Not referring to how the west (in particular the #4thReich) bullies all sorts of countries into living under its thumb, but rather the kind that is very unlikely to generate such blow back as 9/11, #Brussels, #London, #Munich, #Paris (in Alphanumerical order). If you disagree with how your neighbor treats his family, by all means stand up for them, and arrange an intervention (with permission of the family)
Btw: no, it wasn’t the Arabs that hated America for their freedoms, it was the “Bushians” that hated American freedoms, given how they used that tragedy to impose the (unconstitutional) Patriot Act, which cancelled so many freedoms (and protections) Americans enjoyed.
Ps: isn’t a president inaugurated by swearing to uphold the constitution? By signing such a flagrant violation of the constitution into law, didn’t Bush2 nullify his regime? (Nullifying the Patriot Act itself, and every other thing he signed before and since)
Wstching this vid, and hearing Mr. Jordan mention “Afraid of getting caught”, I got inspired to write the following:
“Afraid of getting caught” describes the contemporary justice system to a T, which is why there is so much “crime” (victimless). Legal crime isn’t about doing wrong or harm, but about displeasing some MP. It’s not about committing misdeeds. Which is why people feel no qualms about committing the “crimes”. All punishment for crimes is limited to the consequences of getting caught. Your conscience will not nag at you for any actual wrong-doing, because none has been committed. This will transfer to actual (harm causing) misdeeds, escalating into a dog eat dog criminal society.
Since the #state legitimizes itself by #law, this question follows: what gives it the right to do so? And why should anyone obey its laws?
Sincerely, I have not even the faintest idea (well, there’s the matter of gruesome violence)
At around 12:09 you’ll see a piece of this ruling:
A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide… police protection to any individual citizen.
Warren v District of Columbia
(444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct of Ap., 1981))
Makes me wonder why not every cop in the country resigned in protest: “I only joined the force to help people, but now that it the court has ruled that that’s not my job, I don’t want to know what my actual job is, then. So I quit!”
Actually, I have an idea why: cops are America’s fastest growing class of millionaires
Also makes me wonder what on earth the reason is, that any single citizen still accepts the existence of the nation, since its purpose is not to defend the people – that make up the only reason for the existence of the nation
But the people are forced (at gunpoint, if necessary) to pay for the cowardly, powermad leaches. That is why a stateless society: no business could get away with that; they’d go bankrupt, because nobody would pay them; no income, yet high expenses means:
Now here’s a police that wil only handle crime, not non-crime (like drugs thus causing actual crime)
If anyone wishes to have a police fight victinless crimes like drugs, they can pay for it themselves. And they will be personally held responsible for the crimes they caused (causing the rise of new Al Capones).
So this is by far the most democratic form of policing possible: because the current system of not listening to the sources of funding (the population) and even endangering them (by means of encouraging (gun-) fights between gangs, which may lead to needless ancilliary deaths among the population, or even simply by:
Making it harder to buy quality drugs that don’t send users tripping into their graves. (That’s a risk of forcing suplpliers underground).
A market operator like TM Eye will not categorize behaviour as criminal when they aren’t crimes, just because they enjoy forcing their opinions down the throats of extortion victims (tsx payers)
Apart from the fact that punishment has nothing to do with proper justice (that should concern itself with helping the victim, not with punishing the perpetrator).
But suppose that the perpetrator can’t remember having committed any crime? In that case, punishing someone makes even less sense. What is to be gained from that?
The robber might have suffered a nasty fall and bumped his head during the robbery, and nor know he is punished. How coud poiticians call that a correction? The poor fella has no,idea what’s being corrected. Just make sure he returns the stolen property to the victim, and any repairs to the victim’s property are paid for by the robber.
What do British public officers have with tall hats? Surely, they’re cumbersome. So the purpose they serve must be image-related.
The traditional Bobby’s hat: