Cops dealing with people, understanding your rights...by a dude

page: 8
86
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Yeah, Yeah, a lot of legal mumbo jumbo that looks good on paper, but cops are not abiding by laws or constitution these days. They are a different breed of cop than before 911. These cops seem to think they can do what they want, when they want and then they do it. Their chief then backs them up. This whole police state thing is coming to a head. We know who is out numbered.




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by seeashrink
 


True in California...but I do not agree with the cruelty at the end of the post.

Also, the system is now being used here to hunt down immigrants (like animals) ...the ones who built our State and provide food to the world at a fraction of the cost it would be if legals did it. Talk to the farmers ATS they hire the wranglers.

I was out a legal California Driver's license while they retrofitted a license so complicated that sliding would cause an alert. By that I mean if they even tried to buy cold medicine with a fake CADL there would be an alert. Further, I could NOT buy cold medicine with a legal extension to my previous license (due to the State's tardiness with the new system) until I received my new card...you should see it...Orwellian...its more complex than a passport. Seriously.

I know that is not the PDs...you all get told what to do.

At some point, this whole nation will go militia if this sh*t is not ramped down.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by intj123
 

No one called you a criminal, that was a link to a video he wanted you to see. Since your first post on this thread you have been nothing but abrasive and inflamatory with your opinions, yet, you seem to be wanting some kind of respect. As I have said so many times, " your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts"
Seeashrink



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I would love for officers to actually do their homework,and learn about police corruption. Not every Police officer is bad. Just like not every citizen is a criminal. Heres a site from an ex-police officer. I would actually call him a ex-Peace officer,and rightfully so.

Blue Must be True

Excerpt: "In Norfolk I saw a senior officer pull a handcuffed prisoner out of a police car and start slapping him just because he felt like it. I was the junior officer on scene among several senior officers and I was amazed that it seemed to bother nobody else. I was more stunned and confused when I told a supervisor about the incident and his response was, in essence, a yawn. And I didn’t know what to think when I continued to hear about and see similar incidents, some of which involved supervisors setting the bad example - in both departments."

Stay safe all you Officers of the law. Realize you above all others have the Job to protect and serve.Dont blow it.



edit on 30-1-2011 by sonnny1 because: excerpt



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


Did you read the article at all? Here, let me help you out.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What the 9th amendment to our constitution is saying here, is that the rights retained by the people pre-exist the legislation that acknowledges those rights. It also means that not all of the rights retained by the people have, nor will be, written down in the constitution. Therefore, if the people of this country believe that driving a car is a right and not a privilege, then no legislation, no matter who wrote it or what level of government wrote it, can take that right away.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux





It appears to be that it is uncommon valor for police officers to break ranks and challenge unlawful legislation or orders and flat out refuse to deny or disparage a persons right/s, but they exist, and tragically many of them wind up leaving the force because of this.


That backs up my point. All cops are sadistic.For those of you that need to look up sadistic, it means they take pleasure in the misfortune of others. You would have to be to work alongside so many horrible people if they themselves were not.

"I want to ruin peoples lives for blowing a .09 after I pulled them over for driving 6 miles over the speed limit, MUHAHAHAHAHAH..."

I had a buddy that quit after 3 months of being a cop, Zero police work. Went to investigate a stolen stereo, the cop who was training him pretended to wright down stuff on his notepad. even drew a stick lady with huge boobs. they got back in the car and he said to my friend "F*** that S***, thats why you have insurance. That guy was typical of the entire police force in Springfield Ohio.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by intj123
 


I respect intj123!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by surfnow2
I have read these posts here back and forth for weeks regarding police officers quoting information from law, and other people quoting information from law. I think people are disillusioned into thinking that we are a free country, we are in a sense. However there are laws that are put into place including amendments because some laws are not only outdated but are useless. Our constitution is flexable and think of it as the framework for all laws in the USA.


Whoa! You're a cop??? And you think the Constitution is flexible? Folks, I think we have just identified one of the major flaws of our system... Cops think our founding document is flexible!


Surfnow2, if the Constitution was so "Flexible" why does it require a full 2/3 majority of both houses to Ammend it??? The Constitution is NOT the "Framework for all laws" it IS the ultimate law. There is none higher and NO LAW can violate ANY part of the Constitution.

Thanks for your input. I thas certainly clarified a great deal for me on why this country is falling apart - ou law enforcement have no idea what the Constitution is or how it works!


You are mostly right here however, the Declaration of Independence supersedes the Constitution but really only so far as to declare that our rights are inalienable and that the government is only here to serve & protect us. If they don't, it is our Creator given right and duty as a true *patriot* to replace that government for one who would better protect and SERVE us. *(whatever beliefs we identify with in regards to our Creator or name we choose to refer to our Creator as is also our natural Creator given right.)**



The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America -
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



Sadly this is not what we are left with any longer. Reality is that the government has usurped power over the people, committed heinous crimes with regards to such incidents as the gulf of Tonkin, Oaklahoma City, 1991 WTC attacks & the 9/11/01 incident that claimed over 3000 lives and started 2 wars that were not justifiable, without proper congressional approval and directed by a man who used his political power and money to steal 2 elections. Our new puppet in chief is implementing far worse draconian corporate fascist policies against us and yet we continue to argue the validity of Maritime Law vs Common law?

It was said in an earlier post about how with the Federal Reserve act turned control over the monetary system from the people and given to bankers, selling us all into debt slavery.... This is where our country went horribly wrong. Your birth certificate is sold as a stock share in "The Corporation of The United States of America". I learned this at an early age and is why from 6th grade on refused to ever say the pledge of allegiance or stand up. As I went through school, every teacher who I encountered that was also aware of these facts, and who tried to teach their students about these issues was dismissed without cause (5 of them total). This eventually led me to see the failure of the education system and subsequently at the age of 16 emancipate myself from the system and take control of my own education as that is also my Creator given right.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild"

This is just what he and his Cohortocracy got along with the other things mentioned. A Cohortocracy is a form of governance with representation by groups present in the governed population. Think of special interest groups, lobbyists, the "Illuminati" etc... As soon as the rest of you who live in too much fear to stand up and do something about this tyranny against us, the sooner this tyranny will stop. It is very simple to peaceably remove our elected officials AND take back the power and wealth which has been criminally stolen from us. To replace this system with a new one which actually follows the rules our country was founded on and are not controlled and corrupted by corporate and foreign interests. Then we will all truly be free.

This goes WAY beyond drivers licenses and traffic laws.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by Golf66
 


It is obvious from your post that you are unfamiliar with the movement. One must FIRST gain administrative rights over their strawman and then extricate themselves lawfully from the contracts by which they are bound. Once done, the defense is perfected. The reasons most lawyers do not do this is that they make money by having people trapped in the system. They are masters of Uniform Commercial Code manipulation and recognize that Common Law does not require the services of an attorney.

BTW, there is a major difference between a Lawyer and an Attorney. Interestingly enough, Attroneys accept the title of Esquire in violation of the law. This mere fact is not lost on those of us familiar with freeman movement. Accepting a title of nobility and membership in the BAR (British Accredidation Agency) should be enough to tell you who attorneys swear allegience to! Hint: It ISN'T the Constitution!



Exactly. Washington DC, London, England and The Vatican, Rome are all "Crown Colonies" subservient to the Crown Government and the Queen of England. They each exist within their own laws, outside of the nations respective government. Again, the Federal Reserve act comes into play here in putting the final nails in our debt slavery prison.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by surfnow2
I have read these posts here back and forth for weeks regarding police officers quoting information from law, and other people quoting information from law. I think people are disillusioned into thinking that we are a free country, we are in a sense. However there are laws that are put into place including amendments because some laws are not only outdated but are useless. Our constitution is flexable and think of it as the framework for all laws in the USA.


Whoa! You're a cop??? And you think the Constitution is flexible? Folks, I think we have just identified one of the major flaws of our system... Cops think our founding document is flexible!


