2 votes

Let's Stop Using Collectivism Against the Police

I've known several policemen over the course of my life and have met a few more during traffic stops. Most of them have been very cordial and polite to me with a few exceptions.

I have watched numerous appalling videos on YouTube where individual policemen did horrendous things to their victims. However, I would argue that videos where police do good things are rarely uploaded - such as the one where Deputy Sheriff Stan Lenic stood up for TSA protesters' 1st Amendment rights in Albany International Airport. Accordingly, bias is supported and created against law enforcement through the disproportionate coverage of the bad elements.

Let's not rush to judgement and treat individuals differently based upon prevailing stereotypes. Every individual deserves fair consideration before becoming labeled.

Collectivism only alienates and does nothing to further libertarian causes. Collectivism goes completely against libertarian philosophy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

what is the difference between

your definition of collectivism
and the definition of stateism?

Statism is a word that

Statism is a word that describes the worship/faith in/love of the state, wheras collectivism is the term which describes the power structure of it.

In an Individualist society, while there may be a state, using "Statism" to describe affection for it would be sketchy because the Individualist does not "love" the state, but instead considers it a neccessary evil. That may be a neccessity that is fading to many Individualists. However, I suppose an individualist who is proud of his nation because of the freedoms, prosperity and liberty enjoyed by safeguarding rights could be called a "patriot."

Its important to note that there are only two forms of government we know of; Individualism and Collectivism. Individualism can be applied to stateless capitalism, or a "very" small Republic. So long as the society is based around unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and the governing body (if any) has no right to violate any without the individual having first deprived another as per crime.

Collectivism encompasses all the rest. This is true because it doesn't matter how the state violates, assigns and withdraws rights from individuals as per the differances in communism, socialism and facism. No matter how they apply their force and crimes against innocent people, it is the violation of individual rights by "law" that defines collectivism. The love of those institutions is statism.

So your contention is that government is the collective?

Is that right?
Since you are speaking of law...let's parse out the legal truth of it all.

If one has a controversy with the government, can one name members of the community(the collective) as the adversary in a court action?
-No, one must to name the government...

So "the collective" is not a player in the game. On one side you have an individual and on the other side you have the government.

(I am going to use the word society in place of collective because, I think the notion of collective cannot accurately apply to human beings.)

Government is a legally distinct militant entity that rules over society.
-The government is composed of the legislature and whomever the legislature employs to carry out their will.
-The one attribute that separates government from any one that composes society is that it claims the power to harm with legal impunity.
-It can take what it wants, when it wants, how it wants and is not obligated to provide anything in return.
-society is obligated to obey government, but government not obligated to obey society.

If you doubt the last point ask:
Under the current system...
Is the legislature legally obligated to obey your commands, or are you legally obligated to obey the legislatures commands?

We can expand the terms and they still come out the same.

Is the legislature legally obligated to obey the whole of society's commands or is the whole of society legally obligated to obey the legislatures commands?

The correct answer is the whole of society must obey the legislature.
You can test the theory, simply disobey the legislature or their employees and see what happens...they'll put you in a cage, and if you resist, they'll put you in the ground. And they're more than happy to do so 24/7.

"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins."- Thomas Paine

No need to convince me, I am

No need to convince me, I am an objectivist capitalist in favor of a stateless, free-market society. In my opinion, there really is no such thing as an individualist government because to even exist, a government must violate our right to property via taxation. So even if you had a tiny republic of angels, they'd still be 100% trampling your natural rights by their very existance.

However I should point out im not talking about "collective groups" when I say Collectivism. A lot of people seem to not realize that "collectivism" and "individualism" refer to forms of government; each defined by where rights originate. It is not the distinction between one person or a group of people/animals/anything. Collectivism does not mean you are categorizing people/objects by common traits; Collectivism means a political system where rights originate from the state which considers the rights of the many to outweigh the rights of the individual (in reality, the rights of the slave are sacrificed for the greed of the rulers). In essence, collectivism is the slave/master society, and there can never be freedom in collectivism.

You could get "near" with a tiny republic which is chained by a vigilant populace, however history prooves that such vigilance is fleeting, and sooner or later, that monster will be let off the leash. Further, the freer a society is, the more wealth it produces. The more wealth it produces, the more dangerous and powerful its unleashed government will be. Therefore, the most dangerous form of government possible was the one our founders created. It created such amazing wealth and technology that when people went to sleep at the wheel, we opened up the possiblity for a truly horrific Orwelleon nightmare. A total suveilance state with which can never be voted out, and literally has the power to hide in bunkers and wipe all life off the surface of the planet if it feels threatened. Government truly is the bane of free humanity, the great enemy of our species, and we will never enter a golden age of freedom and explore the stars until we are free of collectivism and the horrors of this monster known as government.

If you're up for a scholarly conversation I would like to

challenge & clarify some of the concepts you brought up.
I ask because I have learned that many people don't enjoy those kinds of discussions and my intention is to have some thought provoking enjoyment :)

Love it! Shoot.

