If your law and order requires victims like this, you can keep it

Many thanks to Rad Geek for bringing this to my attention: a worthless police goon breaks a girl's wrist in the school cafeteria because she doesn't clean cake off the floor well enough, and then his fellow worthless goons attack two students recording the assault on their cellphones.

 

To serve and protect

 

Oh No a WoC PhD has a video and school contact information. Rad Geek lists this and many other links. Start at his page and work your way through them if you don't want this to happen to your kids.

This is the pure essence of the state. My question for moderates is: what is a real answer to how this can be stopped? As long as young people are kept penned up in environments where they're treated like, well, penned-up animals, and as long as you have this police system that encourages violence, I can't see how this won't keep happening.

Thank the Fates that students now have the technology to show the world the true face of the state.

Part II:

I can't help thinking of the many conservatives out there who will think to themselves, "This girl was probably throwing the cake; she was probably disrespectful to the security squad; we need to show the rest of them that they can't get away with disrespect," or something similar. Who might not want to break a poor black kid's wrist themselves but who can look the other way if it happens once in a while. Who wish we would stop making a fuss.

To those people: your attitude gets you the Gestapo. One day it'll be you on the wrong end of the gun, and you'll have earned it.

Share this

Narrow POV

Do these isolated incidents really indicate a "police system that encourages violence"???

Thank you Randall, my eyes are open now....

A couple of times I got stuck in traffic on the highway. I now believe that the highways are a 'system of streets that encourage traffic'.

A couple of times I tripped on an untied shoelace. I now believe that shoelaces are a 'system of strings that encourage tripping'.

A couple of times I went to see a movie and people were talking in the theatre. I now believe that theaters are a 'system of room that encourage unenjoyment*'.

*not sure if this is a word... but that's how I feel.

I'm not giving you a pat on the back Randall. I'm saying "shame on you". (however my opinion of you in this particular situation does not in effect say that I condone the asinine actions of the pigs in their respective situations... I am merely pointing out how stupid it is to make blanket assumptions in general).

sorry to nitpick but

Randall says

"As long as you have
this police system that encourages violence, I can't see how this won't
keep happening. "

He did not say these incidents indicated such a system, he said that

- such incidents happen and are horrible
- our police system encourages violence (a claim he left unsubstantiated)
- therefore more bad incidents like this will happen

granted I could also feel a strong implicit induction lurking around in his post.

 

True true...

I understand that there is an erosion of our freedoms in our country as of late... and that 'pigs' are present in the policing force in this society (order is neccessary).... but I don't see the tell tale signs of an overwhelming shift in those directions (true destruction of freedom and promotion of random violent acts by the police).

I know how emotions/instinct can get the best of us (we are just animals that make tools, art, understand genealogy, and such after all), but a little temperance goes a long, long way. No need to rally people into a frenzy against an entire class of people due to the stupid actions of a few.

Of course I could be absolutely wrong, and I could just be a frog in a pot of water on the stove.

Get clear on what is really at fault

You have liberals to thank for the lion share of the pathologies of the school system. The liberal elements in this incident are easy to list. I will point out one: the union of school with state turns school rule enforcement into state law enforcement, complete with state brutality. This is a product of liberalism as 4 is the product of 2 and 2. Meanwhile conservatives are vocal critics of public schools. One mistake people are making is to treat this as causally isolated. The reality is that it has causes, such as the cause I mentioned. So we see the sorry spectacle of liberals getting pissed about this without stopping to notice that it is their own damn fault.

please...

...don't use the word liberalism to refer to socialism or leftism... in most part of the word, liberalism* is still about classic liberalism. It's not to late to reclaim the word.

Firmly entrenched in the US

"Liberalism", as a dirty word meaning something like "socialist", has been firmly entrenched. Here's a page discussing the phenomenon:

How did the term "liberal" become a dirty word in modern American political rhetoric? [...]

Progressive liberals have pressed for most of the accepted social advances we enjoy in modern America today including the 40-hour week, Child Labor laws, Minimum Wage laws, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Civil Rights legislation, Worker Safety laws, Antitrust legislation, Clean Water laws, Food & Drug laws - you name it.