Surfnow2, if the Constitution was so "Flexible" why does it require a full 2/3 majority of both houses to Ammend it??? The Constitution is NOT the "Framework for all laws" it IS the ultimate law. There is none higher and NO LAW can violate ANY part of the Constitution.

Thanks for your input. I thas certainly clarified a great deal for me on why this country is falling apart - ou law enforcement have no idea what the Constitution is or how it works!


The Legal Latin Definition of Constitution is "Agreement to pay back another's debt" the Constitution is in fact article number 1 regarding evidence of a fraud and crime that predates the document by a good 150 years.

Written at the insistence of the Holy Roman Empires Prince, Prince Elector, and Arch-Treasurer, who retained the right to be the United States Prince Elector and Arch-Treasurer also known as King George it exists to gaurantee payement in perituity of the stock and bond investements of Europeans in the original corporation before the management change that introduced to us our founding fathers and all the legends and myths that surround and obscure their crimes.

The Constitution is in fact what insures, ensures, and protects the Shadow Government.



BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by boroboy
 


Thank you! It most certainly does! This rabbit hole is so very, very deep my friend. I have been traveling down this hole for well over a decade and am nowhere near the bottom. An earlier poster shook me up with just a simple legal latin deifinition of "Constitution" meaning "paying off the debt of another".

Makes me want to go back to the "All roads lead to Rome" thread and start over.


Actually they lead to Babylon but you are close!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by kozmo[It is obvious from your post that you are unfamiliar with the movement. One must FIRST gain administrative rights over their strawman and then extricate themselves lawfully from the contracts by which they are bound. Once done, the defense is perfected.


Actually, I was initially intrigued by this freeman thing ( I do so live to rebel and stick it to the man, especially sweet is using his rules against him) - so I have done quite a bit of research on the issue; however, in my research I have found the evidence that this works to be full of holes the size of dump trucks and about as consistent as the electricity at my compound in Afghanistan.

I actually think it fitting to use the AMWAY example when I talk to people I have met around my house because that is the most apt one word analogy I can think of when it comes to the freeman movement. Seems like a big smoke a mirror thing to me.

Try to look some concrete information up on what how to write the declaration of your freeman status and you'll get a bunch of crap - in short no real answers.

"It's different for everyone" you see "You have to do the research yourself for it to work but it works see" (points out crappy video of dude pissing off a judge so bad he leaves the room) are the most likely answer and common information you will find in most cases.

If it was a locked tight defense - it would give the equally locked tight example of how to write ones declaration; the steps to take in which order to defeat any prosecution attempt etc... Also, the results would be predictable, constant and consistent not a crap shoot.

Instead you hear about how cool it is to be free; "you are a slave if you don't see it" and "you need to wake-up and see the truth", "this works" etc...but again no how to book...

Again never any real concrete effective wording or steps to declare such a status and how to use it with consistent and effective results throughout the US various territories.

So like I said AMWAY sounds great everyone talks about how financial freedom is within your grasp but they "the successful" will not just come out as tell you how to do it. Which is the tell tale sign of a scam in their case and a sign of a BS argument in the case of the freeman issue.


Originally posted by kozmo[The reasons most lawyers do not do this is that they make money by having people trapped in the system. They are masters of Uniform Commercial Code manipulation and recognize that Common Law does not require the services of an attorney.


Again evidently common law does require the services of a lawyer or attorney because no one gets it therefore they could make a killing practicing the same. If it were so easy the methods or defense would be well known and the outcomes of cases would be predictable, constant and consistent not a crap shoot.

I recognize the validity; however, that at some point the well would dry up and agree that in a sense this would be sort of like putting themselves out of work but here's where I draw a question.

Lawyers and Attorneys are a slippery lot and usually bottom feeding liars of the first order and moreover usually passive aggressive type people. Most judges were once lawyers as well and the media so loves to create a villain especially say a conservatively elected one. They love a good corruption scandal too - the live for them in fact.

Why is it then that the same slippery lying conniving individuals don’t regularly use this defense in their own legal issues? Certainly, any lawyer worth his salt would avoid the licensing fees and costs associated with the system of revenue generation however small they may be in comparison to his income just for the pleasure of being right and beating the system - lawyers live for that crap!

