Fast-food workers in NYC flex their muscle for better pay

[Bondgirl]

Originally Posted by God of War

Huh?

Oh I was just looking at that image or what ever you call it but it is so small

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Exactly. Which is why I have as much fun with it as I can.

Or when they respond with #1 of the 3 Big Lies:

1. Don't call us, we'll call you.
2. The check is in the mail.
3. I promise I won't cum in your mouth.

I don't know who you are, but I can tell I am going to like you. You are my kind of people.

[Bondgirl]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

awww thanks sweety. anytime you are in america you can stay at my house.

Grins that would be nice would l get a,tour of new yyork and surronnding areas

[Bondgirl]

I alaways heear the words godwins law mentioned. Is that a type of law in America

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

Can we agree on a couple things
1 We have not seen this type of economy since the great depression. Since this is the case, is it fair to say in a normal economy times are not nearly as tough for people with college educations?
2. There are a lot of degrees (like English Lit) that limit the types of careers one might be able to get once they graduate.

If college were less expensive - be it by making 100% concentration on your major, making it free to all, or another method not presented here - I think you'd see less "unskilled" workers. That's just my opinion.

Yes, Liberal Arts/Fine Arts degrees are a very poor decision financially. The problem is you're asking 18 year olds (god, what was I doing at that age?) to make a single decision that will affect their entire lives. It's just logical to assume they're fuck up, more often than not.

But if it were less expensive, you'd see more and more people going back to school to become "skilled" workers.

You can say that it's easier on people with degrees, but I honestly dont buy that. Ive never gotten a job or not gotten a job based on my higher education, and I've ALWAYS started at minimum wage and worked up. Even after switching jobs, I had to go back DOWN to minimum wage, a few times, just to get work. That's how it is these days.

The problem with having a degree is also the enormous debt. And more and more you're seeing this kind of "bad" student debt carries over EVEN IF you file for bankruptcy.

And if you go to an expensive school, for a medical degree, law degree, what have you, after interest, that's the kind of debt that you will literally take with you to the grave. I dont really think that's fair, to ruin someone's financial future before they even get started.

Now you're gonna say, they should've done their research, should've looked into it more. The problem with that is, we did. But they lied to us. They told us it would make a difference in our futures. And its just not the same it was before. It's just not.

[adamjohnson]

Someone mentioned (couldnt find it) that there's more than just an education, there's also EXPERIENCE. Well, a running gag of the world is that you need experience to get experience. "On-the-job training" is all but disappeared. Few companies hire workers with no experience. It's a very real catch-22.

Furthermore, we do not "demand high wages" when we graduate. I didn't. What I wanted was to make a living as an artist. My "second job" waas where I punched a clock, and my third, and occasionally my fourth. I dont mind being poor for that.

I do enjoy eating though. Thats pretty nice. I mean, it may not mean much to anyone but me, people may want to cry bullshit, or man up, but... I work hard, man. And some days all I want is to be treated like a human being and not a lowlife, to be shown a modicum of respect. If you ever feel like showing some real kindness and cheering someone up, go into any fast food place, and sincerely thank the person who hands you your food, more than just a thank you. It's only happened to me a handful of times. In my life. And it's just, just great. But it is because it happens so rarely.

[Bondgirl]

Well it is true that if you want to complete a uni degree it is around 60'000quite abut of money for a person trying to get a skilled job bit in aus you can get hex fre help nut when you finish your degree you pay it back throgj your taxes it can take years to pay off if you are a struggling student

[creekin111]

If we expect people to take care of themselves, rational economic behavior will lead people to choose fields of endeavor where they can earn enough to take care of themselves. If we encourage people to do what they want in the expectation of having the rest of the society take care of them, we'll have a lot of people preparing for jobs that don't exist. There probably aren't that many people who really consider plumbing glamorous or exciting. It's literally a shitty job, but if you've hired a NY plumber recently, you know that people can make a decent living at it. The labor market is and it should be like every other market. Supply and demand lead to prices; prices channel resources.

Economically, if the cost of preparing for a certain job outweighs the benefits, what does that say about the supply-demand balance in that field? If people who study computer science, electrical engineering, or accounting can demand enough for their labor to service their student debt, but people who study medieval philosophy can't, does that tell us something? Do we want to use subsidies to foster a misallocation of resources, or do we want to use the signals from the market to make rational adjustments?

What's the alternative, everybody does what he or she wants, and he or she gets paid because everybody should be able to do what he or she wants? Get ready for a boom in the professional sit on the couch, drink, play video games, watch sports and porn and masturbate field. Woo hoo!

[Bondgirl]

Originally Posted by God of War

Yeah, I read all of his posts.
But that's not what I am confused about, dude. His status is now a former schmoe. Yet, I saw him online just before, And he has a green light on his profile name.
That's why I said huh? Someone didn't complete the banning process it seems.

Well your right he is on right now with his green light flashing he is also banned from the look of his profile.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

If college were less expensive - be it by making 100% concentration on your major, making it free to all, or another method not presented here - I think you'd see less "unskilled" workers. That's just my opinion.

There is no such thing as free. Someone pays for it. There needs to be costs involved. Maybe there are better ways to contruct the whole process to limit costs of a college education, which I think has been happening over the last 20 years.

Yes, Liberal Arts/Fine Arts degrees are a very poor decision financially. The problem is you're asking 18 year olds (god, what was I doing at that age?) to make a single decision that will affect their entire lives. It's just logical to assume they're fuck up, more often than not.

LOL That is life and there are plenty of people who do not go or choose not to go to college and opt to go into the workforce only to realize what kind of crappy jobs they can get and how little money they get paid. Some (like me) opt to go into the military before college. Life is long and one can make mistakes and live ling enough to correct them to their liking. Hopefully, more and more kids have good parents or others to guide them better.

But if it were less expensive, you'd see more and more people going back to school to become "skilled" workers.

Not in this thread, but I think we should talk about why does college cost so much. Doing what Obama has done with healthcare is not going to work. We can't or shouldn't just move who pays for it. We need to figure out why it costs so much and take steps to correct it.

You can say that it's easier on people with degrees, but I honestly dont buy that. Ive never gotten a job or not gotten a job based on my higher education, and I've ALWAYS started at minimum wage and worked up. Even after switching jobs, I had to go back DOWN to minimum wage, a few times, just to get work. That's how it is these days.

I am sorry in your experience you have not had many benefits of your education. Education is more than just your degree though. Education is also work experience. Employers want instant results and very lazy to train workers in an employers market. I would be interested to know what you have your degree in and what kind of work you have done. Maybe I can make a suggestion for you.

But one thing is clear, as a whole people with degrees make more money over their lifetime than those who do not hold them. SO hang in there and I believe the worm will turn.

The problem with having a degree is also the enormous debt. And more and more you're seeing this kind of "bad" student debt carries over EVEN IF you file for bankruptcy.

And if you go to an expensive school, for a medical degree, law degree, what have you, after interest, that's the kind of debt that you will literally take with you to the grave. I dont really think that's fair, to ruin someone's financial future before they even get started.

That goes back to looking into why the costs are so high. It also has to do with personal decisions. Not very smart to go into 6 figure debt only to get a job that starts out at under $50K. One needs to make better decisions.

Now you're gonna say, they should've done their research, should've looked into it more. The problem with that is, we did. But they lied to us. They told us it would make a difference in our futures. And its just not the same it was before. It's just not.

How old are you? No one said you were going to make a boat load of money out of college. People tend not to hit their financial stride until their late 30's and early 40's. I don't believe people lied to you. I think people are not patient. Plus, people of our generation have been fucked over by the older generations. We have had to live with more expenses and debt and hardships than any other generation since the people from the 20's. This is why there are so many people who do not like the idea of the federal govt running the debt up to $16 trillion. The feds just can't claim bankruptcy.

Things go in cycles. People thought it was a good idea to go into debt for the sake of education. Now people are starting to rethink that. It seems like you got fucked. I am sorry about that, but hang in there. Another factor is where you live. It is the job of your local government to make sure there are jobs to be found (another topic for another thread).

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

Someone mentioned (couldnt find it) that there's more than just an education, there's also EXPERIENCE. Well, a running gag of the world is that you need experience to get experience. "On-the-job training" is all but disappeared. Few companies hire workers with no experience. It's a very real catch-22.

Furthermore, we do not "demand high wages" when we graduate. I didn't. What I wanted was to make a living as an artist. My "second job" waas where I punched a clock, and my third, and occasionally my fourth. I dont mind being poor for that.

I do enjoy eating though. Thats pretty nice. I mean, it may not mean much to anyone but me, people may want to cry bullshit, or man up, but... I work hard, man. And some days all I want is to be treated like a human being and not a lowlife, to be shown a modicum of respect. If you ever feel like showing some real kindness and cheering someone up, go into any fast food place, and sincerely thank the person who hands you your food, more than just a thank you. It's only happened to me a handful of times. In my life. And it's just, just great. But it is because it happens so rarely.

I did and it is true. Work experience is more than on the job training. Every position uses a set of skills. You can obtain all kinds of skills from low paying entry level positions. If you know how to spin them, they can lead to bigger and better things. There is no catch 22. I feel they are excuses. Tell me your jobs and I will tell you how to spin them.

You might not demand a high paying job, but overall college grads, esp those with high debt will not take a low paying job. Many (thousands and thousands) will sit on the couch and not work or will try to stay in school to avoid the costs. It might not be your story, but overall that is what is happening.

You sound really bitter. People do suck, but I would not let others dictate my emotions or feelings. I deal with assholes too from time to time and I laugh them off. Not going to help me to get all bitter and sour about it.

Sounds like you have or had a lot of jobs. Please send me a private message with more personal info about your job experiences, education, where you live, what you would like to do for work or enjoy and I will see if I can help you. You sound like an interesting case. What I am going to say is probably going to shock you, but I think it is good to hear something completely opposite of what you believe to be true, even if it is fiction to you.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

Not in this thread, but I think we should talk about why does college cost so much. Doing what Obama has done with healthcare is not going to work. We can't or shouldn't just move who pays for it. We need to figure out why it costs so much and take steps to correct it.

I think one of the ways we can fix it is for everyone to understand that part of being a citizen is PAYING TAXES. (Death and taxes, remember?) Understanding that giving citizens a higher eduction benefits ALL and not just those receiving it is another.

I honestly dont think people wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if they looked around and realized their country was better for it. Any logical person knows the blame doesnt fall squarely on Obama, so, please, stop that nonsense. There's two other factions to our government - most of whom are old white guys looking to better THEIR situation, typically at the expense of the next generation.

My opinion is theres just too many damn people inthe world. Maybe we just hit maximum occupancy on the number of jobs int he world. What we really need is a good ol' fashioned plague to thin the herd.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Just to throw in my 2 cents here on this point-

It is getting increasingly harder to leave the USSA. Getting a passport is only becoming more difficult. This is going to be virtually impossible down the line.
As it stands I need at least $300 to renew mine.

That's fair but I think comparing a $300 passport to the cost of uprooting to find better work is also fair, even including that $300 into the uprooting costs.

Even still, there are so many viable options where you don't have to feel like the government is holding a gun to your head. (has that ever happened? Someone was shot by police for not paying taxes? I don't mean after ending up in a standoff on some compound…)

People say that such-and-such don't want to give up their iPhones and what-not but that applies beyond the poverty line. No one, for the most part, wants to give up luxuries. People on welfare don't want to give that up any more than people getting insane tax breaks. My point is that everyone is pretty damn similar and there is a sort-of overlaying group among the poor, middle and rich who can look on and realize it's just people being selfish.

I think if we looked at it, the upper 1% and lower earner percent people fall into a living off the grid type of lifestyle. I'm talking about homeless people, who hustle for needs vs. those who influence politicians, are all but untouchable by laws, and so forth. I guess what I'm saying is that, in my eyes, a homeless guy who keeps to himself is the same as someone like Mitt Romney to me. The only difference is that I can't help a guy like Mitt.

I don't want you to think I'm saying citizens, collectively, need to support the homeless guy through taxes. I do, however, think we need to protect our collective interests. We need to have shelters, food banks, etc. in place, for a variety of reasons I don't have the patience to get into right now, but I see it as a sort-of investing in insurance or, to be harsh and hoping to not stigmatize, a security system. We can afford for a guy like Mitt to not buy another vacation home but we can't afford for a guy on the street to have a nervous breakdown or pass out in midday traffic.

There's a lot more to my thinking here but that's just touching on a bit of it. I tend to think that both sides are cool by me, but that both the rich and the poor exploit things. It shouldn't be those who exploit our system that dictates what the system is. That goes for the poor who mooch off welfare or the rich who mooch off loopholes. The thing, for me, is that only the latter has real resources to have the bigger impact on the system.

As to the original point, a government law enforcement officer is far worse than a thug in an alley. At least you might be able to use some form of charisma(bluffing, counter-intimidation, persuasion even) to possibly walk away from a criminal in an alley. Try walking away from a cop and you'll get this. And at least a criminal won't pretend that he is doing a good service. Hell, you can't even say the word NO to cops anymore.

You are using an extreme example. What you are describing with corrupt and unethical law enforcers, or unfair laws, isn't being robber in an alley. It's akin to the Manson family murders or something - I mean, using your metaphor, which I don't agree with. To me, the metaphor would be mandatory 20% gratuity for parties of 6 or more, if that even. There is also something floating around in all this colorful hyperbole where there's something to be said for the fact that you are totally switching victim and assailant roles. The mandatory gratuity thing is so much more on par, since you can go to jail for not paying a restaurant bill. Even still I think it's stretching it in favor of tax payers being victims, because dining and dashing would put you in pound-in-the-ass jail, while not paying taxes wouldn't. One person I knew didn't pay taxes for 30 years and you know what happened when they finally "turned themselves in" (I use quotes because they gave themselves up only because they needed crucially to get back on the grid due to a major accident…) -- What happen was that they paid a fine.

Either way, no one suffers from PTSD because the taxes were too damn high.

And you're also saying that the rich can't buy their way out of jail or evade the law. I know you're with me in knowing that's not right.

Originally Posted by Erroneous

You would be in the minority on the pricing.

Since the minimum wage has risen over the years, less and less regular employees work and managers do more than ever. Also, to cut down on costs, some places are outsourcing the order taking in the drive thrus.

I think what people have more of a problem with is that their own pay is not going up anywhere near what inflation is. It is a fact that people are not making more than they were just a few years ago and are paying more in taxes and expenses. People do not want to see the entry level workers get a raise that takes them even closer to what they make.

Oh yeah man. I'm in the minority on McDonald's but I also am not a poor single mom who sees cheaper meals at McD's as a cheaper and more efficient alternative to going to the grocery. I just think it's ass-backwards. That mom should be able to save money and time by getting meals, even prepared ones, from the grocery/deli counter. We all know that's the better choice but the problem is that the corner grocer doesn't have government in it's pocket like McDonald's does, which brings me to my point that McDonald's, and other corps like McDonald's don't have much defense in terms of the "government lay off card." They are already sucking at government's tit and shouldn't care when they are asked to make sure their friends are wiping their feet at the door. I feel the same way when I see a person receiving welfare complaining about the cost of cigarettes.

My point about wages, that got lost in a shuffle of misunderstanding, was that I don't really think people care that much what starting workers make. I was using personal experience to say that wasn't what I experience, but also saying that my particular field may have a different mindset about it, so my experience might just be different. I work for a private company, but our wages are influenced by cost of living increases through our consumers. Every few years, sometimes it stretches longer (I've seen it happen 3 times in 15 years) wages get somewhat normalized.

Ignoring the fact that meddling and minding into the pay of coworkers is a looked-down-upon practice for the most part…

Some people huff about it (I did the first 2 times) but we get over it and realize we are getting paid what we deserve and just look ahead. There's no ill will or malevolence toward people starting in the field. We are generally happy knowing that there will be less open positions, and better chances for us to use our paid time off or not feel like we are shutting down the place if we get a flu (or just had too much fun the night before)

Those people who do care, they are the ones who move on, usually, and admirably, toward better things and more money. I think that's awesome but it's not something that matters to me personally. It's about choices. The way I see it, sure, those starting are getting paid similar to what I got paid after putting in time, but I am getting benefits they aren't in terms of not needing to dredge through trainings, orientations, getting to know the job, knowing the past places to hide bottles, etc. etc…

But we aren't talking about educated/skilled professional jobs here. We are talking about minimum wage workers. Like I said somewhere early on, if earning power means something to someone at McDonald's, chances are they are on their way out the door anyway (like the workers at my job). The problem is those people who are doing it not because they want experience but because they have little choice. (my example of the single mom who was hired and worked there full-time over a year) If the company is going to continue paying them minimum wage, despite the obvious detriment, then I think the minimum wage needs to be raised. And good on the pimply faced teen who is doing it to buy his first car. I'm sure the 40 year old lady who's been doing it for 2 years isn't standing in line, able to buy needed food and clothes for her family thinking, "That fucking Bryce. He was hired just last week and gets the same paycheck I am." -- I'm sure she's just happy that it's easier to get needs met.

I'm also sure there are people out there who are genuinely annoyed (I was twice) but, again, they'll get over it.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

I think one of the ways we can fix it is for everyone to understand that part of being a citizen is PAYING TAXES. (Death and taxes, remember?) Understanding that giving citizens a higher eduction benefits ALL and not just those receiving it is another.

I honestly dont think people wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if they looked around and realized their country was better for it. Any logical person knows the blame doesnt fall squarely on Obama, so, please, stop that nonsense. There's two other factions to our government - most of whom are old white guys looking to better THEIR situation, typically at the expense of the next generation.

My opinion is theres just too many damn people inthe world. Maybe we just hit maximum occupancy on the number of jobs int he world. What we really need is a good ol' fashioned plague to thin the herd.

Does that really include everyone or do you just mean some of us should pay more? Just curious and seeking clarification.


I am sorry, no. We give people a free elementary education. I am 100% against giving people a college education. I say lower the costs first before we start dumping more money into education. When I talked about Obama care I was talking about idealogy of how his admin chose to handle the problem. There is no Obama nonsense or blame. Sorry you misunderstood. I do take offense to your old white man comment. There are many minorities and women in government today less you forget about Nancy P. I hope that last part is a joke.

Should I take it that you are declining my help and insight into your situation or are you thinking it over? I don't mean to insult you, but according to what you said here, it does not appear like your plans and ideals have worked out well for you so far. Perhaps you are in need of a different opinion. I suggest you look in the mirror and see what is really holding you back. I just don't buy that you are a person with a college degree and can't do any better than what you claim.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

Oh yeah man. I'm in the minority on McDonald's but I also am not a poor single mom who sees cheaper meals at McD's as a cheaper and more efficient alternative to going to the grocery. I just think it's ass-backwards. That mom should be able to save money and time by getting meals, even prepared ones, from the grocery/deli counter. We all know that's the better choice but the problem is that the corner grocer doesn't have government in it's pocket like McDonald's does, which brings me to my point that McDonald's, and other corps like McDonald's don't have much defense in terms of the "government lay off card." They are already sucking at government's tit and shouldn't care when they are asked to make sure their friends are wiping their feet at the door. I feel the same way when I see a person receiving welfare complaining about the cost of cigarettes..

I am going to have to ask for examples to support your claims. Blanket statements are not working for me here and I would like to better understand what you mean.

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

I think one of the ways we can fix it is for everyone to understand that part of being a citizen is PAYING TAXES. (Death and taxes, remember?) Understanding that giving citizens a higher eduction benefits ALL and not just those receiving it is another.

I honestly dont think people wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if they looked around and realized their country was better for it. Any logical person knows the blame doesnt fall squarely on Obama, so, please, stop that nonsense. There's two other factions to our government - most of whom are old white guys looking to better THEIR situation, typically at the expense of the next generation.

My opinion is theres just too many damn people inthe world. Maybe we just hit maximum occupancy on the number of jobs int he world. What we really need is a good ol' fashioned plague to thin the herd.

Wow.

[DuncanIdaho]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

My opinion is theres just too many damn people inthe world. Maybe we just hit maximum occupancy on the number of jobs int he world. What we really need is a good ol' fashioned plague to thin the herd.

Cause I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.
I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom, please flush it all away.
I wanna see it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in.
Watch you flush it all away.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

I don't know who you are, but I can tell I am going to like you. You are my kind of people.

Be careful what you say, lol.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by Bondgirl

I alaways heear the words godwins law mentioned. Is that a type of law in America

Nah; well yes, in a way. It seems almost as constant as the law of gravity when you are arguing with people who love to kiss the big boot of the state.

Anyone who has a non-egalitarian opinion automatically gets pigeon-holed as an evil, racist monster i.e. a Hitler.

I find it funny to a degree but it is getting pretty tiresome and tedious.

[Bondgirl]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Be careful what you say, lol.

