Brugle on July 21, 2010, 07:45:43 pm
If there were no law, if there were just individuals and arbitrators making up laws on the spot and applying them to me, I would never know whether anything was illegal or not.  
That sounds like a statist society, where laws are numerous, ambiguous, sometimes contradictory, enforced capriciously, and often do not apply to the politically powerful.  Under anarchy, I'd expect law to be relatively clear and stable, and (since there would be no political power) to apply to everyone.

To phrase it differently, I would never know who was about to arbitrarily decide to punish me next, or why.
No need to phrase it differently.  That sounds like modern society.  I've been meaning to read the book "Three felonies a day", which documents how everyone in the US frequently commits serious federal "crimes".  True, we can probably avoid the worst unpleasantness by keeping our heads down, never making waves (especially when surrendering much of the wealth we create), and genuflecting to our "betters" when that's demanded, but is that really how you want to live?

No behavior could keep one on "the right side of the law."  There'd always be some asshole dragging me into arbitration to steal my money, kicking my ass because they felt like it... in general doing Bad Thing X that there's a law against.  To me.  All the time.  
Yup, modern society again.  Federal prosecutors play a game, where they imagine ways to prosecute famous people.  (The more innocent-sounding, like Mother Teresa, the better.)  The game is not to convict such a person (that's a given), it's to use laws in interesting and creative ways.  But sometimes it's not a game, and innocent people get locked in a cage, and a prosecutor's career is enhanced.

Sure, they probably won't come for you.  Or me.  That is a bit of comfort, but only a bit.

That's the fear.

I realize most of the people on this board don't see it that way.  I do not understand why not.  People are jerks.  They're not going to magically become nice if you take all the laws away.  Where does that idea even come from?
Again, anarchy does not mean without laws.  It means without rulers.

Anarchists realize that some (maybe most, maybe all) people are jerks.  Our fear is when jerks have political power, they will use that power the same way that jerks typically do.

People can voluntarily cooperate or they can be compelled using violence or threats of violence.  Many people are eager to voluntarily cooperate, and many others are willing to voluntarily cooperate with appropriate incentives.  Under anarchy, incentives would be to voluntarily cooperate.  With a government, people would have incentives to use government violence or threats of violence to further their ends.  In other words, government encourages people to be jerks.

The idea that I find strange is that giving jerks political power (which comes down to the ability to kill, take, enslave, and destroy) will lead to good.  I understand where the idea comes from, but I do not understand why so many people believe it.

To the extent that I fear anarchy, that is the shape of my fear:  A child-like voice inside me screams: I don't want the whole world to be like Texas!
Did you notice that the evil acts that you called Texan were all committed by government agents?  And that makes you fearful of anarchy?  The logic escapes me.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 07:53:35 pm by Brugle »

terry_freeman on July 21, 2010, 11:26:11 pm
WarpZone said: "The police pull you over if you're from out-of-state and rob you if you're black.  Paint a gay slogan on your car and they'll just start shooting. "

Gee, as far as I know, the police in Texas work for -- give us the answer -- YES! the government. Right the first time.

You are using THAT as a reason why you fear anarchy?

Let me repeat for the umpteenth time: anarchy is the absence of a government. Therefore, these police-who-work-for-the-government would not exist.

Your example is a compelling example of why you should advocate anarchy.

Tell me, how many verified tales do you hear of private-security-guard brutality?

Are you aware that America has more private security guards than police?

What does it tell you, when you hear no incidents of private-security-brutality, or next-to-none, but you hear many of government-security-brutality? Which is preferable?

Why should government's idea of customer service be less cheerful than a private firm? Well, it has a lot do to with choice, or lack thereof. When you're driving down the highway in Texas, you are in their jurisdiction. No choice in the matter. The people who pay the salaries of the highwaymen don't really have a choice either.