Half of them would sell their mothers for a dollar - yet we are supposed to believe they know a way to have no license plates or a driver’s license and consent to it anyway knowing that they give up their rights in so doing?

I for one do not buy that for one instant.

Also, they would argue any license to practice law or marry or whatever suspicious nefarious revenue generators were unconstitutional the minute one had to face divorce or a malpractice suit.

They would argue they didn't consent and defeat their straw man to get out of any obligations in a heartbeat as would most people. Why don’t we hear about them doing it?

If they are doing it, where are the undercover reporters with video of corrupt lawyers and judges using a dual system of law all their own - you honestly believe this is a secret they could keep in this society?

This would be too juicy of a scandal for any reporter to pass up.

To disrupt the and expose the fallacy of the entire legal system of the dreaded USA would be the Pulitzer of the millennium for not only our American reporters but foreign agents and governments of all types who wish us ill.

Yet what do we hear? Crickets that's what.

If there were a remedy or get out of jail free card to the imposition of illegal and unconstitutional fees and revenue the lid on the way to do it would have been blown long ago....


Well, there is 1 way.. But that is now considered domestic terrorism.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I keep seeing these posts about how to deal with corrupt cops and what not.

While I agree that we should all stand up for our rights, doing so face to face on the side of the road with a cop who is corrupt isn't the best idea. There are other ways to handle it.

Just as an example:

If you suddenly appeared in 1940s germany and were stopped by an SS officer and asked for your papers would you really argue with him? Or would you act nice and do as your told then take action later?

In that scenario you would most likely look to leave the country afterwards, but if you argued you'd wind up in a gas chamber.

Extreme example, I know, but you never know who your dealing with...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by thepresenttense
 





Upon first read of the OP, I am inclined to cheer and walk away agreeing. But, isn't it true that all of us pay for those roads, bridges and highways through an agreed upon tax system?


This ideology falls under the umbrella of the "social contract" I alluded to in the original post. The social contract hypothesis posits that people give up individual sovereignty to a government in order to receive government services. The contractrarians will argue that this is a form of rule of law, but it is more accurately a form of rule by law. The problem with this notion of social contract is that it can only work as a metaphor and certainly does not work as an actual law of contract. Under an actual contract there are elements to this law that must be met in order for a contract to have any validity.

In order for a contract to be enforceable there must first be a meeting of the minds, which means that the parties of the contract have an understanding of what the contract covers. Next, there must be an offer and acceptance. Part of the offer and acceptance clause of a contract entails the ability for a party to make a counter offer, which does not necessarily mean that counter offer has to be accepted but in order for the contract to be valid all parties involved have to be in agreement in what was offered, and what was accepted. The next element of a contract is performance and delivery, and here is where a "breach of contract" issue often comes into play. A breach of contract would be when one party asserts that they complied with all the


Now, I say "agreed upon" because we have elected officials through the years to enact and uphold tax laws on our behalf, and we retain the right and ability to vote in or out politicians who will serve the will of the (most) people.
elements of the contract and on their part delivered, but the other party, or parties did not deliver what was agreed upon.

There are other elements of a contract that come into play, but the three I listed above are the most important, and these three elements are not fairly represented under the metaphorical notion of a "social contract", particularly the performance and delivery element. If the government does not deliver, under performance and delivery this would fairly constitute a breach of contract and render the contract void. However, social contractarians will disagree and begin to waffle on the matter. In fact, part of the social contract ideology is that the people have surrendered their political power to the state in order to have a state. This has nothing at all to do with the language used in the federal Constitution, and all state Constitutions which make clear in their preambles that the people are the source, and at all times the holders of the inherent political power.




Now, I say "agreed upon" because we have elected officials through the years to enact and uphold tax laws on our behalf, and we retain the right and ability to vote in or out politicians who will serve the will of the (most) people.


The quotation marks you place around the phrase agreed upon should give you a clue as to the metaphorical usage of this agreement. Also, your usage of the phrase "retain the right and ability to vote" is often part of the social contractarian's defense of the argument of individuals surrendering sovereignty to the state. It is a consolation offered to the people for surrendering their rights to dictate their own destiny. Consolation prizes are for losers, not for winners. The social contract is not a win - win scenario, it is a win - loss scenario, where the state wins, and the people lose.