Well isnt it nice to be liked on this thread

[creekin111]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc

[Bondgirl]

Okay l want to talk about workers who want to improve there chances of getting work after the get there degree fron Uni or college as you americans call it

What about if you have all that edcation you get ready to get that lovely paying job and they wont hire you because you are too edcated

I have seen Uni students do so much schooling and not get anywhere with there degree

Also you see alot of uni students go for arts degrees and well when they get that degree there is not a job for this occuption

Also in Australia we have uni students getting teaching degrees where they head off to primary or highschool and there stadards in edcation is not good

Do you think the standards in this area have dropped

I am not having a go at teachers because there are some who have good edccation


All l am saying to you think that teachers who are teaching certain subjects are not up with edcational standards

[Bondgirl]

Well it would be good if the goverment paid for uni degrees or certain things

I know of a person who has to pay for a camera which has a 200 dollar tag to this and alos the books for certain subjects can be pricey

Oh and l also want to say about parking your car at uni is a expensive affair

The cost with paying for a year of parking say l think l was told it was 300 dollars and you have a certain sticker put on your car you go in there expecting to find a car park and there is not a single one so l find that there is alot of money grabbing by Unis who we would like to know where they spend this money

We know it is not on the students they seem to be paying quite alot through the school year

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

People say that such-and-such don't want to give up their iPhones and what-not but that applies beyond the poverty line. No one, for the most part, wants to give up luxuries. People on welfare don't want to give that up any more than people getting insane tax breaks. My point is that everyone is pretty damn similar and there is a sort-of overlaying group among the poor, middle and rich who can look on and realize it's just people being selfish.

I think if we looked at it, the upper 1% and lower earner percent people fall into a living off the grid type of lifestyle. I'm talking about homeless people, who hustle for needs vs. those who influence politicians, are all but untouchable by laws, and so forth. I guess what I'm saying is that, in my eyes, a homeless guy who keeps to himself is the same as someone like Mitt Romney to me. The only difference is that I can't help a guy like Mitt.

I don't want you to think I'm saying citizens, collectively, need to support the homeless guy through taxes. I do, however, think we need to protect our collective interests. We need to have shelters, food banks, etc. in place, for a variety of reasons I don't have the patience to get into right now, but I see it as a sort-of investing in insurance or, to be harsh and hoping to not stigmatize, a security system. We can afford for a guy like Mitt to not buy another vacation home but we can't afford for a guy on the street to have a nervous breakdown or pass out in midday traffic.

There's a lot more to my thinking here but that's just touching on a bit of it. I tend to think that both sides are cool by me, but that both the rich and the poor exploit things. It shouldn't be those who exploit our system that dictates what the system is. That goes for the poor who mooch off welfare or the rich who mooch off loopholes. The thing, for me, is that only the latter has real resources to have the bigger impact on the system.

You bring up some interesting points and I don't disagree with very much of it. You have to remember though that the government is almost if not more dependent on the poor than the poor are dependent on the government. Two points I would make on this are: 1. (and I hate citing statistics for reasons I stated above - but the numbers on this are fairly conclusive and available) That after world War II, poverty dropped by 1% every year until LBJ's Great Society in the 60's; and was on its way toward no longer being a matter of large concern. "Our poor are disappearing. Quick! Let's evoke a moral outrage and make a War On Poverty!" [As an aside, you'll see this pattern appear all over the political firmament; when something is about to be solved by non-governmental means, there will be a moral outrage of a sort, and the government will make this issue a chief focus]. But alas, let's get back on track-

2nd point - The "system" that deals with the homeless isn't designed for bringing people out of homelessness; or let me put it this way, those who are trying to no longer be homeless. The system really isn't designed to weed out deserving vs. undeserving poor. Instead, Joe Schmoe from Idaho who just got kicked in the balls by the economy and was laid off from a decent living, having exhausted his unemployment in not being able to find a steady job, and who is now on the street doing whatever he can to get by/get work; what happens? He gets lumped in with the schizophrenics, the addicts, and lazy complacents(or to the layman, is "just another homeless guy" or "bum"). To the system, shelter, food line, public aid bureaucrat, Joe Schmoe is just another number looking for a handout. If it was designed differently(i.e. weeding out the undeservings), you'd almost certainly see better results. And as more and more Joe Schmoes who are becoming homeless through little or no fault of their own are hitting the streets with greater abandon in this uber-shitty economy; the tides of treatment(not to mention reputation) are vastly arrayed against them.

The gov't loves their precious poor(and by love I don't mean that they love them - they love that YOU love them). I think private charities might just show a little more efficiency in this area.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

You are using an extreme example. What you are describing with corrupt and unethical law enforcers, or unfair laws, isn't being robber in an alley. It's akin to the Manson family murders or something - I mean, using your metaphor, which I don't agree with. To me, the metaphor would be mandatory 20% gratuity for parties of 6 or more, if that even. There is also something floating around in all this colorful hyperbole where there's something to be said for the fact that you are totally switching victim and assailant roles. The mandatory gratuity thing is so much more on par, since you can go to jail for not paying a restaurant bill. Even still I think it's stretching it in favor of tax payers being victims, because dining and dashing would put you in pound-in-the-ass jail, while not paying taxes wouldn't. One person I knew didn't pay taxes for 30 years and you know what happened when they finally "turned themselves in" (I use quotes because they gave themselves up only because they needed crucially to get back on the grid due to a major accident…) -- What happen was that they paid a fine.

Either way, no one suffers from PTSD because the taxes were too damn high.

Even still, there are so many viable options where you don't have to feel like the government is holding a gun to your head. (has that ever happened? Someone was shot by police for not paying taxes? I don't mean after ending up in a standoff on some compound…)

What I said was not an extreme example; incidents far more egregious than that one are an everyday affair. Not to mention that I tried to walk away from a cop once when he wanted to browbeat me about a fight I had witnessed and I then immediately noticed the officer's rapidly increasing pace and preparation for a similar Macho Man Randy Savage flying clothesline move on me. So I spun around and finally acknowledged the thug in blue costume.

And my statement wasn't that police or "heroes" were the same as the robber in the alley; just that they're worse and why I would have more respect for a criminal. With a cop, you simply cannot fight back, even if you are 100% right/good and he is 100% wrong/evil. With a criminal, you can at least have a fighting chance.

But we're getting away from the real argument, the argument from morality. (And btw your restaurant metaphor doesn't work either as there is no force component) Have people been shot for not paying their taxes? Not that I personally know. But yeah, I've read several cases like in the book Lost Rights by James Bovard(a book that made me so angry I couldn't even finish it). And while some of these victims maybe weren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, I'd say they were pretty brave(even if stupid by pragmatic standards).

The simple basic fact, which is ironically so easily obfuscated by most, is that when dealing with taxation on any level(let alone any gov't edict), there is a gun in the room. I'll say it again. There is a gun in the room. Does the gun have to be whipped out every single time to be deemed immoral? Of course not. You would not deal with such thieves if they did not have the legal right to initiate the use of force, would you? They have the power of the gun behind them with impunity; you do not. Or let me run it by you another way--- If you don't pay taxes, fines accrue. If you don't pay the fines, men in suits will show up to collect them. If you don't pay them, men in blue costumes will show up, kidnap you, and throw you in rape rooms. If you resist successfully enough or try to escape from your captors, then yes, you will be shot.
Your friend managed to not have to go through this agonizing ordeal, congratulations. But that definitely does not excuse that the very constant threat of what I have just outlined is both very real, very cleverly disguised, and hardly civilized. The fact that such thuggery continually gets a moral sanction frankly astounds me and speaks volumes about the cult of CULTURE.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

I am going to have to ask for examples to support your claims. Blanket statements are not working for me here and I would like to better understand what you mean.

Factory farm subsidies was an example I gave earlier.



Then you have things like tax deductions for outsourcing - I think you mentioned the drive-thru workers. I remember, not when but where, the first time I heard a nice female voice at the drive-in, and I did my usually overly-friendly and mannered responses to the voice in the box, only to wonder why the person sounded confused, stumped and unsure what I was saying. This was all familiar to me, dealing with costumer servicer call centers and sure enough, I then pulled up to the window and saw confirmation of my hunch in what may have been a former roadie for ZZ Top. I went home, searched and found that sure enough, I was probably talking about someone on the other side of the world. It was like learning there is no Santa.

There's more, I'm positive, but have honestly never looked into it as I haven't with many things because I always assumed this was sort of an unspoken truth. It's one of those things I generally don't think about, similar to why I don't like to see kitchens in restaurants or knowing exactly how much my xth drink has been watered down. It's really stuff that just presses buttons in me. There is some stuff that peeves me on the other end of the wealth spectrum, the way government runs things, such as retroactive benefits or SSD benefits being based on hours worked and not wages earned.

Again though, I can't help McDonald's but am more than willing to pay a little bit more for the food there. I'm fully aware that the inflation in the cost of food of McDonald's resembles that of the drug trade. You can buy hamburgers for not much more than you could 30 years ago, the same as you can whatever your drug of choice (minus pharmaceuticals) and to me that says a lot.

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

You bring up some interesting points and I don't disagree with very much of it. You have to remember though that the government is almost if not more dependent on the poor than the poor are dependent on the government. Two points I would make on this are: 1. (and I hate citing statistics for reasons I stated above - but the numbers on this are fairly conclusive and available) That after world War II, poverty dropped by 1% every year until LBJ's Great Society in the 60's; and was on its way toward no longer being a matter of large concern. "Our poor are disappearing. Quick! Let's evoke a moral outrage and make a War On Poverty!" [As an aside, you'll see this pattern appear all over the political firmament; when something is about to be solved by non-governmental means, there will be a moral outrage of a sort, and the government will make this issue a chief focus]. But alas, let's get back on track-

2nd point - The "system" that deals with the homeless isn't designed for bringing people out of homelessness; or let me put it this way, those who are trying to no longer be homeless. The system really isn't designed to weed out deserving vs. undeserving poor. Instead, Joe Schmoe from Idaho who just got kicked in the balls by the economy and was laid off from a decent living, having exhausted his unemployment in not being able to find a steady job, and who is now on the street doing whatever he can to get by/get work; what happens? He gets lumped in with the schizophrenics, the addicts, and lazy complacents(or to the layman, is "just another homeless guy" or "bum"). To the system, shelter, food line, public aid bureaucrat, Joe Schmoe is just another number looking for a handout. If it was designed differently(i.e. weeding out the undeservings), you'd almost certainly see better results. And as more and more Joe Schmoes who are becoming homeless through little or no fault of their own are hitting the streets with greater abandon in this uber-shitty economy; the tides of treatment(not to mention reputation) are vastly arrayed against them.