Every single one of these items with the partial (and only partial) exception of civil rights legislation, is socialist or at least a government-interventionist, and not libertarian. The writer of the page has asked the question of why "liberal" has become a dirty word, and almost immediately answered it with the above unselfconscious list of "accomplishments".

The motives of liberals are, like the motives of Karl Marx and his intellectual heirs (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and so on), good, pure, saintly. They will not hesitate to tell you so themselves:

From this writer's aging perspective, it seems that most liberals I have met are by definition very interested in equality and fairness, the welfare of all Americans, health care for all Americans, a free public higher education for all Americans, protecting the environment and our wilderness areas, tolerance and respect for individual freedoms (including women's), and more equitable income distribution in America.

Meanwhile the motives of the opponents of liberals, like those of the opponents of Marxists are selfish, greedy, callous. Liberals will not hesitate to tell you so:

Meanwhile, many conservatives I have met usually espouse one or more programs and policies that are mainly self serving - including the reduction or elimination of taxes, protection of the status quo and states rights irrespective of societal inequities, "my" religious convictions - not yours, prosperity at any cost, business interests - not the public's, the right to own assault weapons, a powerful military rather than universal public health and education, or finally America first - the U.N. never! In a more vernacular sense, "I've got mine, Jack, to hell with you."

Funny that his undeniably self-serving comments should contain the very term that describes them. With these comments, the author who asks why the term "liberal" is a dirty word exemplifies the answer to the very question he asks.

Anyway, this is what defines the term "liberal" in the United States. It means advocacy of an endless list of government encroachments on individual freedom, all of them naturally established for only the noblest of reasons (they will assure you) and none of them truly encroaching on freedom, but rather merely on greed and callousness. Trying to use the old meaning of the term simply does not do anything in the United States except to confuse matters.

I want to be wrong about this. I don't think I am.

The old meaning is not that

The old meaning is not that old. I think it only goes back to the new deal were out of fear of being labelled communists, socialists started to call themselves new liberals (as Keynes did) and then liberals.

Somehow it also propagated to the UK. In french, spanish, german, italian, finnish, russian - you name it - the root liberal means libertarian.

I don't know what I did with

I don't know what I did with my comment yesterday, but it didn't show up, so we'll try again.

Seth and Arthur:

I didn't prove that there was such a system, you're right. This is a blog; that would be a book. There are a handful of libertarian assumptions behind this blog in varying degrees of intensity, and we just run with them.

"No need to rally people into a frenzy against an entire class of people due to the stupid actions of a few."

Really? Why not? Because the other members of that system are going to clean house and put a stop to this kind of thing? Because power doesn't corrupt the man who wields it? Because aggression and lies aren't an everyday part of police work? That is Utopian thinking.

Rad Geek's sixteen listed incidents above are just the ones that we know about. We're kidding ourselves if we think that sort of thing isn't way more common. It has nothing to do with "our country of late." It is inherent in the nature of monopoly police power.

Constant:

Good point, public schooling is definitely the left's baby. But it seems like it's only a small fringe of conservatives that are truly opposed to public schooling, and it's a great majority of them that are law-and-order types.

Law and order

"Law and order type" covers too much and is too vague. If we take the ideas embedded in the words absolutely seriously, then I am a law and order type and so are you. Are you for indiscriminate mass murder? Are you for rampant burglary? No? You're actually against murder? Really??? Against murder??? Then you are a law and order type. I will call this "genuine law and order type".

It is unfortunate that the term has been made flabby by its use to describe those who think that cops can do no wrong. I will call these "cop worshippers". The problem with this use is not the use per se (hey, language is created by us, we can change it however we like), but the fact that the words themselves continue to refer to the genuine law and order types. So when you say, "a great majority of them are law and order types", and someone tries to check your statement, they're likely to include both the cop worshippers, and the genuine law and order types, in their count. Small wonder that they're likely to conclude that "a great majority" of them are law and order types. A great majority of pretty much anyone are law and order types.

Just above this comment

Just above this comment you're in a discussion where you insist on using "liberal" in one way despite its true history of being used in another way. I am all for splitting hairs about language sometimes, but that's not what this post is about. To refer to a "law and order" category has a pretty well understood meaning in political discussions.

Sure

It's a TV show, right?

The TV show

And the TV show purports to be about justice, the discovery, apprehension, and incarceration of criminals, and the protection of victims. The show has not, to my knowledge, advocated breaking the wrist of a child who has dropped a cake.

