RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Year End Pet Peeves

Saturday
December 27, 2008

Year End Pet Peeves by Tibor R. Machan

Mostly I write on topics I suspect concern a wide enough audience.
Columnists don’t just write on anything that pops into their minds but
need to do a bit of service to reader-clients. But, if one has a regular
venue for one’s columns, it maybe fine, now and then, to indulge oneself
with a topic or two that’s more personal. Even these will, of course, aim
to please, if only by inviting reader-clients to know a bit of the writer. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (90 messages)

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 2:04pm

The concept of a slippery slope is a good one to keep in mind for this area. Often people work from a premise of slow change, or change at a constant rate, or change that isn't different in kind from change in the past, or change that will only go so far. But often change gets fed by positive feedback loops, feeding upon themselves, and become exponential in rate, and may not look anything like what we have experienced in our past.

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 10:03am

Machan

I concur - much in ad hominem but in the presentation of the argument presented by others both sweeping and hasty generalizations. I see little concerning objectivism by some in the presentations but much containing an appeal to emotion.

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 4:33pm

As I've said repeatedly, I absolutely don't support laws of the sort you've mentioned.

Accepting a "zealous" enforcement of the law is supporting the law. I'm trying to understand, what is the distinction you see between the law and it's enforcement? What's the dividing line to you? I don't hold that there is any difference between the law and it's enforcement, but it appears you do, and I don't understand.

Laws are made to be enforced. Enforcing the law is the law in action. There is no separating the two. I can't defend "zealously" enforcing a horrible law, but you seem to think you can. How?

My point has been that your characterization that ALL police are thugs or unjust morons is baseless and without merit.

Where have I said that they all are? I have said that many are, but I never said all of them. You said that, not me.

If you had said that your local police had problems, or were corrupt, or whatever, you wouldn't have seen me leap to their defense

I'm sure I implied it quite heavily.

I do not believe I have mischaracterized your argument at all. If you believe that I have, feel free to post those quotes regarding cops being greedy, nazis, or mindless thugs and respond with what you meant when you wrote it.

I'm going to say that you've misinterpreted me instead.

I don't have a problem with greed. I have a problem with manipulation of a bad law in order to make money (it's corrupt). I don't have a problem with the use of retaliatory force. I have a problem with raising the level of retaliatory force against a truly non-violent, non-rights violating crime (it's corrupt). I don't have a problem with enforcing the law. I have a problem with enforcing laws that never should exist (it's corrupt). I don't have a problem with morons, in general, but I do have a problem with Unions that protect them (it's corrupt).

Restating what you say isn't dishonesty,

It is if you ignore context, Ryan. You should know that.

even when you don't like how it makes your argument look.

I think the Atlas points from over generous clickers are going to your head. How does it make my argument look? Why does that matter? Either I'm right, or I'm wrong, but the way it looks really isn't the issue.

You've equated police to Nazis and you call me dishonest.

Ryan, honestly, you don't see any parallel at all between enforcing a horrible law (to the point of using real, life threatening force) that protects the rights of no one, but violates them instead, and the fascist Nazi State? Honestly? How? You don't find it even slightly fascist that raid teams would storm a VFW filled with senior citizens playing poker? You think raising the level of force against the "crime" of being behind of child support, or playing poker, or selling weed in a township or county that has legalized it completely isn't fascism? If the escalation of force can exist for something as benign as being in debt due to another set of bogus laws, who the hell would want a job like that?? Would you do it with "zeal?" How much "zeal?"

I dated an ex Detroit policeman for a while. He quit because it became less and less about catching rights violators, and more about enforcing laws he found fascist, but lucrative, for the district. He's an engineer now. I can only imagine what kind of person took his place.

I take back the "dishonest" comment. I don't know you well enough to say that, but that fact is changing fast.

The complete abandonment of law enforcement has been advocated in this thread, and you call my naive.

I won't directly advocate that position, but how bad would that be? How quickly do you think better minds would take it's place? Unless you think people are really evil at the core, I think we might just end up with something much better.

The law and its enforcers are NOT one and the same. As a matter of fact our entire system is designed to prevent just such a thing. Thats why laws are legislated, then enforced, then adjudicated by completely different branches.