The gov't loves their precious poor(and by love I don't mean that they love them - they love that YOU love them). I think private charities might just show a little more efficiency in this area.

It's a multi-tiered system. The shelters and food banks don't deal with people getting out of homelessness, but social workers, affordable housing, treatment centers and the sort do. It doesn't happen overnight. You are right though, that success is based on the determination to make things better for oneself. That takes me back, however, to the mantra I believe that we can't let those breaking the system dictate the system. We can't knee-jerk onto the opposite end of the spectrum just because someone took advantage. It is in place for a reason and adaption is always preferable over abandonment.

What I said was not an extreme example; incidents far more egregious than that one are an everyday affair. Not to mention that I tried to walk away from a cop once when he wanted to browbeat me about a fight I had witnessed and I then immediately noticed the officer's rapidly increasing pace and preparation for a similar Macho Man Randy Savage flying clothesline move on me. So I spun around and finally acknowledged the thug in blue costume.

And my statement wasn't that police or "heroes" were the same as the robber in the alley; just that they're worse and why I would have more respect for a criminal. With a cop, you simply cannot fight back, even if you are 100% right/good and he is 100% wrong/evil. With a criminal, you can at least have a fighting chance.

The thing is, that if a cop breaks your nose, he is breaking the law. If someone is committing assault and breaks your nose, he is breaking the law. But only one of them is, by design, expected to break the law. A cop can get away with murder just as much as any other murderer.

What you are doing, to me, is similar to comparing guns to cars in the terms of which kills more people. It doesn't work for me but I understand the comparison, or at least the mentality on which it comes from. Usually, it's don't hate the player, hate the game, but here it might be the opposite. I dunno.

I do, however, agree that police brutality is far worse than petty crime. No doubt. It's like the difference between being raped in prison and being raped by an uncle. (so I would assume) What it is, though, is that in the context I brought this up in, I think it's a lot of degrees of separation to go from tax laws to not paying taxes to being caught to being arrested to being arrested by a dirty cop who assaults you with a gun. That's a far cry from walking in an alley and getting mugged.

But we're getting away from the real argument, the argument from morality. (And btw your restaurant metaphor doesn't work either as there is no force component)

Well, if you don't pay your restaurant bill and the cops are called, wouldn't you risk the hypothetical Bad Lieutenant showing up to arrest you?

Have people been shot for not paying their taxes? Not that I personally know. But yeah, I've read several cases like in the book Lost Rights by James Bovard(a book that made me so angry I couldn't even finish it). And while some of these victims maybe weren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, I'd say they were pretty brave(even if stupid by pragmatic standards).

I'd have to check that out. I do know there are examples where people were killed through trying to be arrested, or trying to be talked down from committing suicide, or many other things where I'm just slapping my head asking, "How the fuck?"

It's sick.

The simple basic fact, which is ironically so easily obfuscated by most, is that when dealing with taxation on any level(let alone any gov't edict), there is a gun in the room. I'll say it again. There is a gun in the room. Does the gun have to be whipped out every single time to be deemed immoral? Of course not. You would not deal with such thieves if they did not have the legal right to initiate the use of force, would you? They have the power of the gun behind them with impunity; you do not. Or let me run it by you another way--- If you don't pay taxes, fines accrue. If you don't pay the fines, men in suits will show up to collect them. If you don't pay them, men in blue costumes will show up, kidnap you, and throw you in rape rooms. If you resist successfully enough or try to escape from your captors, then yes, you will be shot.
Your friend managed to not have to go through this agonizing ordeal, congratulations. But that definitely does not excuse that the very constant threat of what I have just outlined is both very real, very cleverly disguised, and hardly civilized. The fact that such thuggery continually gets a moral sanction frankly astounds me and speaks volumes about the cult of CULTURE.

The threat is there with a lot of things people do and sometimes get away with and sometimes don't. The guy who robs you by gunpoint in the alleyway is under that threat. That in and of itself isn't a reason to say it shouldn't be that way. I knew an account of a group of housemates, college-aged, who ran a pirate radio station that was mostly only receivable in the area surrounding the college, and the police raided their house and shot their dog. It's fucked up. But that's not about why it's stupid for it to be illegal to have a pirate radio station. That's about the agents who did the shooting being stupid.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

Factory farm subsidies was an example I gave earlier.


\

Hidden cost: It takes a HUGE amount of grains to feed all that livestock as well. As well as water. And land.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

There is no such thing as free. Someone pays for it. There needs to be costs involved. Maybe there are better ways to contruct the whole process to limit costs of a college education, which I think has been happening over the last 20 years.


LOL That is life and there are plenty of people who do not go or choose not to go to college and opt to go into the workforce only to realize what kind of crappy jobs they can get and how little money they get paid. Some (like me) opt to go into the military before college. Life is long and one can make mistakes and live ling enough to correct them to their liking. Hopefully, more and more kids have good parents or others to guide them better.


Not in this thread, but I think we should talk about why does college cost so much. Doing what Obama has done with healthcare is not going to work. We can't or shouldn't just move who pays for it. We need to figure out why it costs so much and take steps to correct it.


I am sorry in your experience you have not had many benefits of your education. Education is more than just your degree though. Education is also work experience. Employers want instant results and very lazy to train workers in an employers market. I would be interested to know what you have your degree in and what kind of work you have done. Maybe I can make a suggestion for you.

But one thing is clear, as a whole people with degrees make more money over their lifetime than those who do not hold them. SO hang in there and I believe the worm will turn.


That goes back to looking into why the costs are so high. It also has to do with personal decisions. Not very smart to go into 6 figure debt only to get a job that starts out at under $50K. One needs to make better decisions.



How old are you? No one said you were going to make a boat load of money out of college. People tend not to hit their financial stride until their late 30's and early 40's. I don't believe people lied to you. I think people are not patient. Plus, people of our generation have been fucked over by the older generations. We have had to live with more expenses and debt and hardships than any other generation since the people from the 20's. This is why there are so many people who do not like the idea of the federal govt running the debt up to $16 trillion. The feds just can't claim bankruptcy.

Things go in cycles. People thought it was a good idea to go into debt for the sake of education. Now people are starting to rethink that. It seems like you got fucked. I am sorry about that, but hang in there. Another factor is where you live. It is the job of your local government to make sure there are jobs to be found (another topic for another thread).

I've been having a lot of thoughts in this avenue and rethinking how colleges should work myself.

What I've learned and observed in this economy when it comes to recent grads is that nowadays its experience that's gonna get you through the door. Early on after the vast layoffs following the crash, a number of older people who were laid off had mortgages, car payments, bills and dependents to take care of. When they couldn't get work even remotely within their old job title they took whatever paid and was usually below their old pay-rate. And these were positions usually filled by the unskilled or college grads.

For as much as you pay for college, your entry level is still considered unskilled because you have not been a part of that company's workflow or had experience in troubleshooting at that professional level. And you're right, people are too lazy or lack the creativity and/or energy to train the next generation that's supposed to eventually take over their field. But I've spoken with people who got around the expenses of training people and really innovated how it was done in their company, Harmonix being one of them. I've also seen companies who bragged to shareholders about getting tax breaks and essentially had people "pay them" to let them work/train for/with them. (One place went out of business in a profoundly fucked up way).

The bottom line, in this economy experience is your trump card. How you acquire it is the finessing that you have to personally find out on your own.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

Does that really include everyone or do you just mean some of us should pay more? Just curious and seeking clarification.

No, definitely meant it for all. I had a pretty naive idea while ago, that we should be able to decide where our taxes go, or like maybe half. Like, at the end of the year, when you get your tax-bill, it says "You owe: xx,xxx.xx dollars. Where would you like it go?"

And then lists all the government-funded programs that exist - Department of Defense, Education, Health Care, NASA, etc. Then you'd really see a government by the people, for the people.

Government programs that were underfunded would just have to work with what they have, and I'm sure the ENTIRE other half would just be thrown at the military, like always. (You wanna lower the budget, you can start with the Defense budget, which is six times higher than any other country.)

It's not enough anymore to simply elect people and then have them lie about every single thing they promised in their campaign. It should absolutely be illegal for them to lie when speaking to the public, under penalty of perjury; furthermore, we need to outlaw government lobbying, so that corporations cant buy their way into Washington. It's legal bribery, and it's unheard of in other industrialized nations.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by electriclite

I've been having a lot of thoughts in this avenue and rethinking how colleges should work myself.

What I've learned and observed in this economy when it comes to recent grads is that nowadays its experience that's gonna get you through the door. Early on after the vast layoffs following the crash, a number of older people who were laid off had mortgages, car payments, bills and dependents to take care of. When they couldn't get work even remotely within their old job title they took whatever paid and was usually below their old pay-rate. And these were positions usually filled by the unskilled or college grads.

For as much as you pay for college, your entry level is still considered unskilled because you have not been a part of that company's workflow or had experience in troubleshooting at that professional level. And you're right, people are too lazy or lack the creativity and/or energy to train the next generation that's supposed to eventually take over their field. But I've spoken with people who got around the expenses of training people and really innovated how it was done in their company, Harmonix being one of them. I've also seen companies who bragged to shareholders about getting tax breaks and essentially had people "pay them" to let them work/train for/with them. (One place went out of business in a profoundly fucked up way).

The bottom line, in this economy experience is your trump card. How you acquire it is the finessing that you have to personally find out on your own.

The "apprentice" method is all but dead. It needs to come back.

Or maybe there could be some kind of tax break/Grant to employers to cover on-the-job-training for new skilled worker positions.

Something to get people with no experience and no formal education a real career.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

The "apprentice" method is all but dead. It needs to come back.

Or maybe there could be some kind of tax break/Grant to employers to cover on-the-job-training for new skilled worker positions.

Something to get people with no experience and no formal education a real career.

I actually posted a proposal here regarding bringing back apprenticeships and burying a stake into the heart of the wildly abused internship industry, especially in this economy, but it got lost in the thread.

Here it is, for better or worse, my modest proposal.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

It's a multi-tiered system. The shelters and food banks don't deal with people getting out of homelessness, but social workers, affordable housing, treatment centers and the sort do. It doesn't happen overnight. You are right though, that success is based on the determination to make things better for oneself. That takes me back, however, to the mantra I believe that we can't let those breaking the system dictate the system. We can't knee-jerk onto the opposite end of the spectrum just because someone took advantage. It is in place for a reason and adaption is always preferable over abandonment.

Although I might have overgeneralized a tad for simplification purposes, I think you get the picture. There are exceptions in the few people who care enough in these settings to help out those who are trying to help themselves; but sadly it's not enough.