Contrast this with the local 7-11. You can go there or not. If you don't like the security guard's manners, you can switch to the nearby CoGo or whatever. The proprietor, therefore, learns to be picky about which firm he hires for security. If Ace Security is surly and nasty and beats up customers, they lose the contract and somebody else gets the job. If Peak Watchers actually prefers to look at pretty girls than to look for shoplifting, they lose customers also. Not saying anything is perfect, but entrepreneurs and customers tend to nudge things toward polite and effective, as opposed to surly and slothful and addicted to donuts - when they have a choice.

Under the government of Texas, you aren't offered a choice. Sure, you can vote in a so-called "leader" every few years, but you can't replace the entire police department; even weeding out one so-called "bad apple" takes years of effort.

So, from my point of view, WarpZone, your example is a compelling argument for anarchy, not against.




jayphailey on July 22, 2010, 12:58:39 am
Okay!  Now we're getting somewhere! :)

I guess my biggest issue is that however unjust a written law may be, at least you know what the law is.  Unwritten rules are much worse.  If you're new to an area, you don't even know what the unwritten rules are until some group of locals busts you for breaking them.  I've never been in trouble with the police, and I don't mind paying taxes too much, but I've been hassled for being different lots of times.  I would hate to live in a society where THAT form of regulation is the only law.

Just my perspective.  I suspect it's not an entirely uncommon one.

(I wouldn't wanna get shot in the face for not being some guy's son, either.  But let's assume that's unlikely.)


What makes you think the law won't be written down? Here at Jay's Carabret, Casino and Truck Stop, we use the Center for a Stateless Society's Law Wiki, rev 3.1 (I think 3,1 is fine, I don't want to mess with the newer revs. )  The root statements are, as they have been for years - The Zero Aggression Principle, "A deal is a deal" and "If you break it, you fix it."

This is a collection of principles and previous decisions which helps arbitrators to create resolutions to conflicts.  As a business owner,  I insure with the best outfit I can.  When a problem comes up they work with people representing the other party to make a clean, professional solution. Acme Dispute Resoluton Services.

The DRO's hire good Arbiters.  People with a list of qualifications a long as your arm and experience for years and years. This process is about money, so no one screws around.  Actually my DRO offered me the choice of which legal standard to adhere to, and then I got a nice sticker to put in mmy window, so you know what law standards we'll turn to in the case of a conflict.

As a Business owner, I WANT you here. I want you to come to my place, find things you like, and buy them. I don't care what color your skin is, (Or whether that color is artificial), what your gender is (Or if you've had your gender adjusted), what your religion is, or what your manner of dress is. I am like Eugene Krabs, here.  If you've brought my friend money, it's all good.

There may be some businesses, neighborhoods or communities who care about such trivialities, but they're costing themselves money, so screw 'em.

Here's our dirty secret.  I am so interested in turning over grams of silver and grams of gold, we don't even bother to check your credit rating. It's too slow. (If Acme found out they'd frown and my premiums would go up.)

If you're broke, we can talk.  Maybe you can exchange some labor, or some performance in the cabaret, or something that can add value for other patrons.  We're flexible.  Businesses along the road side have to be,

If you cause a stink, make a scene or make trouble, then we're checking and if you are notorious for screwing people over, you're going to get wall-to-wall therapy as you get ejected from the premises. If a patron is gaunt, starving, and really intent on staying quiet,  then you know there's a man carrying a very heavy debt for doing something very stupid. I know it's part of the social fabric to shun this person, but I am a softie, in person.

They can't stay.  A night washing dishes for a meal and a warm bunk and then down the road they go.  Bill collectors are tough customers and we don't need them shouting, making a scene and generally harrassing the poor schlub to sign a labor contract.

I run a class operation here and other people's melodrama is not invited.

As long as you're here to play nice, have a good time and deal everyone square, systems for conflict resolution won't come into play.

quadibloc on July 22, 2010, 02:47:41 am
Did you notice that the evil acts that you called Texan were all committed by government agents?  And that makes you fearful of anarchy?  The logic escapes me.
They were government agents not acting properly according to the written rules. In other places that have government, such as Canada, it is very unusual for government agents to behave that way - and when they do, they are usually brought to justice quickly.