I disagree. I completely disagree. If that were true, there wouldn't be a need for courts at all. The branches are all connected under the common auspice of "law." They aren't disconnected in any way. Enforcers can and do choose not the exercise the law for whatever reason they wish. They can only do that because the law is on their side, and the relationship between the branches isn't broken in any way. If it were broken, they'd be forced to answer for their judgement. Cops don't answer to the law. They are the law. We answer to it.

Enforcement is the law in action.The whole system is the law. Legislatures make it, police enforce it (without question, apparently, and hopefully with "zeal"), and the judiciary interprets it, but it's all one system, one entity, one machine.

What good (or bad) is the law without enforcement? What good (or bad) is enforcement without the law?

There is a point where I would expect police to cease to enforce certain laws, but that would be the point where the legislature has passed laws that are spectacularly unjust, such as allowing summary execution of citizens or something similar.

I was thinking of a simple question I'd ask of all police cadets before they hired in:

Is there any law, real or imagined, that you would refuse to enforce? I have no doubt there would be more than a few who would answer "no."

I want them to enforce the stupid seatbelt law until I can get it off the books because I really don't want to get involved in a gunfight in my front yard over food.

What? So you do think humans are evil at their core. That's too bad. It isn't true, Ryan. People aren't evil.

The injustice of a seatbelt law, or something similar, isn't worth losing the entirety of law enforcement, which was what was originally advocated in this thread. Nor is it reason to demonize the entire profession.

It is if you get shot over resisting this, or any, bad law. Civil disobedience is often the catalyst for change, not hoping a politician will see the light. Rosa Parks knew all about that. I don't understand how one can forget the monopoly on force they have. They can shoot you because they're afraid you "might" do something to hurt them.

I'd rather argue with a cop than a politician any day.

I'll close by noting that you have said that for some here the law is a rational excuse not to think, which is untrue for me at least.

I think you think. Too many police don't think.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 12/29, 4:43pm)

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 4:37pm

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 5:36pm

I can defend zealously enforcing a nuisance law, because if it isn't enforced then the people who create the law have no feedback regarding the mistake they made. Notice I said a NUISANCE law. A seatbelt law is a nuisance.
"Where have I said that they all are? I have said that many are, but I never said all of them. You said that, not me."
"Who in their right mind would want to be a police officer in this country? A mindless thug, maybe."
Are you saying that that statement was not meant to imply that every police officer in the country is a mindless thug?
"Cops care about the law, regardless of it's lack of rationality, and so did Nazi officers who raided neighborhoods and loaded Jews into cattle cars. Not a whole lot of difference between them to me."
Where is the "many of them" in that statement that you assert you meant. Cops and them. Words meaning the entire group.
You did in fact imply heavily that your local jurisdiction is bad. I don't recall defending your local jurisdiction. Am I supposed to see the implications you've specifically made about your jurisdiction while ignoring the implications you made toward all cops everywhere in the above statements?
"I'm going to say that you've misinterpreted me instead."
That was in regard to my statement that you characterized the police as greedy, nazi mindless thugs. You can see above that nazi and mindless thugs are exactly the terms you used. I paraphrased greedy from your earlier statement that police only care about overtime. Please explain the nature of my misunderstanding?
I haven't ignored your context. Again, please look to the things I quoted you on in this thread and explain to me the context you meant them in.
I agree that this system is corrupt. Some guy in a patrol car isn't deciding to ticket people so that he can help the county gov't out. That crap is pushed down from a lot higher than that, political pressure and management. Since you've asserted that human beings aren't evil, perhaps you'll venture to think that the cop might have gotten into that line of work to help people and has to put up with BS like that or he'll get fired and be unable to make the mortgage.
"I think the Atlas points from over generous clickers are going to your head."
Attacking me or anyone who might agree with me isn't a valid argument. Its what you do when you have no valid argument, Teresa. You should know that.
The reason that there is an escalation in the use of force in the situations you've mentioned is that people have died trying to handle those situations in a more civilized fashion. Police get gunned down on child support warrants. Police get gunned down on gambling raids. Police get gunned down busting drug suppliers. Do they deserve to, Teresa?
"I won't directly advocate that position, but how bad would that be? How quickly do you think better minds would take it's place? Unless you think people are really evil at the core, I think we might just end up with something much better."
What is indirectly advocating a position? As to how bad it would be, all I can say is this. I've been to quite a few countries where no police or REALLY corrupt police are the norm. Its bad, Teresa. Really bad.
Disagree if you want, but its the truth. We have a system that is compartmentalized. Police arrest people, but sometimes judges rule that it wasn't valid. Laws are passed, but sometimes they're ruled unconstitutional by judges.
"Enforcement is the law in action.The whole system is the law. Legislatures make it, police enforce it (without question, apparently, and hopefully with "zeal"), and the judiciary interprets it, but it's all one system, one entity, one machine."
That is straight out of the 60s. They are people, Teresa. Not some monolithic entity where manlike androids are the cogs. That sort of characterization is designed to dehumanize people, so that they can be assaulted and killed without remorse. Radicals and the military have been doing it for a long time. "He's not a person. He's just a cop in uniform. A cog in the facist police state, man."
The law is a defined set of code that can be changed. Everything else is designed to implement and adjudicate what is legislated by elected officials.