Law and order

Just above this comment you're in a discussion where you insist on
using "liberal" in one way despite its true history of being used in
another way.

I point out that its current use is such-and-such and that the original meaning is lost.

I am all for splitting hairs about language sometimes, but that's not what this post is about.

I am not splitting hairs. I explained in detail how it is that you are committing the fallacy of equivocation. Assuming you are not merely deluded.

To refer to a "law and order" category has a pretty well understood meaning in political discussions.

Based on your own assertions, I infer that you either equivocate, or else have a bizarre view of of people.

 

Law and Order

Constant: "Law and order type" covers too much and is too vague. If we take the ideas embedded in the words absolutely seriously, then I am a law and order type and so are you. Are you for indiscriminate mass murder? Are you for rampant burglary? No? You're actually against murder? Really??? Against murder??? Then you are a law and order type.

Suppose I, like you, am willing to take a stand against murder and burglary, but I also believe the following propositions:

  1. The overwhelming majority of existing laws are unjust (e.g. drug laws, tax laws, immigration laws, sex laws, etc.).
  2. Each and every one of us has an unconditional right to break those laws that are unjust
  3. Each and every police officer has a perfect duty to refuse to enforce those laws that are unjust
  4. The prima facie right to enforce just laws is conditional on the level of force used not exceeding limits imposed by a principle of proportionality.
  5. Each and every one of us has a prima facie right to evade or forcibly resist any police efforts to enforce an unjust law, or to enforce even a just law with disproportionate force, using any level of force up to the limits imposed by a principle of proportionality. In any case where one is at risk of imprisonment, these limits are very high.
  6. A person's status as a police officer does not affect considerations of proportionality: morally, they are due no special deference and they enjoy no special prerogatives in the use of force.

Would this make me a "genuine law and order type" under your definition? If so, I think your definition has nothing in particular to do with what the overwhelming majority of people actually mean when they identify themselves as "law and order types," even when those people are not specifically what you call "cop worshipers." I would suggest that pretty much any self-identified conservative "law and order type" (i.e. the folks Randall was referring to) would deny at least propositions 2, 3, 5, and 6, and probably also 1. And their reasons for denying 2, 3, 5, and 6 would be precisely that they are for "law and order," not for breaking laws, refusing orders, and resisting cops. Indeed, an alarming number of libertarians (especially minarchists, but even sometimes well-behaved anarchists, such as Randy Barnett) would be willing to deny at least some of 2, 3, 5, and 6, even though they clearly agree with me on 1.

Of course, "law" and "order" are both contested concepts. There is a (Spoonerite) sense of "law" and a (Proudhonian) sense of "order" in which I'd argue that justice and freedom not only are consistent with, but indeed both require and are required by, something that you could call "law and order." But the question is what purpose this kind of linguistic revision would serve, in context. It's certainly not what most self-identified "law and order types" mean by "law" or "order" or "law and order." What they mean is that they believe in certain fetishized practices with respect to law and order, and probably that they believe in adhering to those fetishized practices even at the cost of doing injustice or violating freedom. And if that's what "law and order" effectively means in most people's mouths, then "law and order" can go to hell. I would rather identify myself according to the values that I actually hold to be unconditional and fundamental, e.g. freedom, justice, self-ownership, individual rights, etc.

You caught too much

Rad Geek,

The overwhelming majority of existing laws are unjust (e.g. drug laws, tax laws, immigration laws, sex laws, etc.).

If you want to talk about people who support laws - and the enforcement of laws - that depart from the ideal law of a perfect libertarian minarchy, then I would argue that liberals are even more egregious offenders than conservatives. Your net is too wide if you're trying to defend Randall's remarks. You've gone and characterized left wing Democrats as the biggest law and order types of all.

 

 

Re: You caught too much

Constant,

1. I don't believe in a "the ideal law of a perfect libertarian minarchy." I regard that as an internally contradictory description.

2. I don't know what the comparative virtues or vices of modern liberals and American conservatives have to do with anything in Randall's remarks, or your response, or my complaint about your response.