Right now, anarchy is not the official system of government anywhere in the world. Instead, there is government everywhere.

Texas, though, is a place of independent-minded people, a place where there seems to be more sympathy than in more places for the idea of reducing the amount of government.

Why wouldn't one fear that in a society with a less formalized government, private security firms might act like less well-supervised government policemen? Or that communities might administer justice selectively - in the fashion noted for the Inuit as an example?

When government works, when it is run by people committed to the rule of law, to impartiality, to honesty - it works quite well. And democracy is claimed to be a system to make government work by keeping it accountable. Outside of Texas, it seems to work reasonably well in the democratic world. So, while AnCap sounds attractive in principle and in theory, I don't see competent democratic government behaving all that badly in practice as to create an urgent need for it - and the whole process of getting there seems fraught with opportunities for missteps allowing a worse government to establish itself, or leading to needless bloodshed, and so on.

WarpZone on July 22, 2010, 09:11:58 am
What quadibloc said.

Texas stands out in my mind for three* reasons:  People carry guns, people don't like "th' gub'ment," and people are assholes to minorities and outsiders.

I realize it is not *logical* to associate those three things just because they are all currently true in Texas.  I'm trying to identify my own personal bias and point out where it comes from.  quadibloc just translated it for me. 

It seems like Texas is a place where the people elect bad leaders and the bad leaders hire bad cops because the people want bad cops.  They want to punish these minorities and run them out of town.  But federal laws say they can't.  So instead they do the next best thing.  They use state laws and bilaws and implementation details such as selective enforcement to nickle and dime them to death. 

Take away the federal government and the state government overnight, and I can guarantee you Texas would get a whole lot worse for minorities and outsiders before it gets better.

*(Well, okay, Texas stands out in my mind for four reasons.  There's also the big anachronistic hats.  But that's not especially relevant to the discussion.)
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 09:17:36 am by WarpZone »

Brugle on July 22, 2010, 09:42:38 am
Did you notice that the evil acts that you called Texan were all committed by government agents?  And that makes you fearful of anarchy?  The logic escapes me.
They were government agents not acting properly according to the written rules. In other places that have government, such as Canada, it is very unusual for government agents to behave that way - and when they do, they are usually brought to justice quickly.
Why don't we ask Robert Dziekański about that?  Oh, we can't, he's dead: electrocuted by agents of the Canadian government who then lied about what happened and confiscated a bystander's video.  Nothing would have been done about the killing despite numerous witnesses except that the video was eventually seen by the public.

This isn't an isolated case--I've read about many examples of Canadian government agent brutality.  I'm willing to believe that, on average, Canadian government agents are less brutal than their US counterparts, but that's a very low bar.

And that's taking the Canadian government on its own terms: that it's OK for government agents to take what people create, control what substances they inhale/ingest/inject, forbid the possession of "nasty literature, etc.  Anarchists reject those terms.

Why wouldn't one fear that in a society with a less formalized government, private security firms might act like less well-supervised government policemen?
Assuming that you are using the common definition of government as the institution with the legal right to initiate violence and threats of violence, then the formality of the government organization doesn't matter.  Agents of any government have incentives to be brutal or worse.  Anarchists do not accept any government as legitimate. 

An agent of a defense agency in an anarchy would have no more rights than anyone else (in contrast to police in a statist society).  Any act of aggressive violence would be criminal, and everyone in the society would recognize the perpetrator as a criminal.  For most people, the decision to become an outlaw--to give up civil society--would not be an easy one.

When government works, when it is run by people committed to the rule of law, to impartiality, to honesty - it works quite well.
In what fantasy world does government work like that?  Perhaps in a small town, where everyone knows everyone else, generally minds their own business, and would laugh at the idea that Fred (the mayor, universally recognized as not very bright) would do a better job of spending the money that George earned than George.

Any larger government institution will be run by people to promote their own interests.  Those interests may be altruistic, corrupt, fanatic, or something else, but it won't matter much--once violence and the threat of violence replace voluntary cooperation as the primary means of social organization, the results aren't pretty.

