Interesting article on law/freedom

[rok-the-boat]

http://mises.org/daily/4815

Mauzy puts into words what most everyone already senses on some level; police aren't angels and usually aren't friends. He addresses the well-known fact that from birth we are told by the government that cops are the public's greatest ally, existing to "protect and serve." We can see that this indoctrination has been effective whenever voters applaud increases in the number of cops on the streets. Unfortunately, more cops means more severe enforcement of arbitrary laws and greater violations of property rights. Mauzy reminds readers that when it is you who is being harassed and ticketed for minor violations of traffic laws, you tend to see officers as more of a threat to your freedom and your wallet. In a country obsessed with exalting cities' armed revenue collectors, this article is immensely valuable.

[SPman]

Well - the USA is, by any definition these days, a police state - not up there with the worst, but, slowly and inexorably getting there.
This seems to be the trend in most "Western" countries, Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia are moving in the same direction - authoritarian rule by fear and intimidation rather than consent!

Another article on a similar theme
http://www.counterpunch.org/kent12142010.html

[p.dath]

http://mises.org/daily/4815


What a load of rubbish. There are always extremes, and this person is taking one of them.

They have probably even convinced themselves there point of view is the only one that exists.

[Ronin]

http://mises.org/daily/4815

Mauzy puts into words what most everyone already senses on some level; police aren't angels and usually aren't friends. He addresses the well-known fact that from birth we are told by the government that cops are the public's greatest ally, existing to "protect and serve." We can see that this indoctrination has been effective whenever voters applaud increases in the number of cops on the streets. Unfortunately, more cops means more severe enforcement of arbitrary laws and greater violations of property rights. Mauzy reminds readers that when it is you who is being harassed and ticketed for minor violations of traffic laws, you tend to see officers as more of a threat to your freedom and your wallet. In a country obsessed with exalting cities' armed revenue collectors, this article is immensely valuable.

Now see, that's interesting. I agree with your earlier post and the material it referenced. This one, not so much. "Arbitrary Laws?" Surely by definition, in a democracy the laws are what the majority agree upon. At the very least, they have given the people making the laws the mandate to do so.

People want the law enforced, so long as it's the 'real' criminals that have it enforced against them.

[scumdog]

What a load of rubbish. There are always extremes, and this person is taking one of them.

They have probably even convinced themselves there point of view is the only one that exists.

I concur.

Seen his type come - and seen them go.

Another will be along as soon as his agenda motivates him enoug AND the money is there...:rolleyes:

[scumdog]

People want the law enforced, so long as it's the 'real' criminals that have it enforced against them.


Very well summed up my man!:niceone:

[rastuscat]

People want the law enforced, so long as it's the 'real' criminals that have it enforced against them.

No, people want the law enforced, as long as it is against someone else.

People want public transport to be better so there are less cars on the road so that they can drive their own car to work in less time.

[Ronin]

No, people want the law enforced, as long as it is against someone else.



Erm, Is that not what I said?

[MSTRS]

Erm, Is that not what I said?

Haven't you noticed his avatar? He's uniform branch...not known for detective abilities (reading between the lines)
:innocent:

[ElCoyote]

Very well summed up my man!:niceone:

Quess we can take it you are on holiday Tom !!:yes:

[SPman]

. At the very least, they have given the people making the laws the mandate to do so.

Oh...the naivety......in theory, perhaps - in practice .....:facepalm:!
Once a government decides to pass a law, there seems to be very little "the people" can do about it, espec in the short term, if it is ill advised, poorly thought out, nonsensical or otherwise bad, except,to not abide by those laws. Then, they are deemed criminals and the State, in the form of the Police, will hunt them down and punish them, if only for the "crime" of ignoring the State!

Doesn't happen?

In your dreams.......

[rastuscat]

Erm, Is that not what I said?

Most probably. Sorry, wasn't axing you, just clarifying the point of who we all perceive as the problem.

Trouble is, everyone has a view on who the real criminals are. Little old ladies think noisy cars are the problem, boy racers think asians are the problem etc.

In essence, everyone thinks SOE is the problem. Yes, SOE, someone else. It's not a state owned enterprise.

That's why education doesn't work, coz everyone thinks someone else needs it, not them.

Law and deterrence is such a psychological field, stunningly complex.

Back to my donuts.

[swbarnett]

Trouble is, everyone has a view on who the real criminals are. Little old ladies think noisy cars are the problem, boy racers think asians are the problem etc.
Sopt on!

This, of course, extends to government. Just because someone is "in power" at any given moment does not automatically mean that the laws inacted are based on anything other than their own prejudices (and there is certainly no guarentee that the law reflects the will of the people - or even the majority). It is also true that simply disobeying a particular law does not automatically mean one is in the wrong. Take the segregation laws of last century that the U.S. is infamous for - a black man sitting in the white section of a bus or cimema was techincally a "criminal" but, in my opinion, they certainly were not in the wrong.