Love it! Shoot.

just curious, how old are you?

And I mean that with no disrespect. I am young and have had police officers give me really hard times and try and trap me in corners... on several occasions. Most police encounters I have had they are rude and assume I am doing something illegal. Although I have also met some very nice, curtious police officers as well, just in rarer occasion.

I ask this because after each of these occurrences I talked to my parents about it and they said they have never been treated that way by an officer. I am guessing it is because they know older people (older, as in relative to me)will not stand for that kind of treatment. I am 25 years old but most the scenarios I am referring to I was 17-22. Just interested if some of yall have had similar experiences.

proverbs 20:15
There is gold, and an abundance of jewels;
But the lips of knowledge are a more precious thing.

I am 25 and mixed encounters

I am 25 and mixed encounters with cops although I have only had to deal with them a couple of times, mostly at traffic stops. I think it varies greatly by where you live as well, small town cops are usually more down to earth than major cities. The UT and WI highway patrol have been really polite actually.

The only times I have been really harassed was when one came to my door for a noise complaint because I had a movie on too loud. He was a dick and asked all kinds of stupid questions like "Its pretty cold out why did you come out in a sleeveless shirt and close the door behind you?" I just shrugged my shoulders and said, "Its what I do." and he finally left.

I did work as a security guard when I was 19 though and had to call the cops because we had a gang fight at the pool I worked at. The cop finally showed up 20 min later after I had to deal with it myself and almost got attacked with a 2x4. The cops showed up and treated me like trash because I was only security and acted like I was wasting his time. He was actually pissed there was nothing going on even though the situation ended 15 min ago when he should have showed up. Lol all the kids at the pool used to call me the "2.5" cause I was security and half of the "5-0".

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Same age as you, and same

Same age as you, and same experiences. 17-22 was filled with terrible encounters with police. Now I just ignore and stay away. I don't speed and I keep myself out of situations that could involve police cause I know first hand, they'll beat your face into the ground and charge you with assaulting an officer.

You barely hear about the good stuff cops do because it is so rare. This type of behavior comes from the top and infiltrates all the officers minds. The very few who do believe in the constitution and human rights are insignificant in the police state. They don't stand up to the thugs who murder innocent people and they don't stand up to the thugs who run their departments. Police don't need more people defending them.

It's not a question of collectivism.

It's a question of principle.

The *reason* people wear a uniform and carry a badge is to do things that would be unacceptable (i.e., immoral, bad, evil) for regular people to do, but without consequences. If someone with a uniform and a badge happens to do something good and praiseworthy, they could just as well do it without the uniform and the badge, and anyone could (or at least should) be able to do the same thing.

There are lots of bad consequences of accepting the notion of authority. Not the least of these is that regular people stand by and do nothing when they have every justification for doing good and praiseworthy things---like standing up to the individual thugs in uniform with badges who happen to be doing the evil things they are outfitted to do.

This has nothing to do with collectivism. It has everything to do with principle. Serving the government as a policeman or a soldier has a corrupting influence on all individuals because it is a corrupt activity in principle. An honest and thoughtful cop or soldier will recognize and readily admit this.

Amen

Spoken like a true lover of liberty!

how about..

let's collectively hate POLICE, aka LAW ENFORCEMENT. and not collectively hate sheriffs and constitutional PEACE KEEPERS...
there is a huge difference.

Sheriffs are not "police".

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

deacon's picture

Sheriffs

Make their money just as the city cops do,it comes out of the city coffers,and it gets voted on the same way.
Sheriffs uphold all laws that are created by the states.
Sheriffs uphold the,ordinances,codes and statutes of the cites they reside in
or around.
Some sheriff's dpt receive fed gov funding,and some help the feds break the laws in their own jurisdiction
Sheriffs are bailiffs in court,they help throw citizens in jail for victimless crimes,But do not arrest the judges for their own crimes.
Sheriffs lie in wait and hand out speeding tickets,and they uphold dog ordinances.
I see little difference in most sheriffs when compared to city/state cops
Ours here,actually break the 2nd amendment on a daily basis,then say"it is how we have always done it" or this one "we were told to"
The people who think they elect these people think they are there to help them out,and to protect them,most do not

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Okay,

As long as we continue to hate police.

"I'm Ron Paul." - Ron Paul

I don't see this as a black and white issue either--

but I'm concerned about 'trends'--about what appears to be an increasingly violent police state--

and increasingly apathetic "people" who are Americans.

I don't hate policemen, but I have grown very wary of them.

I think they over-react in many cases, and something that happened recently in our neighborhood showed that. Maybe a problem was taken care of, and maybe nobody was killed (though injured perhaps), but there was definitely more power shown than was needed for the incident.

I agree that collectivizing is a grave concern.

Perhaps there are a lot of 'good guys' who work for the Federal Reserve. Maybe some of the elite bankers don't cheat on their wives and would not run down a little old lady in the street.

But where a person works can make a difference even if he/she is a very good person.

I know a lot of good public school teachers, too, but in that system, even with very good ones, public schools are still not terribly successful, and there are enormous problems.