As I previously pointed out, the system itself is broken and FOR a reason. And for reason's I won't go into now, it is getting harder to get out of homelessness(vis-a-vis government programs/obstacles), not easier.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

The thing is, that if a cop breaks your nose, he is breaking the law. If someone is committing assault and breaks your nose, he is breaking the law. But only one of them is, by design, expected to break the law. A cop can get away with murder just as much as any other murderer.

I would argue even more so.

"Law" is a frivolous term anyway. Law is just an opinion with a gun. And what is a government? Government is a group of individuals who have the legal right on the initiation of the use of force in a given geographical area. The Non-Aggression Principle however somehow magically doesn't get applied to anyone in this field. I ascribe it all to modern idolatry.

If taxation isn't force, then don't enforce it.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

What you are doing, to me, is similar to comparing guns to cars in the terms of which kills more people. It doesn't work for me but I understand the comparison, or at least the mentality on which it comes from. Usually, it's don't hate the player, hate the game, but here it might be the opposite. I dunno.

I believe I've been pretty cogent, sincere, and non-manipulative about the whole affair. I told you I wasn't going for the argument from effect; but from morality. But just to entertain you briefly, do you believe the Drug War has killed less people than the drugs themselves? You would be wrong. That's why it is better to attack the root(morality) and not the branches(effects).

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

I do, however, agree that police brutality is far worse than petty crime. No doubt. It's like the difference between being raped in prison and being raped by an uncle. (so I would assume) What it is, though, is that in the context I brought this up in, I think it's a lot of degrees of separation to go from tax laws to not paying taxes to being caught to being arrested to being arrested by a dirty cop who assaults you with a gun. That's a far cry from walking in an alley and getting mugged.

Only in the speed of the gun being drawn that most never see, is that your point? That point is moot is you've truly understood the argument from morality. I understand this argument is very hard to accept fully(it took me awhile), but the fact of the gun in the room with the CONSTANT and more importantly legal right(sometimes even the obligation) to initiate its use is no small detail; and indeed a far cry from the mugger in the alley. You can't fight back, make a run for it, use counter-intimidation, reason, bribe with some booze, or even say no. If you do, it will only inevitably escalate to the detriment of yourself. I've had cops plainly concede on that point. Officer safety trumps YOUR safety every time. Their job is NOT to serve and protect(it's for you to serve and obey); it is to ENFORCE "the law", whatever that happens to be at that time. I've even meant some that said such law was stupid; but they said it didn't matter. Sorry, that blue costume does NOT metaphysically transform someone into someone who is not subject to universal morality(non-aggression principle).

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

Well, if you don't pay your restaurant bill and the cops are called, wouldn't you risk the hypothetical Bad Lieutenant showing up to arrest you?

I'm bound by the check(actually the mutually agreed transaction itself) they print out(if it's correct in $) to pay for the food that they and I have agreed is worth my $. It's like a contract; silently presumed(and ex post facto) sure. Far more understandable, peaceful, and voluntary than any "social contract" I may have with the state(which I don't and is just not true). Computerized ostracism would work much better in a breach of this area of contract than any law enforcement imo.

But you know what? Government is probably the only form of "contract" I can think of that is NOT binding. Think about it(by this I mean they are obviously not bound).

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

No, definitely meant it for all. I had a pretty naive idea while ago, that we should be able to decide where our taxes go, or like maybe half. Like, at the end of the year, when you get your tax-bill, it says "You owe: xx,xxx.xx dollars. Where would you like it go?"

And then lists all the government-funded programs that exist - Department of Defense, Education, Health Care, NASA, etc. Then you'd really see a government by the people, for the people.

From just 2005 (and there are many more new ones since then not even including any state programs):
http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/

Everyone's going to have the time to properly research all these existing programs to assess their value? People aren't going to spend hundreds of hours to fully understand how each program works so they're just going to give money to 'whatever sounds good'. Who's going to have more of a grasp on how these programs work average citizens or politicians and their personnel that oversee these programs? For me its generally much more simple cut everything across the board.

Government programs that were underfunded would just have to work with what they have, and I'm sure the ENTIRE other half would just be thrown at the military, like always. (You wanna lower the budget, you can start with the Defense budget, which is six times higher than any other country.)

OK I'll give you a thousand dollar to fix and maintain this bridge over 6 months. 'Sorry you're just going to have to work with what you have.' What good is that going to do? Nothing gets done and that thousand dollars is wasted. Or of course what's worse is I'll give you $10,000,000 for a useless program that would normally be only $100,000. Yes cut defense spending as well as other spending across the board. Doesn't matter where you start because nobody is going to agree where to start so nothing ever gets cut. Again cuts across the board. Its not like we're playing with house money here.

It's not enough anymore to simply elect people and then have them lie about every single thing they promised in their campaign. It should absolutely be illegal for them to lie when speaking to the public, under penalty of perjury; furthermore, we need to outlaw government lobbying, so that corporations cant buy their way into Washington. It's legal bribery, and it's unheard of in other industrialized nations.

How can anybody go about proving a lie? Everyone lies. Are all lies black and white? How "big" of a lie and who determines what is "big" or what is "small"? What about half truths? Obama would be in jail then in a matter of days and then we would have Biden and then shortly after we would have Boehner in office who didn't even run in a presidential administration so technically he didn't make any promises during the presidential race for the presidency. Or whatever. Anyway is a president going to go to jail if he promises cutbacks in the military but then we get invaded by another country and we have to fight back? Or do we take a huge risk of losing the war with the loss of American lives if those budget cuts interfere with the war? So he either has a choice to going to jail or losing a war?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Although I might have overgeneralized a tad for simplification purposes, I think you get the picture. There are exceptions in the few people who care enough in these settings to help out those who are trying to help themselves; but sadly it's not enough.

As I previously pointed out, the system itself is broken and FOR a reason. And for reason's I won't go into now, it is getting harder to get out of homelessness(vis-a-vis government programs/obstacles), not easier.

I have to wonder how much of that is population growth, lack of funding and other adaptable factors, and how much is it because the system is inherently wrong.

I would argue even more so.

"Law" is a frivolous term anyway. Law is just an opinion with a gun. And what is a government? Government is a group of individuals who have the legal right on the initiation of the use of force in a given geographical area. The Non-Aggression Principle however somehow magically doesn't get applied to anyone in this field. I ascribe it all to modern idolatry.

If taxation isn't force, then don't enforce it.

I don't know about it being even more so. There are scores of unsolved murders, yet police transparency is increasing (thanks largely to social media, access to cameras.) In theory, using the corrupt police force idea, it could be much easier. Of course, that corrupt police force may also charge the wrong people with murder and the guilty may remain free.

Force and enforcement aren't synonyms when we are using force as an indicator of violence. I'm not really worried about getting shot or beaten to death because I didn't pay a restaurant bill or even because I didn't pay taxes, or pay someone a fair wage.

I believe I've been pretty cogent, sincere, and non-manipulative about the whole affair. I told you I wasn't going for the argument from effect; but from morality. But just to entertain you briefly, do you believe the Drug War has killed less people than the drugs themselves? You would be wrong. That's why it is better to attack the root(morality) and not the branches(effects).

Oh I know what you mean and apologize if I seemed to had gotten lost in my perspective over yours. My last post was written over the course of, I'd say off-hand, maybe 2 hours as I was attending to several things while "breaking" to continue responding. I meant to leave a disclaimer to that effect but here I am now.

The thing is, though, isn't dictating laws based on morality a slippery slope? I disagree with the drug war, but not because I think it is immoral. It's because I think it's ineffective and ultimately does no good to society as a whole. The War on Drugs is based around principals of morality - or at least that's why the public largely supported it at one time.

When drugs were made illegal, it was based on fear tactics. The pothead who'd play piano and rape women or the hippy degenerate who'd eat your brains while on acid, and so forth. Over time, the things that were embedded because moral issues for people (based on misunderstandings of the reality of drug use) and these laws continue to be supported based, mostly, on the way people morally feel about it.

This all expands to other areas of laws that don't have to do with clear cut public dangers but since we touched on the War on Drugs. And no, I do not find the many of the drug laws moral, but only because advocacy of them espouses morals that are different than mine. As a citizen, I disagree with them because they are costly, ineffective and, I believe, do more harm than good.

So, I can't say that I support morality dictating whether laws are good or bad. I have an opinion on that but in now way do I feel my opinion is the definitive answer for everyone else.

Only in the speed of the gun being drawn that most never see, is that your point?

No. I mean in the fact that cops aren't there to shoot people if they aren't cooperating in regards to the enforcement of crimes that do not present a direct threat to anyone. There are a lot of degrees of things going wrong when an arrest turns to murder. There are far more things going wrong than in a situation when a robbery goes wrong. The police officer should be there, responding to a crime, but the criminal shouldn't be in the alley way, robbing someone.

That point is moot is you've truly understood the argument from morality. I understand this argument is very hard to accept fully(it took me awhile), but the fact of the gun in the room with the CONSTANT and more importantly legal right(sometimes even the obligation) to initiate its use is no small detail; and indeed a far cry from the mugger in the alley. You can't fight back, make a run for it, use counter-intimidation, reason, bribe with some booze, or even say no. If you do, it will only inevitably escalate to the detriment of yourself. I've had cops plainly concede on that point. Officer safety trumps YOUR safety every time. Their job is NOT to serve and protect(it's for you to serve and obey); it is to ENFORCE "the law", whatever that happens to be at that time. I've even meant some that said such law was stupid; but they said it didn't matter. Sorry, that blue costume does NOT metaphysically transform someone into someone who is not subject to universal morality(non-aggression principle).

You've never talked your way out of a speeding ticket?

I'm bound by the check(actually the mutually agreed transaction itself) they print out(if it's correct in $) to pay for the food that they and I have agreed is worth my $. It's like a contract; silently presumed(and ex post facto) sure. Far more understandable, peaceful, and voluntary than any "social contract" I may have with the state(which I don't and is just not true). Computerized ostracism would work much better in a breach of this area of contract than any law enforcement imo.

But you know what? Government is probably the only form of "contract" I can think of that is NOT binding. Think about it(by this I mean they are obviously not bound).

But tax laws are readily available. If I don't want to pay the 20% gratuity for owning a 3rd vacation home, then I won't buy one, or sell the one I have, if my stance is that I can't afford or just don't want to pay for that 3rd one.