"I was thinking of a simple question I'd ask of all police cadets before they hired in:

Is there any law, real or imagined, that you would refuse to enforce? I have no doubt there would be more than a few who would answer "no." "
"What? So you do think humans are evil at their core. That's too bad. It isn't true, Ryan. People aren't evil."
Read what you've written, Teresa. So people aren't evil at their core. Just cops and police cadets?

Police have very defined rules regarding force, Teresa. A cop that shoots you over a seatbelt violation is a criminal and will be prosecuted. They should be.

"it is if you get shot over resisting this, or any, bad law. Civil disobedience is often the catalyst for change, not hoping a politician will see the light. Rosa Parks knew all about that. I don't understand how one can forget the monopoly on force they have. They can shoot you because they're afraid you "might" do something to hurt them."
I'm a little confused here. Rosa Parks got shot?

Ted,
Yes those cops were pieces of s**t. That would fall under my previous assertion that cops that abuse their authority should be prosecuted as criminals and punished. Here's some other youtubes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXem0mACyAU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMjGKMLxcc0&feature=related

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 7:32pm

No one gets shot over nuisance laws? Of course they do. Short of getting shot, they get fined, have points put on their driving record, get gouged by their insurance company, and deal with that "nuisance" for several years.

A mindless thug, maybe.

Did you miss the "maybe" part? I meant maybe, not always.

"Cops care about the law, regardless of it's lack of rationality, and so did Nazi officers who raided neighborhoods and loaded Jews into cattle cars. Not a whole lot of difference between them to me."

Aside from yanking this out of context, there isn't a whole lot of difference to me. Not in the way the law is dealt with today. It only takes a few bad ones to make the whole bunch look like crap. I'm comparing methods here, and I don't see much difference.

I don't recall defending your local jurisdiction.

That's true. As I recall, you're defending the whole profession, regardless. I'm critical of it, and you're critical of my criticism.

Attacking me or anyone who might agree with me isn't a valid argument.

Regarding the plethora of Atlas Points, this was a joke, Ryan. Ever heard of them?

The reason that there is an escalation in the use of force in the situations you've mentioned is that people have died trying to handle those situations in a more civilized fashion.

Please site where anyone has died from arresting a "deadbeat" parent (other than the parent, of course), senior citizens playing poker, or hippy working in an organic, and legal, "drug store."

This implies that the law is correct. It's a type of "drugs cause crime" kind of argument.

Police get gunned down on child support warrants. Police get gunned down on gambling raids. Police get gunned down busting drug suppliers. Do they deserve to, Teresa?

You know, there are times and situations when a law is in direct violation of the Constitution, and of nature, I'd be lying if I said "no."

I have to make this short. I have a job that requires sleep and a very full day.

What is indirectly advocating a position?

It means thinking about it. Mulling it over.

I've been to quite a few countries where no police or REALLY corrupt police are the norm. Its bad, Teresa. Really bad.

I know. Prof. Machan comes from one of them, and so did Rand. I don't want to go there, so I get critical. Really critical.

Police arrest people, but sometimes judges rule that it wasn't valid.

Ah! That's only true because a real "outside" force was brought into the mix. The champion. The barrister. The orator. It's their job to argue against the action of the law, not the judge's.

Laws are passed, but sometimes they're ruled unconstitutional by judges.

This isn't extra curricular to the system. It's part of the same system. It's all one thing.

That is straight out of the 60s. They are people, Teresa. Not some monolithic entity where manlike androids are the cogs.

LOL! I dare you to work in county government for a few years, then tell me the same thing. Try it. I dare you.

That sort of characterization is designed to dehumanize people, so that they can be assaulted and killed without remorse.