As long as we continue to support the politicians who support/make these laws, then we are obliged to follow them.


This is, and certainly in the United States, demonstrably false. First of all, as I pointed out in the O.P., judges have the power of judicial review, which means they have authority to strike down legislation that is unlawful. Secondly, the people have the authority of non-acquiescence. A fine example of this non - acquiescence would be the 18th Amendment. Congress passed this Amendment, and the Supreme Court upheld this Amendment as "Constitutional", while the executive branches, local, state, and federal, did their best to enforce the subsequent laws regarding prohibition, but the people refused to acquiesce. This non - acquiescence, which went as far as juries refusing to convict distiller's and importers of spirits, forced Congress to repeal the 18th Amendment. This didn't happen by an election process by the people but by a process of non-acquiescence.




I understand the notion that natural human rights come before privilege under law, but by refusing to obey the laws that we as a people have voted into existence (by way of voting politicians into office), then we are stepping on the rights of other people who may actually want these laws in place and enforced for their own protection. If the majority of people uphold and see fit to abide by these laws, then isn't it our duty to do the same? We shouldn't break the laws to argue against them, we should just argue against them. When the majority agree that certain laws are not required, then it can vote them away.


I do not mean to undermine what it is you believe you understand about natural rights, but respectfully, the above quote indicates you do not understand the basic principle of natural rights. While you have not attempted to frame rights, or freedom, as some in this thread who follow your post have, which is framing freedom as "doing whatever you want to do", you do seem to embrace the same principle. One persons right cannot trump another persons right. Rights do not work in that way. Rights function as all law functions. All law describes an action, or set of actions, generally accepted to be true and universal. If it is true for me, then it is true for you, regardless of our interpretations of it. The law of gravity works in the same way in regards to you as it does to me. We can hold different interpretations regarding gravity, but when it comes to our actions, we are bound by the law of gravity in the same way. So too is is this true for the right to life, liberty, property, and happiness.

All laws must be simple, true, universal and absolute. Because I have a right to life, so do you, as does everyone else. It is not as if my "right" to murder you has been trampled upon because you assert your right to life. I do not have a right to murder you. I do not have a right to impede your rights any more than you have a right to impede mine. Mob rule does not negate this fact, and can only pervert it. Brute force may, and often does, find a way to trample over the rights of others, but this reality does not make the law unreal.

There is a reason that the Founders formed guaranteed each state in the union a republican form of government, and a reason each state wrote their own Constitutions with preambles declaring the people the source of all government power, and declaration of rights that are in-volatile. That reason was to prevent majorities, or even well oiled minorities, from denying or disparaging the rights of individuals. There is no greater minority than the individual, and majorities do not have the right to trample over the rights of minorities simply because that majority is in agreement that it is okay to do so.

Voting is not, nor has it ever been, the lynch pin of freedom. The rule of law, that rule being reverence for unalienable rights of the individual, has been, and remains the lynch pin of freedom.




Until then, we can buy up acres of land, build our own private roads and bridges and drive all day without a license.


Even before then can we do this. What I am trying to communicate in this thread is that "license" is a legal term that describes the grant of privilege for an action that would otherwise be criminal. The need to build roads, bridges and highways is a genuine need with the advent of automobiles, and arguably a need best met by government construction. However, the people need not surrender their fundamental right to travel as they see fit just because government has accepted the task of building roads and bridges. The shared use of these roads and bridges does not in any way diminish the rights of individuals. Nor does not having a licensing and registration scheme for automobiles prevent government from enforcing traffic laws that either protect the rights of individuals, or offer a remedy in the event of a grievance due to some person denying or disparaging a persons right/s.