Now, I might be painting myself into a corner of appearing that I empathize with the idea of the government being scary. There is a quote I can't recall exactly but it's to the effect of the government used to protect the people and now they control the people. I do, in many regards, feel that there are measures used which are wrong and detrimental to us as a whole. It just happens to be that asking companies to increase their minimum wage, or asking people who own a larger share of wealth to contribute a larger share back, are not among those things. To me it doesn't make sense for the country as a whole. Of course, this might be because of my seeing resources as being limited, which I could be wrong about.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

Force and enforcement aren't synonyms when we are using force as an indicator of violence. I'm not really worried about getting shot or beaten to death because I didn't pay a restaurant bill or even because I didn't pay taxes, or pay someone a fair wage.

Again, so why enforce it? Violence and threat of violence aren't technically synonyms, sure. But they both involve the idea of initiatory force and so they are both immoral; as they both violate the NAP(Non-Aggression Principle).
More on that below.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

The thing is, though, isn't dictating laws based on morality a slippery slope?

On the substrate of the Non-Aggression Principle? Absolutely not. The use of or threat of initiatory force by another person, group, cult, company, collective, and especially from governments as a moral paradigm is a pretty distinct line that is pretty hard to fudge.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

The War on Drugs is based around principals of morality - or at least that's why the public largely supported it at one time.

As I noted earlier, drug use was most likely going down, so the government immediately had to raise moral hysteria and create a "war" on it. What's that H.L. Mencken quote? "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary". Again universal morality gets obfuscated by the hysteria whipped up by some pretty uber-thick propaganda.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

When drugs were made illegal, it was based on fear tactics. The pothead who'd play piano and rape women or the hippy degenerate who'd eat your brains while on acid, and so forth. Over time, the things that were embedded because moral issues for people (based on misunderstandings of the reality of drug use) and these laws continue to be supported based, mostly, on the way people morally feel about it.

Right. Based on the obfuscation and delusions you've just alluded to and I mentioned/implied above. It's apparently so easy for people to forget where and how to put the argument where it starts(which is a property issue): It's my body, I own it. You don't. I can put whatever I want into it.

So, I can't say that I support morality dictating whether laws are good or bad. I have an opinion on that but in now way do I feel my opinion is the definitive answer for everyone else.

But the Non-Aggression Principle has to work for everybody or no one at all. That's what a moral prescription is.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

No. I mean in the fact that cops aren't there to shoot people if they aren't cooperating in regards to the enforcement of crimes that do not present a direct threat to anyone. There are a lot of degrees of things going wrong when an arrest turns to murder. There are far more things going wrong than in a situation when a robbery goes wrong. The police officer should be there, responding to a crime, but the criminal shouldn't be in the alley way, robbing someone.

I can see that I failed you here. So let me run it by you by yet another way. If they didn't have the gun and legal exception to its initiatory use at the end of the rainbow, would you obey them?

If they didn't have this moral carte blanche on violence; would you say, get out of a car and submit to a cavity search for not wearing a seat belt?(This is now an official edict thanks to the Supreme Court) I thought not(if you said yes, I have one more way to run it by you).

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

You've never talked your way out of a speeding ticket?

This is becoming less and less as the police DO have quotas to fill.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

But tax laws are readily available.

Do you know how thick the tax code is? Not a single tax attorney fully understands it; much less a layman.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

Now, I might be painting myself into a corner of appearing that I empathize with the idea of the government being scary. There is a quote I can't recall exactly but it's to the effect of the government used to protect the people and now they control the people. I do, in many regards, feel that there are measures used which are wrong and detrimental to us as a whole. It just happens to be that asking companies to increase their minimum wage, or asking people who own a larger share of wealth to contribute a larger share back, are not among those things. To me it doesn't make sense for the country as a whole.

But you aren't "ASKING" anyone to do any of these things. You are advocating the use of initiatory force for them to do these things. I feel I've been pretty clear on this point.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Again, so why enforce it? Violence and threat of violence aren't technically synonyms, sure. But they both involve the idea of initiatory force and so they are both immoral; as they both violate the NAP(Non-Aggression Principle).
More on that below.

Threats of violence and enforcement aren't simultaneous actions. If you continuously speed, the threat is that your license will be revoked, not that you're be shot or beaten. If your kid's friends don't wipe their shoes off, you can enforce the rule by sending their friends home, not beating them with a belt. You are again making this huge leap from breaking a law to being violated by the police.

I can see that I failed you here. So let me run it by you by yet another way. If they didn't have the gun and legal exception to its initiatory use at the end of the rainbow, would you obey them?

If they didn't have this moral carte blanche on violence; would you say, get out of a car and submit to a cavity search for not wearing a seat belt?(This is now an official edict thanks to the Supreme Court) I thought not(if you said yes, I have one more way to run it by you).

No, I wouldn't give them permission to search me but I wouldn't start a fight with them. Not in terms of a cavity search, but if I were illegally searched, I'd do as so many others have done and find a defense attorney and have the case dropped. I'm not aware of any cases where a person received a cavity search for not wearing a seat belt, so I can't really give a perspective on that. Sorry.

This is becoming less and less as the police DO have quotas to fill.

So you going off the premise that the police have no form of judgement to exercise and they treat every situation the same?

Do you know how thick the tax code is? Not a single tax attorney fully understands it; much less a layman.

Is the answer that the tax code is thick as a brick?

I'm pretty sure McDonald's has a fairly decent tax attorney.

But you aren't "ASKING" anyone to do any of these things. You are advocating the use of initiatory force for them to do these things. I feel I've been pretty clear on this point.

No, I'm saying that enforcing laws isn't the same as initiating violence. I try to mind my speed (or at least be aware of it) not because I'm afraid of being brow beaten but because I don't want to pay a fine.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

Threats of violence and enforcement aren't simultaneous actions. If you continuously speed, the threat is that your license will be revoked, not that you're be shot or beaten. If your kid's friends don't wipe their shoes off, you can enforce the rule by sending their friends home, not beating them with a belt. You are again making this huge leap from breaking a law to being violated by the police.

You are operating on the premise that society and government are the same thing. That is false. Government and society are opposites. Society(microcosmically what you and I are even doing as we interact here and now on this BB, much less having dirty lil' whipper-snappers at your house) is voluntary. Government is the only entity that has a monopoly on violence and the legal right to initiate its use. What differentiates these mammals(them) from other mammals(us) other than costumes and insignias?
And how the hell is this moral?
Government doesn't even exist. It's just people with guns and the people who obey them.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

No, I wouldn't give them permission to search me but I wouldn't start a fight with them. Not in terms of a cavity search, but if I were illegally searched, I'd do as so many others have done and find a defense attorney and have the case dropped. I'm not aware of any cases where a person received a cavity search for not wearing a seat belt, so I can't really give a perspective on that. Sorry.

I would have thought that you would have investigated the matter for yourself; but no matter. http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/06/str...bing-decision/
I tried looking for the case I read about where a woman was dragged out of her car and cavity searched for not wearing a seat belt; but conveniently for you, it seems to have been "removed". Sorry about that.

That is a rather slippery answer though(if it was deliberate I dunno). So you would verbally decline but physically comply? You do know enough that if you make any warding or blocking gestures(let alone not obey their every command), this is considered resistance and you will be subject to more aggressive treatment(physical force/violence) + charges don't you? Ii know you're with me on this point at least.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

So you going off the premise that the police have no form of judgement to exercise and they treat every situation the same?

Certainly not. Though again they still have quotas to fill; and their "independent" judgments are becoming less and less so and more Nuremberg-esque. You could have direct proof against their claims for citation; but they will simply tell you to tell it/show it to the judge(yes, this has happened to me).

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

No, I'm saying that enforcing laws isn't the same as initiating violence. I try to mind my speed (or at least be aware of it) not because I'm afraid of being brow beaten but because I don't want to pay a fine.

And what happens if you don't pay the fine?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

You are operating on the premise that society and government are the same thing. That is false. Government and society are opposites. Society(microcosmically what you and I are even doing as we interact here and now on this BB, much less having dirty lil' whipper-snappers at your house) is voluntary. Government is the only entity that has a monopoly on violence and the legal right to initiate its use. What differentiates these mammals(them) from other mammals(us) other than costumes and insignias?
And how the hell is this moral?
Government doesn't even exist. It's just people with guns and the people who obey them.

I don't know how this is congruent to what I wrote. I was explaining, by example, how enforcement was not synonymous with force and you responded as if I was comparing government to citizenship, which I was doing nothing remotely close to.

I would have thought that you would have investigated the matter for yourself; but no matter. http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/06/str...bing-decision/
I tried looking for the case I read about where a woman was dragged out of her car and cavity searched for not wearing a seat belt; but conveniently for you, it seems to have been "removed". Sorry about that.

I feel like you are getting increasingly combative with your responses. There have been a few cues that I've overlooked but I'm deciding to point it out here just to keep things amicable. I'm not sure what your mood is when replying (I get drunk and reply sometimes) so I'm not taking issue with it beyond just saying that there's no reason to act like I'm trying to win some argument on the Internet. If anything, the lack of articles is inconvenient for me because I'm trying to gain an understanding, not wipe sweat off my brow because you don't have an "exhibit 'b'" to destroy some defense you think I have. We're all cool here.

I could also be misreading your intentions so there's that too. None of it is particularly important beyond me mentioning it. So no bother. Anyways...

I told you I didn't know of any cases, you kinda showed me one. I say kinda because there were still several degrees of separation between a law, enforcement of that law, and poor conduct by those enforcing the law. He was searched in a jail, not by the arresting officer. Do I think the courts decision is right in this regard - hell no. Do I think that the database that updates fines paid and that sort of stuff is confusingly outdated and inefficient - hell yeah! While I'm at it, I don't even particularly support seat belt laws except on highways or interstates.

But back on track - if a fast food worker spits in my food, that's no reason to say fast food is bad for you. There are other reasons fast food is bad for you but not because of the actions of an individual serving it to me. Show me the law that says the police have to act in poor judgement and I'll agree with you that it should be overturned. The last I checked, these are individual actions by the workers who are doing their job, not the inherent quality of the job they are doing.

That is a rather slippery answer though(if it was deliberate I dunno). So you would verbally decline but physically comply? You do know enough that if you make any warding or blocking gestures(let alone not obey their every command), this is considered resistance and you will be subject to more aggressive treatment(physical force/violence) + charges don't you? Ii know you're with me on this point at least.