Of course, rulers can only maintain their rule when people accept the government, so they try to pretend that it is impartial and honest.  The more suckers who believe that, the better for the rulers.

As for "the rule of law", that refers to natural law or common law.  It's opposite is "the rule of men"--government edicts, including legislation.  Modern statist societies (of various kinds: democracies, dictatorships, whatever) are built around "the rule of men".

And democracy is claimed to be a system to make government work by keeping it accountable.
Now you're making sense.  Of course government agents (especially those working in government schools) will claim that.

Outside of Texas, it seems to work reasonably well in the democratic world.
If by that you mean that it could be worse, then I won't disagree.  But if "not quite as bad as my worst nightmare" is your standard for judging government, perhaps you should consider a higher standard.

the whole process of getting there seems fraught with opportunities for missteps allowing a worse government to establish itself, or leading to needless bloodshed, and so on.
Sure, as history shows, those with political power will be willing to commit almost any atrocity to preserve their rule.  And, if a government is rejected then many people will try to form another (which might be worse).  Is your point that people should be careful what they do, since their actions will have consequences?  I agree.

Anarchy will not be viable until people in general are willing to consider the initiation of violence and threats of violence to be illegitimate.  I do not expect to see that attitude prevail in my lifetime, but I have some hope that my great-great-grandchildren might be born in a free society.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 10:04:57 am by Brugle »

J Thomas on July 22, 2010, 10:05:30 am

Quote
Texas, though, is a place of independent-minded people, a place where there seems to be more sympathy than in more places for the idea of reducing the amount of government.

Texas is a third-world nation embedded in the USA. They have a lot of poor people and some who are very rich. The system exists at the pleasure of the rich, and they allow various perqs -- state parks and libraries and such -- for everybody else out of a sense of benevolence.

Texas ideology talks about freedom and independence a lot. Basicly what that amounts to is that poor young men are supposed to be kind of wild and reckless and get arrested. There isn't much social stigma to getting arrested except when it comes to jobs and status and moving out of Texas.

In theory, the Texas government is supposed to put some limits on the rich and on the poor. In practice, it's mostly limits on the poor. If Texas did away with their government entirely I doubt much would change. There would officially be no limits on the ability of the rich to put limits on the poor, but it likely would not make much difference at all in practice.

Quote
Why wouldn't one fear that in a society with a less formalized government, private security firms might act like less well-supervised government policemen? Or that communities might administer justice selectively - in the fashion noted for the Inuit as an example?

Government police treat people according to their status in society. Why would you expect it to be worse without government? If you can hurt them back (not shooting at them, but hurt them other ways) then they will be careful with you. If you have no way to enforce your rights then you have no rights. When private security firms have less status then you have more rights with them.

Quote
When government works, when it is run by people committed to the rule of law, to impartiality, to honesty - it works quite well.

Yes. You can make the same argument for monarchy. Or for slavery. Today, slavery and monarchy are both mostly gone. People didn't like them. We still have wage slavery and we still have coercive governments. When they are run by people who are committed to having things work well for everybody involved, they work well.

Quote
So, while AnCap sounds attractive in principle and in theory, I don't see competent democratic government behaving all that badly in practice as to create an urgent need for it - and the whole process of getting there seems fraught with opportunities for missteps allowing a worse government to establish itself, or leading to needless bloodshed, and so on.

Government tends to go bad, and once it's gone bad it tends not to reform. Competent government gets rarer with time. On the other hand you are right that we have no established path to overthrow bad governments, much less to establish a nongovernment system. But there's nothing wrong with theorizing about how it could work. And if enough people decide they want it, they migh be able to head toward minarchy etc. For myself, I've been working toward IRV for a long time. it's a better form of voting that might improve elections. Not such a big change, and so far we've made very very minimal progress. The guys who want less government have at least got a bunch of politicians talking about how they want less government too. Reagan promised less government and gave us much bigger government. Etc. I recall an argument from Reagan's day that said if they run the government incompetently enough that it will have to fall apart. There's some evidence that Bush II attempted that strategy, and managed things as incompetently as he could for 8 years without succeeding in destroying the government during his reign.

