Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
whats with people wanting to constantly have the gov in every issue. read a history book on our fore fathers, thats def not what they wanted. they wanted the exact opposite. smaller gov = bigger freedoms, has not one culture learned this yet. instead of taking personal responsibility people want the gov to be responsible for every aspect of our lives. why so they dont have to take responsibility and so they can blame someone other than themselves for their problems and mistakes. with personal freedom comes personal responsibility.
I understand what you are saying to a point...though Freedom is only truly free if someone else's freedom doesnt impede yours....How often does that not happen.
Back in the good ole days gentleman sealed an agreement with a handshake...then someone reneged on a deal consumated by the handshake so the next time gentleman brought a friend to witness; things were no better the second time around so the gentleman brought the issue in front of a third party to mediate his dispute; the third party felt that a certain protocal should be followed when consumating a deal with a handshake and thus rules should be written on how the handshake should occur. Since the witnesses had observed handshakes.. they went back and studied how handshakes were done and began to write rules.... rules on how to conduct a handshake..whose hand should be on top, whether the grip should be firm or weak.. one shake, two or three. The Witnesses then recommended to the Third Party that all handshakes to be overseen by a witness well versed in how to conduct a handshake and the witnesses should be paid for their time. Now the gentleman were scared.. they never wanted to shake hands in agreement with another gentleman without a witness.. for if you didnt have a witness then the agreement behind the handshake could be miscostrued and could land the 'witnessless' gentleman in trouble. Then a witness said.. 'enough is enough' someone needs to take on these other witnesses and how they have now over complicated a simple handshake.. gentleman...if you support me I will take on these other witnesses who have now made a simple handshake a complicated endeavor...vote for me and I will reduce the amount of red tape and rules governing handshakes and protect your agreements...but you need another witness one whom has bear witness to some of the unscrupulous deeds of these witnesses....
The rest is history...
Last edited by Woodlands; 09-08-2010 at 01:31 PM..
there should only be one rule in america in order to call ourselves free: you should be able to do whatever you want when you want as long as it does not hurt anyone else or their property. problem solved woodlands
there should only be one rule in america in order to call ourselves free: you should be able to do whatever you want when you want as long as it does not hurt anyone else or their property. problem solved woodlands
That would almost equate to a Darwinian evolutionary concept, although physical damage would be allowed by natural selection (i.e. "survival of the fittest") without absolute moral authority. Not sure I like that notion of "freedom".
Of course, the problem with your idea is that there will always be lawbreakers.
oh yeah there always will be lawbreakers and you will have to deal with them. but there would be a lot less law breakers because they know that the majority of people arent going to put up with it. (notice our right to bear arms). what keeps you from cutting in lines at the store. its not a cop its everyone else in that line. so yeah we could live with just the rule of you can do what you want as long as you dont damage anyone or their property. its the only way to actually be free. and darwin has nothing to do with this. it would just take people who are willing to take personal responsibility for themselves and their freedoms
I see pros and cons with the whole City-County Law Enforcement Merger. Either they need to do what they have done in other communities and have both the City and the County appoint a Commissioner and let the Sheriff simply be responsible for the Courts, Jails, Warrant, Evictions, etc or have a very tightly worded contract with the Sheriff over how the CPD would be run. The benefit to the broader community is huge since CPD and the Sheriff's Deputies could patrol both City and County and not pay attention to the municipal lines. Seems like you would get more Law Enforcement for the money.
Sounds like something needs to be done as regards law enforcement in the area, from reading this article about the local crime problem.
Columbia’s 2009 crime rate bucks national trend - Crime & Courts - TheState.com (http://www.thestate.com/2010/09/14/1464040/columbias-2009-crime-rate-bulks.html - broken link)
While the national and state rate of crimes have been dropping, Columbia has been going the opposite way.
Maybe this merger would work to benefit all in the area?
As the article says, last year violent crime in Columbia was down 23% from the year before, and so far for 2010 it's down 9% from this time last year. Ever heard of a blip?
As the article says, last year violent crime in Columbia was down 23% from the year before, and so far for 2010 it's down 9% from this time last year. Ever heard of a blip?
Maybe you read a different article? Last year was 2009 and per this article, violent crime was up 24%, not down.
Quote from article: But the news for Columbia wasn’t so good. In 2009, the capital city’s reported violent crimes rose 24 percent, and its reported property crimes rose 13 percent, compared to statistics from 2008.
This is one of the benefits of having a new Mayor or atleast one that is not a product of the local politics. It offers the opportunity for a fresh start in terms of dealing with some of the neighboring communities especially if the individuals is geniune in their interest to work with the surrounding jurisdictions.. which it appears Benjamin is interested in doing so. This only make sense and should have been done decades ago. I guess is better late than never...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