Randall didn't make a comparative claim; he stated that most conservatives are "law and order types" in some objectionable sense. You then complained that "law and order types" "covers too much," "is too vague," "has been made flabby," and covers "a great majority" of American conservatives, but not for any reason that libertarians should find objectionable.

I think that the category you made up to respond to Randall, "genuine law and order types" (as opposed to "cop worshipers") either (a) is still limited to a set of views that libertarians, as such, ought to find objectionable (and which, by the way, are immediately relevant to the case discussed in the article above); or else (b) has nothing in particular to do with what either Randall meant by identifying most American conservatives as "law and order types," or what American conservatives usually mean when they identify themselves as "law and order types." In either case it's not an adequate response to Randall's comments.

Re Re

1. I don't believe in a "the ideal law of a perfect libertarian minarchy." I regard that as an internally contradictory description.

Then fill it in however you like. You mention that "the overwhelming majority of existing laws are unjust". So fill it in with "just law". Or if you don't like that formula then whatever else suits your fancy.

2. I don't know what the comparative virtues or vices of modern liberals and American conservatives have to do with anything in Randall's remarks, or your response, or my complaint about your response.

Randall singled out conservatives. That implies a comparison. It implies that his remarks hardly apply to any other group, but apply well to conservatives. There's an obvious implicit comparison. If you don't get that then I don't know what to say that will clarify for you.

In either case it's not an adequate response to Randall's comments.

Oh, it's far more than adequate. The only merely adequate response to Randall's comments is to ignore such tripe.

Here it is again:

I can't help thinking of the many conservatives out there who will think to themselves, "This girl was probably throwing the cake; she was probably disrespectful to the security squad; we need to show the rest of them that they can't get away with disrespect," or something similar. Who might not want to break a poor black kid's wrist themselves but who can look the other way if it happens once in a while. Who wish we would stop making a fuss.

Frankly such tripe doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response.

Re: Tripe

Constant: Randall singled out conservatives. That implies a comparison.

No, it doesn't. You may have imputed that comparative claim to him, but he didn't make it and I think your imputation goes beyond anything he actually implied.

Nor did he "single out conservatives" in the first place. He (1) made a statement about conservatives which had nothing to do with the category of "law and order types", to which (2) you replied with a remark about liberals, with which (3) Randall agreed, and to which he added a further observation that most conservatives where what he called "law and order types." At this point, (5) you replied with some remarks about "genuine law and order types" as against "cop worshipers," at which point (6) I objected to your discussion of "genuine law and order types" as non-responsive to Randall's point.

The only comparative statements that were at issue in this exchange were the ones that you made, in which you suggested that modern liberals were more to blame for the historical development of public education than conservatives were. A statement with which Randall agreed. And which had nothing to do with the latter discussion of "law and order types."

Constant: Frankly such tripe doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response.

Don't be disingenuous. If you didn't think it deserved a response then you would hardly be spending your time responding to it.

Absurd

No, it doesn't. You may have imputed that comparative claim to him, but
he didn't make it and I think your imputation goes beyond anything he
actually implied.

That's absurd. I've already explained why and you did not address my explanation, merely denied it.

He (1) made a statement about conservatives which had nothing to do with the category of "law and order types"

Actually it had a lot to do with that category, because he mentioned law and order types later in his restatement of his initial statement.

Don't be disingenuous. If you didn't think it deserved a response then you would hardly be spending your time responding to it.

That's also absurd. There is an obvious distinction between an argument that has some merit as a prima facie case which deserves a response, and a statement that is merely provocative.

Theater of the Absurd

Constant: That's absurd. I've already explained why and you did not address my explanation, merely denied it.

A bald claim that so-and-so's statements "imply" some comparative claim, different from the claim that he or she actually stated, is not the same thing as an "explanation" of how they imply it. You provided only the former, not the latter. Until you actually present a case for this position, I'm under no obligation to refute one.

One way that you could test whether such a comparison is indeed implied is by bringing up the comparative case and asking about it. As, for example, you did, when you mentioned the role that liberals have played in the history of public schooling. Since Randall then promptly agreed with your statement about liberals, it seems to me that it is uncharitable, if not simply dense, of you to go on imputing a comparative claim to him when he did not explicitly make that claim in the first place, and since he agreed with you when you presented a contrary comparative claim.

Constant: That's also absurd. There is an obvious distinction between an argument that has some merit as a prima facie case which deserves a response, and a statement that is merely provocative.