LOL! By whom? Hopefully it will self destruct, but no body's out to get them. The system isn't human, and some working in it are barely recognizable.

"He's not a person. He's just a cop in uniform. A cog in the facist police state, man."

Some of them ARE cogs, but all of them are people. What an incredible thing to say, Ryan! Can't stop laughing over it. Good grief. Criticism becomes a mission to dehumanize the man. Wow, we all better shut our murdering mouths, pay those tickets, vote libertarian, and blame the victim!

I can't go on, this is just too much. I'm tired, and this argument has reached it's limit of insanity for me.

Regarding Ted's video post: Those LAPD police were tried and found not guilty. The LA riot ensued directly after the verdict.

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 7:32pm

Ryan, feel free to look up my previous posts on my having been harassed by cops, as well as my happiness at the police response over my neighbor's murder and my comments on the arrest of my boyfriend's murderer. You'll forgive me if I don't research the links myself.

I think it's obvious that there are good and bad cops, and since we all agree that the laws are the problem...can't we all just get along?

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 8:44pm

Ted, I certainly don't think anyone isn't getting along here, although this is a heated discussion. At least I don't think I've ventured into any attempts to directly attack Teresa, just her position. I'm certainly not emotionally invested in this discussion, and this discussion hasn't stopped me from agreeing with Teresa on other issues. I sincerely hope that we can find a way to eliminate the kind of laws that require people to have "Cops are nazi thugs vs. Some cops suck and need to be dealt with, but it is an honorable and necessary profession" debates.

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 9:10pm

Speaking of "laws," I heard tell of a woman who was delayed for over a year in getting her Engineer's license, because, driving home from a relatives over Christmas, she was stopped crossing state borders carrying a gift bottle of liquor, and was accused of going out of state to avoid her home state's liquor taxes. If my relative still worked with her she'd have a copy of Atlas my compliments.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 3:44am

The idea that Ryan thinks the police (legislature, and courts) act independently of the law is really bothering me.

The analogy I came up with involves the body. The brain is the system that controls all other parts. No part of the body acts independently from the brain. That isn't to say that a hand is a brain, but it is to say the hand is useless without the brain.

In America, the Constitution (or system of law) is the brain. Police, courts and law makers should not act independently from it, but this is what Ryan seems to be arguing for. Is that a fair comparison?

Another problem is the idea that police are not at all obligated to know what it is they are defending or enforcing. They can and should uphold the law no matter how draconian it is, as if they have no choice in the matter, and the problem is with the law makers, not enforcement. I think to render enforcement harmless is to give sanction to the makers of the law because enforcement does not act independently.

A very young officer was murdered in this state after a traffic stop a few days ago. It's horrible, so I'm wondering why the level of force during traffic stops hasn't been increased due to this obvious risk. He isn't the first, and he won't be the last to be killed during a routine stop, so why not use teams of swat patrols to conduct traffic stops, or at the very least, require officers to use their weapons during routine stops in an effort to save the lives of law enforcement?

I have to get to work!

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 4:12am

To continue with your analogy. If a person had a mental disorder that led him to compulsively attack others with his hands, would you conclude that his hands are the problem? Should his hands be removed? Would this indicate that all hands are a problem, because all hands can potentially be used in this fashion? Would it be more beneficial to recognize the problem is in his head, that faulty thought processes are at work and they are causing the problem. Fix the mind motivating the behavior and the "enforcement" part of the body will fall into line.
To answer your question about the officer killed. I don't know but I would suspect that it might be found that the officer wasnt in full compliance with use of force policies that are currently accepted. Probably because he let his guard down or was trying to give the guy a break. Thats just an opinion. I'm also of the opinion that you aren't going to see a huge increase in use of force or policy changes because at least a portion of those in charge realize that there is a limit in what can be allowed in a (somewhat) free society. That the cost of " X" amount of increased safety for officer just isnt acceptable to the majority of people. Especially if deaths can often be linked to noncompliance with existing policy, not gaps in current policy. If such gaps ARE found, I would suspect you will see policy changes to fix whatever they directed him to do wrong.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 6:16am

TSI: "I was thinking of a simple question I'd ask of all police cadets before they hired in:
Is there any law, real or imagined, that you would refuse to enforce? I have no doubt there would be more than a few who would answer "no."