I would verbally decline. That's all it takes. The court has ruled that I don't have to consent to a pat down so there's that too. If I had some fine, as in the situation above, a warrant, or what-not, then it gets to be more and more. (for the record, last fine I got I checked to made sure their database was updated. I go out of my way to make sure there's nothing to, as The Wolf puts it, nothing to make Johnny Law poke his nose around)

But either way, if I'm pulled over for speeding and some asshat cop rapes my constitutional rights, that's no indictment on why there shouldn't be speeding laws.

Certainly not. Though again they still have quotas to fill; and their "independent" judgments are becoming less and less so and more Nuremberg-esque. You could have direct proof against their claims for citation; but they will simply tell you to tell it/show it to the judge(yes, this has happened to me).

Of course. Such situations are common knowledge to the point of being engrained in pop culture even. None of that has anything to do with the nature of the laws being enforced, however.

And what happens if you don't pay the fine?

My son dies of tetanus because after my license is suspended, I unknowingly continue to drive, am pulled over and ultimately arrested. While in prison I am murdered by a convict which in turn sends my wife into a deep depression. My son cannot cope with the stress and attempts to commit suicide with a rusty razor blade but is self-ostracized from the medical community because he had never been indoctrinated because my family didn't have access to affordable health care.

Or maybe I just pay a fine plus penalties. The world is full of possibilities when we are dealing in hypotheticals.

[adamjohnson]

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

I don't know how this is congruent to what I wrote. I was explaining, by example, how enforcement was not synonymous with force and you responded as if I was comparing government to citizenship, which I was doing nothing remotely close to.

Not at all. My point was that the gun in the room was not present in the situation you described with having kids over at the house. And that with enforcement by the State, there always IS a gun in the room; brandished or not.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

I feel like you are getting increasingly combative with your responses. There have been a few cues that I've overlooked but I'm deciding to point it out here just to keep things amicable. I'm not sure what your mood is when replying (I get drunk and reply sometimes) so I'm not taking issue with it beyond just saying that there's no reason to act like I'm trying to win some argument on the Internet. If anything, the lack of articles is inconvenient for me because I'm trying to gain an understanding, not wipe sweat off my brow because you don't have an "exhibit 'b'" to destroy some defense you think I have. We're all cool here.

I could also be misreading your intentions so there's that too. None of it is particularly important beyond me mentioning it. So no bother.

It was probably because I hadn't yet had my nighttime libation and also from being an Ex-New Yorker. Either way; it was all style based and not personal or combative in nature. So yeah, we're all cool.

That said, I still cannot wrap my head around the fact that you seem to not understand the basic point I am trying to illustrate. I feel like I am really failing you here and so I will provide a further illustration below.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

But back on track - if a fast food worker spits in my food, that's no reason to say fast food is bad for you. There are other reasons fast food is bad for you but not because of the actions of an individual serving it to me. Show me the law that says the police have to act in poor judgement and I'll agree with you that it should be overturned. The last I checked, these are individual actions by the workers who are doing their job, not the inherent quality of the job they are doing.

Think about it like this. It's sort of like a Gresham's Law applied to humanity. Bad laws attract bad people to enforce them- while pushing out the good or even semi-good(I've known this intuitively since I was a kid). This sadly too, is also a degenerative process that makes things progressively worse; an authoritarian feedback loop, if you will.

Besides, I don't have to eat fast food anyway and I can opt out at anytime. Not so, with finding a healthy alternative to the Officers of the USSA.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

I would verbally decline. That's all it takes.

You must live in a place with a lot of Officer Friendly's. Enjoy it while it lasts before the younger sadistics supplant them.

In a way, you are right in stating for the record(and get it on record) that you don't consent to searches. But to many officers, they still will go on with the physical search anyway and if they find something they deem contraband or if you make any sudden movements or something they think is a risk to "officer safety"(sort of like the goading of an off-sides on the other team during 4th down), get ready to enter the world of the Cuffs and the Tazer, respectively.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

But either way, if I'm pulled over for speeding and some asshat cop rapes my constitutional rights, that's no indictment on why there shouldn't be speeding laws.

Oh it definitely is. Not just for the Gresham's Law effect I stated earlier either. This article I am quoting puts it much more succinctly than I can, and especially since I am not getting through with my main argument. The government cares about revenue – and control. It posts speed limits accordingly.

At best – that is, assuming benevolent if condescending intent – they are posted based on the least common denominator: The abilities (rather, the lack thereof) of the most inept Clovers possessed of a license to drive. If one old lady can’t handle a curve without reducing her speed by 20 MPH – or execute a safe passing maneuver without needing an entire mile of perfectly straight road to do the deed – then everyone else must be compelled to operate at her level, rather than expect the old lady (and Clovers, generally) to up-rate their skills to an acceptable level.

The corollary of this dumbing-down of expectations is enforcement based not on actual harm done – or even plausibly threatened – bur rather on the fact of a statutory violation (as is true of 90 percent of law in this county today).

Thus people are routinely ticketed for no reason other than their having exceed an arbitrarily set – and often deliberately under-posted – speed limit.

Well, there is a reason: To collect revenue.

If “safety” were truly at issue – if all these technical foul infractions were in fact dangerous – then offenders would be dealt with – quite appropriately – criminally. The system does not ticket people who brandish firearms – and then send them on their way with their weapon, on the brandisher’s promise never to brandish again. Yet the system – as a matter of routine – issues millions of tickets every single day to allegedly dangerous drivers who are in possession of an implement potentially as or more lethal than a firearm – and is happy to let them continue driving, so long as they keep on paying.

It is only failure to pay that results in them deciding you must be prevented from driving. Note that even DWI offenders almost always have their driving “privileges” restored – provided they pay the fines and pay to attend the ASAP classes and pay the insurance mafia what it demands.

So long as you pay, you are a-ok.

It is – and always has been – all about the money.

Well, there is one other thing: control. Deliberately under-posted speed limits (and other ridiculous traffic edicts, such as mandatory “buckle up” laws) provide a ready excuse for the state’s enforcers to pull people over almost at will. This, in turn, gives these enforcers the opportunity to look for other “violations” – which may and often does lead to more revenue – sometimes, even the vehicle itself under the war on some drugs’ asset forfeiture laws.

More profoundly, though, it is a way for the state, via its costumed enforcers, to assert its authority over us. To remind us – As Lenin once put it – who does what to whom.

It is a characteristic of unfree societies that “laws” – and their corollary, enforcers – are ubiquitous. Impossible not to encounter merely by dint of existing and trying to function.

The object is to keep people in a state of perpetual apprehension. And by “people” I mean ordinary everyday citizens – not the always small element in any society that is actually criminal in the common law (natural law) sense of creating victims via their actions. These people – the real criminals, who create real victims – are incidental as far as the state is concerned. There’s no money in them. Or control, either. The sweet spot, for the coercive authoritarian state, is the average person just trying to go about his life.

This is why, in non-free societies, non-crimes are criminalized – and pursued much more aggressively – than real crimes that involve actual victims. Because that’s where the money – and the power is.

But back to “speeding.”

By any reasonable standard, if we are to have set speed limits (and that’s debatable in terms of its desirability) shouldn’t they actually be limits? The maximum velocity under absolutely ideal conditions, assuming a top-notch driver in a top-notch car, etc? But what do we actually have? We have statutory speed limits that are typically set 5-10 MPH below the normal cruise-controlled, sail fawn gabbling flow of traffic. Think about this a bit. On any given road, almost all the cars are driving slightly faster than the statutory speed limit.

What does this tell you about statutory speed limits?

It tells you they’re not limits – in other than a purely contrived, political-legal sense.

If virtually every driver can – and does – trundle along at a pace that is slightly faster than the legally permissible maximum as a matter of routine does it not imply the limit should be considerably higher? If everyone – or nearly everyone – is cruising along languidly at 70, does it not imply that probably it’d be ok to drive faster than that at least sometimes?

The fact that almost everyone – even Clovers – “speed” as a matter of routine speaks volumes about the nature of most statutory speed limits.

Widespread, almost universal flouting of any given law is strongly persuasive that the law itself is preposterous. And malicious. Think Prohibition. Or, closer to home, the 55 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit for highways that was in force for 20 long years. Politicians decreed that what had been legal yesterday (70-75 MPH) and so – one must presume, reasonable and safe – was all of a sudden “illegal speeding.” Did the highways change overnight? Did the cars? Did people suddenly become incapable of driving 70 safely on Tuesday even though they had done so on Monday? Then, just as arbitrarily, the law was changed again. Just as suddenly, it was once again “safe” (we presume) to drive 70 on the very same road – in the very same car – with the very same person behind the wheel – who the day prior to the law’s going into effect would have been ticketed for “dangerous speeding” had he driven the same speed on the same road in the same car.

It was a farce – yet people learned nothing from it.

Because the situation on today’s secondary roads is precisely the same as the situation was on the Interstates during the reign of Drive 55: Near-universal disobedience of speed limits we all know are not limits in any meaningful, real-world sense. Rather, they are political-legal constructs we must pretend to pay lip service to whenever a cop – a revenue collector – is in the area.

And so the game goes on. As it must. Because the government must have revenue.

And absolutely must control us.

Our “safety” requires it.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

Or maybe I just pay a fine plus penalties

And what happens if you don't pay those?

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8858/slihouettemanwonderswtf.jpg

I always love it when someone looks at one social policy from one nation and that automatically justifies it existing in another. As if it won't effect any of the billions of other factors that make up a nation. Hey Switzerland has no gun control and encourages gun ownership and has virtually zero gun crimes. So lets encourage every citizen to own a gun. Lets do what they do because they can do it and it works.

Its like looking at the inside of 2 different clocks. Hey this one has a gear lets put it in that other clock even if you have to rip out all the other gears that make it tick. Or like trying to fit an auto part made for a Honda car to use for a Chevy truck.

"You 'make' your own people go into crippling debt". lol as if a gun is pointed to everyone's head. So many people just don't seem to understand the concept of force or value or supply/demand. Millions of Americans have no use for a higher education. Its no coincidence the longer our public education has been around the worse and worse it has become.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Not at all. My point was that the gun in the room was not present in the situation you described with having kids over at the house. And that with enforcement by the State, there always IS a gun in the room; brandished or not.

But the immorality of using force when force is not necessarily still resides in those enforcing the laws. It's not just cops but judges and prosecutors can also exercise judgement in who is pursued. None of this is inherent in the laws themselves.

And sure, the gun in the room can be present in the example I used (a parent enforcing rules) -- That's been the cornerstone of any father who is meeting his daughters boyfriend for the first time.

The original comparison we are going off here, however, is being mugged in an alleyway vs. being told to pay taxes. I just tend to feel that the chances of being physically harmed is more realistic in the latter situation and you are saying the former. This might just be a fundamental difference between our perspectives based on experience.