Yes, and you have manifested in your actions that you consider Randall's remarks to be the former, not the latter, since you responded to them. Turning around now to huff and puff about how the remarks that you responded to don't really merit a response is just rhetorical bluster.

That's the way I read it

I took his article as written, as a dig against many conservatives.   I didn't for a minute think that he was describing liberals.   The paragraph sounded like a stereotype of a conservative and not a liberal.    That he clarified later certainly informs us of his true mindset but the original article can still be criticized for not expressing that mindset.

Freeper reaction

I went looking for actual conservative reactions to this. Here's the Free Republic crowd reacting to it. The Free Republic is conservative central the way Daily Kos is leftist central - or was last time I checked.

Here is one Freeper, who makes the same distinction I made. My emphasis.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am a strict law and order man. I have no problems with cops as such. What I do object to is allowing overgrown adolescents to possess a badge and gun and allowing them to bully innocent people. I object to the double standard of justice that many cops insist upon. I object to institutionalized bullying under color of authority. I object to cops who consider everyone else to be “civilians”. I object to police who harass, brutalize, and otherwise violate the rights of innocent people.

That guy, as he describes himself in that passage, is what I called a genuine law and order type, and not a cop worshipper. Don't you find it curious that a category that I supposedly "made up" happens to delineate the very distinctions that law and order types themselves make? Why, you might almost think that I actually know what I'm talking about, that I'm not inventing my own new categories but faithfully conveying how people really think. Meanwhile, you might almost think that Randall doesn't know what he's talking about.

Re: Freepers Against Police Brutality

I stated six points on which I think that my views, and the views of many other libertarians, differ from those who are likely to call themselves "law and order types." The comments from a single Freeper which you quoted above touch on at most one of those points (#6, if that is what he means by "I object to the double standard of justice," which is by no means clear). So, again, I do not see what this has to do with my objections to the way you have drawn the categories.

If you intend your categories to lump together (A) people who believe in breaking the vast majority of existing laws, who believe that cops should refuse orders to enforce the vast majority of existing laws, who believe that in many cases law-breakers should feel free to evade or forcibly resist cops' efforts to enforce the law when and if it's prudent to do so, etc., with (B) those who believe that people should generally follow laws even if those laws are unjust, that cops should generally enforce the laws even if those laws are unjust, and that people have a duty to submit to cops even when the laws are unjust, then I submit that your categorization is bogus. I further submit that your categorization does not accurately reflect what Randall meant when he said that most conservatives are "law and order types." I further submit that the way that most conservative "law and order types" actually think. If you think your quotation does something to dislodge this claim then you need to make clearer how it does so.

If you don't intend your categories to lump these two together, but only to include group (B) and not group (A), then I submit that your attempt to delineate categories is not bogus, but also is not responsive to Randall's claims about conservatives or "law and order types." He claimed (1) that "many" conservatives make excuses for, or attempt to minimize worry over, police brutality -- which is an true empirical generalization not overturned by pointing out a single counterexample on the Internet -- and (2) that most conservatives are "law and order types" in some sense that should be objectionable to libertarians as such -- which is not disproved by pointing out the distinction between those who commit certain errors, and those who commit those same errors while also being raving sociopaths.

Incidentally, it would help discussion if you'd actually respond to the dilemma presented. What do you mean by "genuine law and order types"? Do you mean it in the first sense, which I characterize as uselessly broad, or the second sense, which I characterize as non-responsive to Randall's claim? Until you actually make it more clear what you mean when you say "genuine law and order types," it remains rather mysterious what you mean when you try to argue that being a "law and order type" isn't something objectionable.

About my comments, not yours

I stated six points on which I think that my views, and the views of
many other libertarians, differ from those who are likely to call
themselves "law and order types." The comments from a single Freeper which you quoted above touch on at most one of those points

Indeed you did. However, I was talking about my comments, not yours. You don't get to be my interpreter. I'm not going to go through your comments to get to mine, treat your comments as a proper exegesis of mine.

Until you actually make it more clear what you mean when you say
"genuine law and order types," it remains rather mysterious what you
mean when you try to argue that being a "law and order type" isn't
something objectionable.