I dunno. A lot of places they eliminated slavery fairly quietly. People just agreed it was a bad thing, and they phased it out. In the USA we had the Civil War with a million or so direct casualties, and sharecropping to replace plantation field slaves.

Some places people gradually decided they didn't want kings and turned their kings into figureheads or just quietly switched over. Some places they had bloody wars. I think patience is a virtue for this sort of thing. Keep convincing people, and establish alternatives that work, and gradually phase out the old ways that don't work as well. When 80% of the people are ready to get rid of something, and the alternatives are already in place, then it doesn't have to be a big deal to go ahead.

It might work. Or we might get a bloody revolution and a dictatorship with secret police who promise to disband themselves once the public has proved it's ready for nongovernment. The enemy gets a vote, and it's hard to predict what everybody will do.

SandySandfort on July 22, 2010, 11:03:21 am
Texas stands out in my mind for three* reasons:  People carry guns, people don't like "th' gub'ment," and people are assholes to minorities and outsiders.

What an amazing example of leftist racism. Have you ever been to Texas? If so, which of these "bad" things did you personally observe? Were do you live? Let's see what gross generalizations we can paint you with, based on your state of residence.

Ever hear of Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys"? Kinky ran for governor of Texas in '06. In a 6-candidate race, he got 12.6% of the vote, about a third of the votes cast for the winner. He beat out two Texas gentiles.

Ever heard of Barbara Jordan, a black, female democrat who represented Texas in the House of Representatives?

"Assholes to... outsiders" Oh, you must mean General Santa Ana...

Brugle on July 22, 2010, 11:13:41 am
Texas stands out in my mind for three* reasons:  People carry guns, people don't like "th' gub'ment," and people are assholes to minorities and outsiders.
People carry guns in a lot of other places.  While I haven't lived there, both my sisters live in Vermont and I've gotten to know quite a few of their neighbors.  Many of them carry guns at times.  Vermont is famous for "Vermont carry", which allows people to carry concealed without any permit.  Vermont is also famous for having the lowest crime rate in the US.  Vermont is not considered particularly inhospitable to minorities or outsiders.

I currently live in Washington state, which (while not as good as Vermont) also recognizes (to some extent) gun rights.  While I haven't discussed the issue with my neighbors, I expect that a significant fraction of them carry guns at times.  Washington state is not considered particularly inhospitable to minorities or outsiders.

In an anarchy, it would be perfectly acceptable to use weapons in self-defense.  In the US, regardless of what the law says, you would be taking your life in your hands to use a weapon in self-defense when the aggressor is a government agent.  (It doesn't matter what crimes the government agent is committing--it might exonerate you at a trial, but you won't get a trial if you're dead.)

Again, note that the crimes you discussed previously were committed by government agents.

I lived in Texas for 15 years, and while I didn't spend long in some parts of the state, I saw very little "I don't like the government" sentiment--about as much as I've seen elsewhere.  I commonly heard "there ought to be a law" whenever someone heard about something that they disapproved of.

I'm sure there are many people in Texas (like anywhere) who are "assholes to minorities and strangers".  But the gay people I knew there didn't seem concerned about persecution.  (The gays I considered friends were extremely talkative about almost everything, and if that was a concern I'm sure I would have heard about it.)

My one personal experience with anti-gay aggression (at least I think that's what it was) was on the campus of Stanford University, which has a culture vastly different from most of the cultures in Texas.

There is more mistreatment of blacks and Hispanics in Texas than in some places (and, I suspect, less than in other places).  But that mistreatment is primarily by government agents, who can get away with it.  Under anarchy, it would be much harder to get away with.

It seems like Texas is a place where the people elect bad leaders and the bad leaders hire bad cops because the people want bad cops.
No different than any other place.  Bad people have incentives to become government agents.  Good people who become government agents have incentives to become bad.