Perhaps ironically, I'm much more familiar in dealing with criminals, from both sides of the instigator/victim role, than I am in dealing with cops. I've run into more poor-judgement criminals than I have police. I've seen more people traumatized through criminal actions than I have seen through enforcement of laws. Again, I know there are cops who feel like they have a free pass but I don't think this is the way it's meant to be. It never was.

It was probably because I hadn't yet had my nighttime libation and also from being an Ex-New Yorker. Either way; it was all style based and not personal or combative in nature. So yeah, we're all cool.

Damn I've been living in the midwest too long.

That said, I still cannot wrap my head around the fact that you seem to not understand the basic point I am trying to illustrate. I feel like I am really failing you here and so I will provide a further illustration below.

Well don't take it like you are failing me. Maybe if you could just make the point in one or two straight up lines I wouldn't get lost amongst the metaphors and what-not. I find that more often than not, failures to communicate on the Internet are simply differing opinions on semantics and/or figures of speech.

For all we know, we agree with one another's point of view, just not the way we are voicing it.

Think about it like this. It's sort of like a Gresham's Law applied to humanity. Bad laws attract bad people to enforce them- while pushing out the good or even semi-good(I've known this intuitively since I was a kid). This sadly too, is also a degenerative process that makes things progressively worse; an authoritarian feedback loop, if you will.

That's an interesting perspective, but there are also people who simply want to right wrongs through justice and do so in goodwill. We are a far cry from Mayberry, USA with the tazings and other nonsense we hear about more often than what makes me feel good to be alive, but I see that is flaws within individuals, not the system.

Now, I can't argue that the system is becoming more geared toward enabling dipwad cops over good police officers, via more laws equals more opportunity for poor enforcement of the laws, but I see minimum wage laws or tax laws as being among the least of our concern.

Besides, I don't have to eat fast food anyway and I can opt out at anytime. Not so, with finding a healthy alternative to the Officers of the USSA.

You also don't have to pay your workers below the cost of living without, at the least, contractual bargaining.

You must live in a place with a lot of Officer Friendly's. Enjoy it while it lasts before the younger sadistics supplant them.

I haven't found that place. I've run into shitty cops (being yelled at when trying to assist with a person in crisis because "why are we here, isn't that what you people are for") and decent police officers ("instead of taking issue with you looking and acting high as fuck, I'll call you a cab and provide protection until it gets here") -- I'm paraphrasing only the last example...

In a way, you are right in stating for the record(and get it on record) that you don't consent to searches. But to many officers, they still will go on with the physical search anyway and if they find something they deem contraband or if you make any sudden movements or something they think is a risk to "officer safety"(sort of like the goading of an off-sides on the other team during 4th down), get ready to enter the world of the Cuffs and the Tazer, respectively.

I think civics classes might be severely lacking in schools today. I think it should be mandatory, and include a focus on dealing with the police. As no indictment against the police, I'd say it should be as relevant as teaching to look before crossing the road. It's probably because of my experience in dealing with police, as both a good and bad citizen, that's made me somewhat comfortable with knowing they may be around the corner.

As much as I hate to use COPS as an example for anything that should be considered reality (beyond TV), have you ever noticed the guys who the cops know by first name are the ones who are the easiest to deal with, regardless of the situation?

Kind of an on-the-spot thought here, but can you imagine how much nicer things might be if there was some kind of law enforcement equivalent as a grade school open house night? People can drop by the police station, get some free snacks, meet their neighborhood patrol. I'm not saying this would fix everything, but like I said, it just occurred to me. It seems pretty redonkulous that things don't already work like that and does point more in the direction you are looking from where police/citizens is a rivalry-like relationship.

Oh it definitely is. Not just for the Gresham's Law effect I stated earlier either. This article I am quoting puts it much more succinctly than I can, and especially since I am not getting through with my main argument. The government cares about revenue – and control. It posts speed limits accordingly.

At best – that is, assuming benevolent if condescending intent – they are posted based on the least common denominator: The abilities (rather, the lack thereof) of the most inept Clovers possessed of a license to drive. If one old lady can’t handle a curve without reducing her speed by 20 MPH – or execute a safe passing maneuver without needing an entire mile of perfectly straight road to do the deed – then everyone else must be compelled to operate at her level, rather than expect the old lady (and Clovers, generally) to up-rate their skills to an acceptable level.

The corollary of this dumbing-down of expectations is enforcement based not on actual harm done – or even plausibly threatened – bur rather on the fact of a statutory violation (as is true of 90 percent of law in this county today).

Thus people are routinely ticketed for no reason other than their having exceed an arbitrarily set – and often deliberately under-posted – speed limit.

Well, there is a reason: To collect revenue.

If “safety” were truly at issue – if all these technical foul infractions were in fact dangerous – then offenders would be dealt with – quite appropriately – criminally. The system does not ticket people who brandish firearms – and then send them on their way with their weapon, on the brandisher’s promise never to brandish again. Yet the system – as a matter of routine – issues millions of tickets every single day to allegedly dangerous drivers who are in possession of an implement potentially as or more lethal than a firearm – and is happy to let them continue driving, so long as they keep on paying.

It is only failure to pay that results in them deciding you must be prevented from driving. Note that even DWI offenders almost always have their driving “privileges” restored – provided they pay the fines and pay to attend the ASAP classes and pay the insurance mafia what it demands.

So long as you pay, you are a-ok.

It is – and always has been – all about the money.

Well, there is one other thing: control. Deliberately under-posted speed limits (and other ridiculous traffic edicts, such as mandatory “buckle up” laws) provide a ready excuse for the state’s enforcers to pull people over almost at will. This, in turn, gives these enforcers the opportunity to look for other “violations” – which may and often does lead to more revenue – sometimes, even the vehicle itself under the war on some drugs’ asset forfeiture laws.

More profoundly, though, it is a way for the state, via its costumed enforcers, to assert its authority over us. To remind us – As Lenin once put it – who does what to whom.

It is a characteristic of unfree societies that “laws” – and their corollary, enforcers – are ubiquitous. Impossible not to encounter merely by dint of existing and trying to function.

The object is to keep people in a state of perpetual apprehension. And by “people” I mean ordinary everyday citizens – not the always small element in any society that is actually criminal in the common law (natural law) sense of creating victims via their actions. These people – the real criminals, who create real victims – are incidental as far as the state is concerned. There’s no money in them. Or control, either. The sweet spot, for the coercive authoritarian state, is the average person just trying to go about his life.

This is why, in non-free societies, non-crimes are criminalized – and pursued much more aggressively – than real crimes that involve actual victims. Because that’s where the money – and the power is.

But back to “speeding.”

By any reasonable standard, if we are to have set speed limits (and that’s debatable in terms of its desirability) shouldn’t they actually be limits? The maximum velocity under absolutely ideal conditions, assuming a top-notch driver in a top-notch car, etc? But what do we actually have? We have statutory speed limits that are typically set 5-10 MPH below the normal cruise-controlled, sail fawn gabbling flow of traffic. Think about this a bit. On any given road, almost all the cars are driving slightly faster than the statutory speed limit.

What does this tell you about statutory speed limits?

It tells you they’re not limits – in other than a purely contrived, political-legal sense.

If virtually every driver can – and does – trundle along at a pace that is slightly faster than the legally permissible maximum as a matter of routine does it not imply the limit should be considerably higher? If everyone – or nearly everyone – is cruising along languidly at 70, does it not imply that probably it’d be ok to drive faster than that at least sometimes?

The fact that almost everyone – even Clovers – “speed” as a matter of routine speaks volumes about the nature of most statutory speed limits.

Widespread, almost universal flouting of any given law is strongly persuasive that the law itself is preposterous. And malicious. Think Prohibition. Or, closer to home, the 55 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit for highways that was in force for 20 long years. Politicians decreed that what had been legal yesterday (70-75 MPH) and so – one must presume, reasonable and safe – was all of a sudden “illegal speeding.” Did the highways change overnight? Did the cars? Did people suddenly become incapable of driving 70 safely on Tuesday even though they had done so on Monday? Then, just as arbitrarily, the law was changed again. Just as suddenly, it was once again “safe” (we presume) to drive 70 on the very same road – in the very same car – with the very same person behind the wheel – who the day prior to the law’s going into effect would have been ticketed for “dangerous speeding” had he driven the same speed on the same road in the same car.

It was a farce – yet people learned nothing from it.

Because the situation on today’s secondary roads is precisely the same as the situation was on the Interstates during the reign of Drive 55: Near-universal disobedience of speed limits we all know are not limits in any meaningful, real-world sense. Rather, they are political-legal constructs we must pretend to pay lip service to whenever a cop – a revenue collector – is in the area.

And so the game goes on. As it must. Because the government must have revenue.

And absolutely must control us.

Our “safety” requires it.

Well, I can't argue with that because of the example we used and the fact that I don't necessarily agree with speeding laws. Driving through Georgia, off the freeway, is an insane experience. I feels like 99% speed traps. Then there are a host of driving laws I don't agree with.

At the same time, I once drove 80-ish in a 40, was pulled over and discovered that the police was behind me for about a half mile before I noticed. To make matters worse, I apparently "gunned it when [he] turned on his lights." I really didn't see him. I was told I could be taken to jail when I, asked if I could get a warning and after getting the longest "are you fucking kidding me" look I'd ever gotten. I ended up with a ticket for driving too fast in unsafe conditions. It could have gone the other way, and I could have ended up randomly dead in jail but it didn't. As an added perspective to that whole thing, this was maybe 3 years ago, and just this year, 4 people died on that road due to driving too fast and swerving to avoid a deer.

Still, the "threat of a gun" isn't the reason that speeding laws in and of themselves can be stupid. It can be said as a reason, but it's not the inherent reason. The way our laws are enforced would be the issue there, not the laws themselves.

But, a mugger in an alleyway shouldn't also be detoured by police carrying guns and prepared to kill. If someone threatens me with a gun in an alley, and a cop shows up an unnecessarily kills the criminal, that's not a reason that mugging people should be illegal. It should be a reason that the police need better training, a better force and so forth.

And what happens if you don't pay those?

I already touched on that in the hypothetical example of the son that dies from tetanus. It could go many ways. Most logically, it would end with me losing my license and learning a lesson in civics and in life. Or it could end with a judge giving me warning. How it shouldn't end is with teenage girls getting raped by Harvey Keitel during a routine traffic stop. That's just horrible. Things cops do are horrible, as are many other examples dealing with citizens doing jobs and practicing freewill.