My description was adequate to my own purpose, which was to explain what it was about Randall's statement that made it slippery. If you take "law and order type" one way, then you can conclude that a law and order type would tend to side with the school guard. But at the same time, the membership of the "law and order type" would be very, very small. If you took "law and order type" another way, then the membership would be quite a bit larger, but then you could not conclude that a law and order type would tend to side with the school guard.

Randall didn't actually specify how he meant "law and order type". My argument centered on this fact. Interestingly, you now want me to specify a precise concept of "law and order type". But I think the distinction I have already made is adequate to my purpose. A purpose which you appear not to get.

 

Re: About my comments, not yours

Constant: My description was adequate to my own purpose, which was to explain what it was about Randall's statement that made it slippery. If you take "law and order type" one way, then you can conclude that a law and order type would tend to side with the school guard. But at the same time, the membership of the "law and order type" would be very, very small. If you took "law and order type" another way, then the membership would be quite a bit larger, but then you could not conclude that a law and order type would tend to side with the school guard.

Yes, and I gave some specific reasons why this "another way" in which "law and order type" might be understood failed to do the argumentative work that you would like it to do. These reasons specifically had to do with its being underspecified in such a way that it either (a) misrepresented what self-described "law and order types" mean by the phrase "law and order type," by redefining the term so as to lump in many people with diametrically opposed views; or else (b) failed to demonstrate any equivocation by Randall and failed to give any reasons to doubt Randall's conclusions as stated by him.

You are, of course, free to engage with or not to engage with any given criticism of your argument. However, it seems to me that if you want to introduce a distinction for the purpose of analysis and criticism, then it is your responsibility to actually make sure that the terms you distinguish are at least precise enough to do the work you want them to do. Since you have resolutely evaded rather than engaged with a set of reasons given to think that you have failed to do this, even when directly asked to clarify the intended meaning of terms that you set out to introduce, it severely undermines your attempt to use this delineation in order to make any kind of point against Randall.

Incidentally, I can find no textual support for your claim here that Randall would "conclude that a law and order type would tend to side with the school guard." What he said is that "many conservatives" (apparently because they are "law and order types," as he, not you, understands that term) "might not want to break a poor black kid's wrist themselves but who can look the other way if it happens once in a while," "wish we would stop making a fuss," and express an attitude that "gets you the Gestapo." Lots of people, including self-identified "law and order types," may wring their hands about obvious abuses of police power. But if they still support the attitudes and practices that make those abuses well-nigh inevitable, then so what?

Was that guy even enforcing a law?

You made a whole bunch of points that don't seem to apply to this case, is there some law about picking every crumb off the floor that I don't know about?  So with your list exactly which ones apply?   Not 1), 2), 3), 4), or 5) because there was no law being broken.   So that leaves 6) which the Freeper addressed with several of his sentences.

Law and Order Types

I had always taken the phrase "Law and Order type" to be an attempt to distinguish themselves from the kind of determinist who tries to look for the cause of the crime in everything but the criminal.    They oppose the liberal concept of the crime being due to society and not the individual. 

Rings a bell

That sounds pretty familiar. I think like most terms, it could mean different things, depending on the context. What I was objecting to was not a particular meaning but what looked like an equivocation between different meanings.

Please continue

I'll grab some popcorn.

Getting tired

I suppose I should not have risen to the bait in the first place. Randall's provocative fulfillment of Godwin's law should have been left alone to begin with.

I'm gone for a few hours...

Typing "law and order" into WikiPedia's search yields:

Law and Order
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Law and order)
• Have questions? Find out how to ask questions and get answers. •
Jump to: navigation, search
Law and Order may refer to:
* Law and order (politics), a term common in political debate and discussion, generally indicating support of a strict criminal justice system
...

I know that doesn't clear up everything, but a big part of this seems to hinge that that phrase being commonly used in a predetermined sense or not. I too object to it from a linguistic standpoint; I think the "criminal justice system" is generally opposed to "law and order". But language is a common pet.
Constant, you sound like you object as well to the current use of "conservative". How would you retitle these two terms?

EDIT: Didn't add that I don't find the two categories of "genuine L&O" and "cop worshiper" to mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Maybe they are and I just don't know it.

The only solution for the individual....

what is a real answer to how this can be stopped?
...is to get your kids out of such schools.