They want to punish these minorities and run them out of town.
This is specific enough to want evidence.  I haven't seen much evidence of that.  I have seen plenty of evidence that government agents want to exploit and brutalize minorities, but if they ran them out of town then who would they oppress?

Take away the federal government and the state government overnight, and I can guarantee you Texas would get a whole lot worse for minorities and outsiders before it gets better.
I expect it would.  And I expect it would also get a whole lot worse for non-minorities, since the power struggles over forming the new government(s) would probably be devastating.  And the same would be true for most places in the world.  But that's no reason for us to stop opposing government oppression or to stop hoping that someday people will reject the idea that initiating violence and threats of violence is legitimate.

J Thomas on July 22, 2010, 11:39:32 am
Texas stands out in my mind for three* reasons:  People carry guns, people don't like "th' gub'ment," and people are assholes to minorities and outsiders.
People carry guns in a lot of other places.  While I haven't lived there, both my sisters live in Vermont and I've gotten to know quite a few of their neighbors.  Many of them carry guns at times.  Vermont is famous for "Vermont carry", which allows people to carry concealed without any permit.  Vermont is also famous for having the lowest crime rate in the US.

I guess gun control is a side issue but you did bring it up.

I tried to seriously look at that issue, and here are my tentative conclusions.

1. There are places where crime rates are low. In those places it doesn't matter whether people have or carry guns. If the laws switch one way or the other it will not affect crime rates.

2. There are places where voters think that violent crime rates are unacceptably high. Some of these places, voters will want gun control. Gun control will not reduce violent crime. Other places, voters will want tough penalties for criminals. Tough penalties also will not reduce violent crime.

There are people who think they have statistics showing a relationship between gun control and violent crime. Each study that I looked at was deeply flawed, though it's possible that there could someday be one that's done correctly. My guess is that there is no connection between gun laws and violent crime, but I don't have solid evidence to prove there isn't, I only have solid evidence that a lot of people who say they have evidence are wrong.

My conclusion is that it's probably best to just do whatever the local voters want. There is no real support for arguments that say something bad will happen if you do or don't pass gun laws. So if the voters want concealed carry, or if they want to impose gun control laws on themselves, there's no strong reason to deny them whatever it is they want. Except for moral reasons, and when politicians go against what their voters want because they disagree with their voters, that's a losing game anyway.

WarpZone on July 22, 2010, 01:45:49 pm
Texas stands out in my mind for three* reasons:  People carry guns, people don't like "th' gub'ment," and people are assholes to minorities and outsiders.

What an amazing example of leftist racism. Have you ever been to Texas? If so, which of these "bad" things did you personally observe? Were do you live? Let's see what gross generalizations we can paint you with, based on your state of residence.

Ever hear of Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys"? Kinky ran for governor of Texas in '06. In a 6-candidate race, he got 12.6% of the vote, about a third of the votes cast for the winner. He beat out two Texas gentiles.

Ever heard of Barbara Jordan, a black, female democrat who represented Texas in the House of Representatives?

"Assholes to... outsiders" Oh, you must mean General Santa Ana...

You're correct that there are a few individual black and Jewish politicians and celebrities living in Texas who are doing well for themselves.  They have money.  They're protected.  I was talking more about the rank-and-file residents of Texas and especially visitors.

I haven't personally been to Texas, no.  My ideas about Texas are informed by things my friends (who grew up there and then moved away) have told me about Texas, and things I've read and seen online and in the news.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10,0,6051682.story
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march082010/texas-taliban.php

Do these sources tell the whole story?  No.  Are my ideas about Texas biased?  Certainly.  Let's face it, all I really have to go on are the incidents that make national news.

My point wasn't that Texas is horrible, or that EVERYONE in Texas is like the WORST people in Texas. 

My point was that the worst abuses in Texas (some of which are indeed perpetrated by agents of the government; others of which are committed by ordinary citizens,) seem to occur when people work outside of (or around) the law.  To the extent that these individuals and hate groups feel pressured to hide their activities, government is apparently serving some function.

