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.
As I've said in other threads, police officers would be safer, better respected and treated better if we would quit making them tax collectors.
Agree with that 100%, but in this case, I think it's more an attitude of "You've got to prove that you're getting results" rather than the actual amount of money involved. Like, they have to write a certain number of tickets every shift to justify their paychecks.
We don't need any laws, but I won't really get into that. Yes most laws are stupid. All laws are just an opinion backed by the threat of violence, and most of those opinions are very idiotic and unnecessary. "I don't think people should be allowed to own such and such in this territory. If a lot of people agree with me, we can threaten to cage or kill anyone who disagrees."
Exactly. What's ironic is the vast majority of people who call for these laws would think of themselves as "non-violent" and then are appalled when police use excessive force. People need to realize that when they vote for new laws or call for new "regulations" or "user fees" that is a USE OF FORCE against the rest of us.
Because ultimately if I think Sally Soccermom's new law is dumb and I don't want to follow it, armed government officials are going to intimidate me through the threat of overwhelming physical violence into falling into line. 99% of criminally minded people don't follow the law because of some words written on a piece of paper by some government bureaucrat or politician, they follow the law because heavily armed individuals are willing to use force, up to and including deadly force, to gain compliance.
The next time you're shocked by some "JBT" using excessive force think about the idiotic law that probably put all the players in that drama in that particular scene. Eric Garner died in large part because there was a law on the books that said what he was doing was illegal despite the fact he was harming exactly zero people. Did the cops use too much force? Hell yes, but if you stop thinking of the government as some special entity and realize they are just a large gang it will make sense why they did. The government uses force and intimidation to gain compliance. Every single law is backed by the threat of violence, if it wasn't no one would listen to it. So when Eric Garner did not immediately comply with police orders the cops have to act and hit hard. Why? Because if they don't that sets a precedent doesn't it? If people see that they can break that law and disregard police orders without anything really happening to them, well then they begin to wonder what other laws they can get away with breaking.
Some people still disobey the law even with the threat of violence, some even get violent back. We ask these cops, mostly young men, to roll into these potentially dangerous situations (even what seems to be routine traffic stops can turn lethal) with their adrenaline pumping to enforce hundreds if not thousands of inane and meaningless laws and then expect that nothing bad should ever happen. We put cops in almost impossible situations and the answer isn't more laws on the cops, it's less laws for the rest of us. Cops potentially put their lives on the line with every call they answer. It's hard on the cops and it's hard on the rest of us. No one (cops or civilians) should ever die because the law that was broken was selling untaxed cigarettes.
So the next time you say "there ought to be a law..." just remember that if you follow that statement up with concrete action in the voting booth you are using force and you are asking a cop to use force on your behalf to enforce that law. Maybe we as a society should stop turning to the government for every little thing and we wouldn't be in such a mess. Deaths like Eric Garner's are tragedies but what is even more tragic is that most people never look beyond the tip of the iceberg to find the root cause of the situation.
Whose rights are violated if I don't wear a helmet or a seatbelt? Do you really believe those laws are in place because the government cares about you? Those are clearly just fund raiser laws.
Those laws are there to save the state (or town) money in emergency services. If you're in an accident and you can walk away because you were wearing a seatbelt or helmet, it costs the state/town less than if your brains are plastered across the pavement. I've got no problem with that.
Those laws are there to save the state (or town) money in emergency services. If you're in an accident and you can walk away because you were wearing a seatbelt or helmet, it costs the state/town less than if your brains are plastered across the pavement. I've got no problem with that.
When am I going to see lower taxes because of all the money Mommy and Daddy State have been saving me with their helmet and seat belt laws? What are they using all of these "savings" on? Probably more cops on the road so they can enforce their cool new laws. Not to mention governments waste the vast majority of their budgets, almost nothing the government does is needed. If we cut back the government there would be plenty left over to scrap brains off the pavement. Part of my freedom and self ownership is taken from me when I can't decide to wear a seat belt or not and I don't trust the gangsters running the state to use that money wisely.
Most laws are made on emotions and feel good reactions, not based upon individual freedom and choice.
The threat of government punishment, rings tones from King George.
A lot of laws shouldn't exist but man's selfishness, greedy, or lack of common sense necessitated them. For instance, a law to curb texting while driving. Common sense would tell you that taking your eyes of the road while traveling 80 MPH is quite dangerous. But too many accidents from idiots mad them pass laws to prohibit such.
Those laws are there to save the state (or town) money in emergency services. If you're in an accident and you can walk away because you were wearing a seatbelt or helmet, it costs the state/town less than if your brains are plastered across the pavement. I've got no problem with that.
Maybe the people who kill themselves in such a way save us from them breeding any more idiot spawn, and they don't collect social security either, so it evens out.
Those laws are there to save the state (or town) money in emergency services. If you're in an accident and you can walk away because you were wearing a seatbelt or helmet, it costs the state/town less than if your brains are plastered across the pavement. I've got no problem with that.
Meh, I don't know about the state but it certainly saves insurance companies money.......dead men don't pay premiums.
A lot of laws shouldn't exist but man's selfishness, greedy, or lack of common sense necessitated them. For instance, a law to curb texting while driving. Common sense would tell you that taking your eyes of the road while traveling 80 MPH is quite dangerous. But too many accidents from idiots mad them pass laws to prohibit such.
So how many lives have been saved from texting laws, or do people still text and drive?
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.
