxist/RINO Lies – Video Share SUMMARY: The first batch of shared videos reflects VOTE-FOR-TRUMP in the midst of Dem-Marxist/RINO government LIES.

Posted by JohnHoukA Look at Mike Benz, THEN Tucker Ep.

Posted by JohnHoukLooking at ‘The Great Setup with Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukEnlightening Videos of a Corrupted Society SUMMARY: … The thing is, TYRANNY today has become very multifaceted in how the socio-political infection of CONTROL has crept into the one-time Land of ...

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny Liars A Look at CDC, Big Pharma, MSM & Social Media Cartel Owners SUMMARY: I like the Natural News Anti-Medical Tyranny stand.

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #democrats #USA #truth #children #Police #society #god #money #reason #Canada #rights #freedom #culture #China #hope #racist #death #vote #politics #communist #evil #socialist #Socialism #TheTruth #justice #kids #democrat #evidence #crime #conservative #hell #nation #laws #liberal #federal #community #military #racism #climate #violence #book #politicians #joebiden #fear ...

    Members 9,397Top

    Moderators