By that, I mean that Texans can only pass Texas Laws as long as they don't violate Federal Law or the Constitution.  (Yes, how closely that theory is followed in practice is debatable.)  The presumption-- and this is my own personal presumption-- is that if you asked a bunch of random people in Texas to come up with a set of laws on their own, they would make hate crimes legal in Texas.

No, I can't prove it.  No, I'm not sure I'm right.  No, I don't think EVERYONE in Texas is a RACIST.  Get it through your head that I am trying to explain to you ideas which I hold, and the influences which have caused me to hold them.  I am aware that I could be wrong and I invite evidence or even arguments which contradict me.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is making a personal attack.

That said, I'm from the greater St. Louis area;  Go ahead and take your best shot.  I've earned it.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 01:49:24 pm by WarpZone »

SandySandfort on July 22, 2010, 03:46:32 pm
I haven't personally been to Texas, no.  My ideas about Texas are informed by things my friends (who grew up there and then moved away) have told me about Texas, and things I've read and seen online and in the news.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10,0,6051682.story
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march082010/texas-taliban.php

I hope you understand that the basic concept of news is, "man bites dog." And one of the most basic rules is, "If it bleeds, it leads." When I lived in the Bay Area during the Loma Prieta earthquake, San Franciscans were amaze to hear in the news that their city had been all but destroyed. The cameras went to the few places where there was destruction, but none went to the vast majority of the City, where it was business as usual. Go to Texas and experience it for yourself.

BTW, I'm from Liberty, Missouri. In general, Missourians are hard-working, honest, generous and skeptical. However, much of St. Louis is an East Coast enclave. I'm not so sure about you guys.  ::)

terry_freeman on July 22, 2010, 03:57:10 pm
Texas has corrupt police because people have guns? What are you, some kind of leftist liberal racist clown, or what? Here's a story about Chicago police - who, remember, work for the government:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?Info=0107042&From=News

I am still waiting for a comparable list of brutality inflicted by private security guards. I want to see numbers at least in the same ballpark as police brutality, since it is a matter of record that there are more private security guards in America than government police troops.

By the way, Texas has at least one openly lesbian mayor.

Any time you want to admit that your prejudices are wrong, speak up. Don't be bashful.

jamesd on July 22, 2010, 05:41:50 pm
Quote
They were government agents not acting properly according to the written rules. In other places that have government, such as Canada, it is very unusual for government agents to behave that way - and when they do, they are usually brought to justice quickly.
Ann Coulter could tell you a different story about Canada.

You do not really believe that government agents in Canada do not engage in thuggery.  You believe they don't engage in thuggery against people like you.  And you are wrong.

WarpZone on July 22, 2010, 07:48:40 pm
I haven't personally been to Texas, no.  My ideas about Texas are informed by things my friends (who grew up there and then moved away) have told me about Texas, and things I've read and seen online and in the news.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10,0,6051682.story
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march082010/texas-taliban.php

I hope you understand that the basic concept of news is, "man bites dog." And one of the most basic rules is, "If it bleeds, it leads." When I lived in the Bay Area during the Loma Prieta earthquake, San Franciscans were amaze to hear in the news that their city had been all but destroyed. The cameras went to the few places where there was destruction, but none went to the vast majority of the City, where it was business as usual. Go to Texas and experience it for yourself.

BTW, I'm from Liberty, Missouri. In general, Missourians are hard-working, honest, generous and skeptical. However, much of St. Louis is an East Coast enclave. I'm not so sure about you guys.  ::)


*shrug*

It's a short drive. :)  See for yourself!

You owe it to yourself to at least go up in the arch once some time.  The view is insane.

If you're not so sure about us, what do you suspect?  :P

Honestly, St. Louis isn't that big of a deal.  Sure, there's some buildings here.  A zoo and an art museum.  But we've pretty much been coasting since the World's Fair put us on the map.  Nothing ever changes because even the liberals don't wanna raise taxes, so it's honestly a pretty sleepy city for being so big.

You wanna have some fun, watch Donnybrook on Channel 9, and we can pretend we're shouting at each other. XD

 

anything