So, I don't know if the fact that many people who love liberty are wary of policeman is really the problem here.

I know a policeman; he is in our church. He has a big family and a nice smile. I find myself hoping he's not acting like a thug. But I know he thinks a lot of himself.

No easy answer on this one.

For the record, I don't "hate" policemen/women. But when an old man (unknown to us; we witnessed it though) with DUI equipment on his car--

goes off the wagon and drives drunk and is sitting in a driveway, muddled, begins to back out slowly--

is it necessary for a policeman to pull a gun on him, drag him out of the car (he did not resist; he was quite old, and it was very cold), put him down on the ground (in bitter cold) and handcuff him--

?

I think those machines for drunk driving are probably a very good idea, and I understand that the police needed to apprehend him.

But why did they have to go so far?

Was there any promise that that gun wouldn't go off and hit the window of a neighbor?

Was he going to use that gun, and on a man who was not resisting?

This just happened in our VERY quiet neighborhood last week; the man driving drunk just happened down our street and turned into a driveway there (nobody there knows him) to turn around. Maybe the police thought he was going to give them a chase, but there was no chase in him.

There were four police cars needed for this. I don't drink, and I don't believe those who drink should drive, but I felt this was very much 'over the top'.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I like your answer

thanks for sharing it.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

thanks, QS--

I think the collectivizing is very wrong; there are bound to be men and women of honor who are in municipal police forces.

But it would be very good if (ha, if) the policemen in America were like the ones in Japan. They often, usually, ride bikes. They carry no weapons, and they help people, and the crime rate is very low there.

However, it is probably because of the drug 'war' that policemen have turned into soldiers. Sad.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I agree

thanks for putting this out there.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

I gave a thumbs

up but it didn't show up.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Good luck with the argument

There are a lot of cop haters here. You cannot make the case that cops are individuals, with many people. Freedom philosophy does not apply to cops. They are enforcing bad laws, or are certain to break laws, or break laws by being cops, so they are guilty.

People may arrive at the conclusion by long experience, or an unconventional understanding of what constitutes "real" law (not shared by most judges, lawyers and cops), but they will not recognize the "all cops are bad" conclusion as an exception to, or contradiction of, consistent thinking and application of principles to individuals.

All cops are bad comes first, then a flood of theory to justify the conclusion.

You frame the question like you have run into this.

deacon's picture

Cops might be individuals

But they cease to be upon putting on the uniform.
They then become part of their own collective,where the
brotherhood comes first.A close second would be following bad laws,that
some of them do not follow themselves.
As far as freedom is concerned,do the cops want freedom? or are more inclined
to steal that from another?..Remember cops can carry any manner of protection
they deem necessary to protect their own lives,BUT,will throw anyone else in jail for doing the same thing.
Here is a few examples,they carry full auto rifles,they carry tazers,and some have military hardware. In this state a tazer will get you jail time,and a fine.
We are not second class citizens who have to bow and worship the state,and all the henchmen they hire,this is though,the opposite of freedom and liberty

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Glad you're on this thread

Well said.

"I'm Ron Paul." - Ron Paul

individuals

who make individual choices to either support tyranny or fight it.

the same as the people who were tried in Nuremberg. "just doing their jobs".

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

You're making my

point.

I agree

That everyone should be treated as an individual first. That being said these individuals are pawns of the state, specifically violent pawns. Their job is put people into a cage if they violate a few arbitrary laws.

This is the problem. Everyone's a "nice guy with a family." The President I'm sure is a "nice guy," and is plenty cordial. Like police, the President and other power seeking individuals will strip you of your rights, steal from you, lie to you, while smiling to your face telling you how they just helped you out.

It's like when the cop pulls you over for speeding 5 mph over and he acts like you should thank him and tell him he's just the best cop in the world because he wrote you a seat belt ticket instead.

"Do you not realize you just stuck your hand in my wallet, pullet out $90 and handed it over to the gang over at city hall? THANKS"

So I agree, there are a lot of nice cops, good guys. But they lie cheat and steal for a living. So they're as good as they can get..

They are the storm troopers. They are the ones who will be knocking on your door to confiscate your guns. They are the chief violators of natural law and the constitution.

Good people don't enforce bad laws.

Cops are required to enforce ALL the laws.

Most of the laws are oppressive and unjust.

Is it even POSSIBLE to keep your hands clean, and keep your job, as a cop?

I'm going to say, "no."

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Not only that

But good people don't sit by and watch as others commit horrendous crimes against people.

Moreoever, good people don't cover up for these violent acts.

In other words, if you are a cop and you watch and/or cover up for a horrendous act you are NOT a good cop and not a good person.

The same is really true for anybody but I stress cops since we're talking about cops.

120% correct

You have the best, straight to the point comment on here.

from my personal experience

most are just like the ones in all the youtube videos.

but yeah the bad 95% give the good 5% a bad name.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
#standwithrand

ouch!

you have a precision blade friend... keep it sharp. :)