[Ronin]

Oh...the naivety......in theory, perhaps - in practice .....:facepalm:!
Once a government decides to pass a law, there seems to be very little "the people" can do about it, espec in the short term, if it is ill advised, poorly thought out, nonsensical or otherwise bad, except,to not abide by those laws. Then, they are deemed criminals and the State, in the form of the Police, will hunt them down and punish them, if only for the "crime" of ignoring the State!

Doesn't happen?

In your dreams.......

They are given the mandate by being elected. You gets what you votes for...

[Winston001]

Oh...the naivety......in theory, perhaps - in practice .....:facepalm:!
Once a government decides to pass a law, there seems to be very little "the people" can do about it, espec in the short term, if it is ill advised, poorly thought out, nonsensical or otherwise bad.....


Thats odd. I could have sworn the govt were going to open up mining on conservation land. But people didn't like it. So they dumped the idea.

What went wrong there? :shit:

[Winston001]

http://mises.org/daily/4815

Mauzy puts into words what most everyone already senses on some level; police aren't angels and usually aren't friends. He addresses the well-known fact that from birth we are told by the government that cops are the public's greatest ally, existing to "protect and serve." We can see that this indoctrination has been effective whenever voters applaud increases in the number of cops on the streets. Unfortunately, more cops means more severe enforcement of arbitrary laws and greater violations of property rights. Mauzy reminds readers that when it is you who is being harassed and ticketed for minor violations of traffic laws, you tend to see officers as more of a threat to your freedom and your wallet. In a country obsessed with exalting cities' armed revenue collectors, this article is immensely valuable.

Read the link and I don't buy it. Most people's contact with the police in NZ is low-level and benign. Reporting vandalism, being helped at accidents, finding lost stuff, helping with wayward teenagers etc etcetera.....

One thing I do agree with though - be ever vigilant against increased powers. They are easy for politicians to give and damned hard to restrain.

.

[swbarnett]

They are given the mandate by being elected. You gets what you votes for...
When's the last time you agreed with EVERY policy of the party you voted for?

Almost every vote is by necessity a compromise.

[swbarnett]

Thats odd. I could have sworn the govt were going to open up mining on conservation land. But people didn't like it. So they dumped the idea.

What went wrong there? :shit:
A government will back down for one of two reasons.

1. On very rare occasions it becomes apparent that the vast majority of the voting public disagree with what's being proposed and are willing to say so at the next election. This is absolutely no help to special interest groups that make up only a small percentage of the population (e.g bikers).

2. Bait and Switch. They will put forward an obviously unpopular proposal that they expect to be rejected because what they actually want will seem mild to the voters by comparison. Leaving the voters with a sence that they've got their way when the government has actually pulled the wool over their eyes.

[scumdog]

2. Bait and Switch. They will put forward an obviously unpopular proposal that they expect to be rejected because what they actually want will seem mild to the voters by comparison. Leaving the voters with a sense that they've got their way when the government has actually pulled the wool over their eyes.


A bit like the 'proposed' increase in ACC levy for bikers.

And then the actual amount being a bit lower than the 'proposed' one..


(And the biker world thought: "whew, well that's not quite so bad.." )

[MSTRS]

1. On very rare occasions it becomes apparent that the vast majority of the voting public disagree with what's being proposed and are willing to say so at the next election.


Section 59 didn't work like that. 85% of the public were against the removal of smacking. That's a very clear 'vast majority'. But all parties banded together and ensured that the weasel-words in the act essentially forbid smacking without actually saying so.

[Bassmatt]

Well - the USA is, by any definition these days, a police state - not up there with the worst, but, slowly and inexorably getting there.
This seems to be the trend in most "Western" countries, Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia are moving in the same direction - authoritarian rule by fear and intimidation rather than consent!


Havent read whole thread I hope Im not repeating anything. Unfortunately the fact that you can arbitarily be called a "Terrorist" and be indefinitely detained without arrest in any of these countries makes them all, if only technically, police states.

[swbarnett]

Section 59 didn't work like that. 85% of the public were against the removal of smacking. That's a very clear 'vast majority'. But all parties banded together and ensured that the weasel-words in the act essentially forbid smacking without actually saying so.
I think the issue there is that it was not a vote loser because all political parties had the same view (IIRC). You can't cast a protest vote against the incumbent if the opposing candidate has the same policy.

[swbarnett]

A bit like the 'proposed' increase in ACC levy for bikers.

And then the actual amount being a bit lower than the 'proposed' one..


(And the biker world thought: "whew, well that's not quite so bad.." )
You could well be right. I was thinking of this as I wrote that post.

[rastuscat]

Donuts. Yum.

[MSTRS]

I think the issue there is that it was not a vote loser because all political parties had the same view (IIRC). You can't cast a protest vote against the incumbent if the opposing candidate has the same policy.

Correct.
My point was that an overwhelming majority being opposed to something that govt is proposing is not a guarantee of a backdown...regardless of any consequence. Look at the Nat's proposals for foreshore legislation...

[rok-the-boat]

Havent read whole thread I hope Im not repeating anything. Unfortunately the fact that you can arbitarily be called a "Terrorist" and be indefinitely detained without arrest in any of these countries makes them all, if only technically, police states.

That's what worries me - it's the major stuff not the minor details.