License and registrations schemes make it easier for government to control people, but it does not enable them to enforce actual laws. Governments, being tools of the people, have the right to enforce actual law, and actual law is that collective organization of the right to self defense. All people everywhere have the right to self defense. It follows then that people have the right to collectively come together and form a government to act towards that same end. A reckless driver is a person who is disregarding the right of others self defense, and there need be no licensing and registration schemes in order to enforce laws that prohibit reckless driving. People do not have the right to drive recklessly. They do, however, have the right to drive.

I have read many of the "freeman" posts in this site, and in this thread. While I do not disagree at all with the "freeman" movement in principle and in general, I am not inclined to couch my language in terms of travel, as opposed to what legislatures have defined "driving" to be. It is the priest class lawyer set who have endeavored, through legalese, to redefine words, and then somehow attribute mystical power to these words that when used after their redefining of them somehow make people liable to the bogus legislation that otherwise they would not be liable to. The term "driving" is at least as old as 1690, in the context "excursion by vehicle", and predates licensing schemes of automobiles by several centuries. Driving means now, what it meant more than 300 years ago. No artful language acting under color of law will change that, and the mystical incantations of priest class lawyers are powerless among the rational minds.




Please go easy on me. I'm open to changing my mind


I would like to think there was no need to go easy on you, as I felt your post was more than respectful, and only intended to add to the discourse. Thank you for contributing.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





There are aspects to this issue that go beyond the generalities discussed here. For example... My wanting to fly a 767 and being forced to be "licensed" would fall under the same argument. Why can't I fly a jumbo jet without a license? Obviously, because I lack the requisite skills to do so and would surely kill myself, and probably others, if I tried to do so.

Licensing, in many cases, is less about restriction of "freedom" and more about ensuring proper training to operate the machinery in question.


Heff,

It is great to see you again, and thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to contribute to this thread.

I think you make a great point with the 767 example. The right to keep and bear arms is not limited to guns, and one could, after dissecting the Founders intent, conclude that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right own harrier jets, tanks, missiles, and even nuclear weapons. This, of course, is a terrifying thought...a nation with individuals armed to the teeth with their own nuclear arsenals. It is not at all realistic, but whatever made people think that it was realistic for nations and military's to amass nuclear arsenals is no more realistic than the notion that all people have the right to amass their own personal cache of nuclear weapons. It is reckless endangerment on every level.

That said, the creation of jumbo jetliners is not so reckless, and is, in my estimation a good thing. Yet, jumbo jets, or any form of jet or even an airplane, is far different than an automobile, and I would have to agree that the government has the right and authority to declare this form of travel a privilege because of the great harm that can be caused by viewing it as an individual right. There is no way to reasonably build roads and bridges in the sky that would facilitate the rights of individuals to govern themselves. A fair amount of regulation is required in order to ensure the safety of all who have a reasonable right of expectation that an airplane or jet won't come crashing down upon their home, or person.

Even so, this regulation is no guarantee that a jet or plane will not come crashing down on somebody's home, or person. Mistakes happen, and given the technology of a jet or airplane, these mistakes can turn out to have devastating consequences. This is not to diminish the devastating consequences that can happen when a driver of an automobile makes a mistake, but the consequences are not nearly as dire, and people have far more recourse to avoid the consequences of mistakes from the driver of an automobile, than they do from the pilot of a jet or airplane.

Much of the aggregation of power that the federal and state governments have amassed here in the United States have been under the guise of regulation of technology. The Federal Communications Commission was formed to regulate the broadcast airwaves, but in effect have wound up regulating speech. While I agree that regulation of airlines and flying contraptions is a jurisdiction that government has the right to regulate, I vehemently disagree that limiting the amount of people who have access to broadcasting, especially given that new technology has rendered earlier concerns moot - and even then it is dubious that regulation of airwaves was ever truly necessary - and that this regulation has had the effect of regulating speech is unacceptable, and yet, people have accepted it.

I am sort of using your post as a springboard to address many posts in this thread as there is no possible way I can reply to all who have posted.

There are many in this thread who have, in some form or another, agreed with me in principle, but have argued that in "reality" it is better - to grossly paraphrase and summarize their beliefs - to go along to get along. I have long believed that one of the greatest enemies to our own personal rights has been the concept of expedience. It is often times, especially in a modern world where the day to day business of daily bread can be oftentimes overwhelming, expedient to just accept the intrusions upon our lives than fight them. We all have to pick our battles, and as Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, we will suffer a long train of abuses before we finally decide that enough is enough.

This, in a large part, was the purpose of this thread. To somehow appeal to police officers and ask them to recognize that people are endowed with unalienable rights, and just because they have shown a proclivity towards being reasonable and accepting a dubious aggregation of power by government that this is a sign that they will continue to accept unreasonable intrusions and remain reasonable about it.

It seems to me, that by the large participation of members in this thread, that this should serve as a barometer for law enforcement personal. A microscopic picture, if you will, of the genuine sentiment of people. Perhaps, and I suppose it would be argued that ATS does not fairly represent the general mood of the people at large, but I am not so sure this is true. While ATS is unique in many ways and appeals to a mind set that tends to think outside the box, it is not exclusively a site for these people, and people of all sorts of ideologies and political beliefs grace this site with their opinions and facts.

What I am getting at, is that there is a growing sense of dissatisfaction with government, not just in this site, but across the world with all walks of people. People will suffer a long train of abuses before finally reacting in an equal and opposite reaction. Reaction, however, is oftentimes the consequence of effect, rather than cause. Riots are a consequence of effect, as opposed to the stronger action of cause that would be fairly reflected by many posters in this thread and site, who are attempting to be reasonable and convince those who of political ambition that believe it is okay to embrace their privilege of power as more important than the rights of individuals.

Someone in this thread suggested that my citation of Aristotle would not fare so well in a court of law, but I am not in a court of law here in this thread, I am in the court of public opinion, and I firmly believe that Aristotle was on to something that the good is that which all things aim, and that we as people are all basically good, and whenever we act in bad ways, it is our aim that is the problem, not our intent. However, the path to hell is paved with good intentions, and we cannot expect others to honor our intentions if we ourselves cannot, or do not, honor them ourselves. We must learn to govern ourselves, and to act in ethical ways. A big part of acting ethically is considering our actions and acting in a way where the greatest good to the greatest amount is the outcome.

What is the greatest good to the greatest amount? I would humbly suggest that respecting the rights of others, and accepting that people when people act in ways that do not cause any harm, that what they do, they have done by right, is a solid strategy towards achieving the greatest good to the greatest amount.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


2 Comments:
(1) If you are charged in a, (serious), criminal offense, and you are questioned by the police ... ask for an attorney and say no more. Period. (Even if you are 100% innocent). This is very difficult for honest, flag waving Americans to understand. With that said, every situation is different, and there are exceptions to every rule. But I would keep my mouth shut.
(2) There are some amazing things going on with an organization called LEAP, (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). This is a growing organization and their members speak in just about every place you can imagine. So, as bleak as things truly are, there are those who trying to do the right thing.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Rights are specific depending on your circumstances. You, dude, are creating the illusion that rights are absolute and universal, but they are not. You are using non-universal state constitutions to back up that illusion too.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by quantum_flux
Rights are specific depending on your circumstances. You, dude, are creating the illusion that rights are absolute and universal, but they are not. You are using non-universal state constitutions to back up that illusion too.


Rights are not circumstantial in anyway shape or form. Privileges are circumstantial, but never rights. It is you who hopes to create an illusion that rights are malleable, but this illusion requires a better magician than you have presented yourself as in this thread. Your mysticism is for true believers and the ignorant, but will not ever deceive the rational mind, including your own.

Rights are absolute and universal, and not because I say so, simply because they are. It is observably so. What is also observably so is that far too many people would deny and disparage the rights of others simply to gain for themselves some hold on privilege.

Just governments understand the universality of rights and understand that this is law. Unjust governments are those where people with petty ambitions believe they can create an illusion of "governmental social control". Governments cannot control society anymore than parents can control their children. The inability of governments to enforce "social control" is evident today, especially now in Egypt, and has been evident throughout history. In spite of the evidence that supports the assertion that governments cannot enforce social norms, fools will attempt to do so anyway. It is the foolishness of mystics.





top topics
 
86
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join