Actually, we ask that question. Usually, it goes like this:
T/F -- Sometimes you have to break the rules to get the job done.

Not enforcing a bad law is breaking the rules. So, we do not hire people who break the rules because not only do they selectively enforce laws, they select whom they enforce upon.

Beyond that, I will be brief. Being the only one here who actually holds a bachelor of science degree in criminology administration anything I had to say would only be based on empirical evidence and statistical studies explained by internally consistent theories. And no one wants to hear any of that.

We refer to "police forces and armies" in one breath and they are, indeed, guardians -- at least historically. The first firm I worked for had just gotten away from the paramilitary structure of organization. We still had supervisors called "ell-tee" (LT = lieutenant) and others with corporal chevrons as front-line supervisors at large posts, but all the "majors" and "captains" took off their uniforms and wore suits and lost their titles. On my second job, we went from "hard" police type uniforms to a corporate look and I never wore a uniform on the job since, always a suit. (I understand the tactical advantages in BDU pants and shirts with lots of pockets. I also believe that the "hard" uniform has a place. That's all a different discussion.) So, then, at the end of the degree program, in the last policing and patrolling class, our professor -- the former police chief for our town -- asked "What's wrong with a paramilitary structure?" He got a few answers, all of them true, but not essential. Then he said, "You are the police. You serve the community. You are not an occupying army. These people are not the enemy."

So, in colleges and universities, we try to bring the public police up to the standards of the private sector. Give it another 30 years.

T/F -- I've always wondered what it is like to shoot somebody.

You can sort and sieve and select and filter and test and train and sooner or later, you have to put them on the street in an impossible job under untenable conditions with no likely good outcomes and many opportunities to fail. They never see people at the best of times. No one wants to ever see them.

T/F -- Most people are basically honest.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 7:43am

Getting back to the lighter side of this thread:

I hate the drop down boxes where you select the state you live in. Living in New Mexico, the list is always too short and I have to scroll down.

Ah, the trials and tribulations we have to put up with in our digital age.

Sam

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 9:21am

Sam:

You have problems? I live in WA! Actually, you can type the state abbreviation at most of those pull-down menus and it will immediately select the state. Next time, try typing NM and see what happens. This does require that the programmer of the website did "the right thing", but I have found that most of these state selection lists must be copying some boilerplate code and I cannot remember running across a site where this didn't work.

But I do agree with your frustrations at short-sighted programming. I use my first initial and middle name. The use of the initial was not done out of pretension, I started using it at some point during college in an attempt to make it possible to locate my records which were getting misfiled and lost all the time. However, it didn't work. It just gives people more opportunity to misfile things! I hate forms and computer programs that insist upon:

"First Name" "Middle Initial" "Last Name"

I get two and three copies of magazines and other publications sent to me because their programs cannot handle people who use a middle name. Very short-sighted.

Regards,
--
C Small

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 9:47am

Further to those pesky drop down lists ... the tiny dialogue boxes that can contain only about 12 words when you're trying to explain your problem to a vendor in their customized e-mail? You can't even see a whole sentence that you have just written and have to scroll and scroll. Duh!

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 10:28am

Yes, and there is being put on hold forever by a bank or airline, as if your life was entirely in service to their bureaucracy. Also, what about those web based businesses that provide no way to contact them when something goes amiss or provide phone numbers that aren't answered or if answered give you a menu of irrelevant options without one to reach a person? I do hate these. Oh, also, those inordinately long waits at doctor's appointments--somehow it's OK to make patients wait as much as an hour but if you show up late, no one will see you. What about planes that you are on waiting for passengers from connecting flights but planes you are trying to catch refusing to wait a second past departure time? On the other hand, I am one of the luckiest persons about finding convenient parking spaces--even have coined the motto: "Lucky at parking but not at love!"

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 11:04am

I happen to hate the "art deco" covers of the most recent editions of Rand's work. The cover of The Fountainhead is ridiculous and ugly. I liked the minimalistic white covers of the 1980's.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 11:13am

Careful, Tibor; you're beginning to sound like Andy Rooney. : )

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 1:09pm

Tuesday, December 30 - 11:13am

"Careful, Tibor; you're beginning to sound like Andy Rooney. : )" Maybe once very ten years! And for far less pay!

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 1:50pm

You have my sympathy, Jeff - use middle name too - and get around that mid initial thing by typing 'A Robert' as the first name and skipping the mid... so far has worked rather well...