Tags for this video have been changed from 'kop busters, odessa, illegal search warrant' to 'kop busters, odessa, texas, usa, illegal search warrant, marijuana, online stream, 00s' - edited by Eklek

The TV show is not wasting cops time, cops are wasting OUR time. They are wasting taxpayer money on all these illegal searches, not to mention the fact that the Drug War is a failure on its face and should never have started in the first place.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibiton (website)

A sifted video about L.E.A.P.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
I'll tell you what's terrible :
Wasting a local police department's time and money for a fucking tv show. Whether or not the cops were wrong - I don't care. But don't waste tax payer money for your fucking show.


Exactly. I mean just think about how many illegal searches they could've made or how many search warrants they could've faked in that time. They could've planted evidence or beaten a confession out of an innocent person. Don't waste the time of corrupt cops, just don't do it.

The police falsified information to obtain a search warrant to raid the house of a suspected drug dealer. The judge never actually gave authorities a search warrant, but said they could raid the house anyways. Officers busted down the door to the suspected drug dealers house house on March 20, 2003, conducting an illegal search for the illegal drugs, but found nothing. They decided to kill the drug dealer anyways. Every since, the officers have been living in the deceased drug dealers house.

The authorities won the war on drugs.

Replace the relevant nouns/verbs with "Bush administration, invade, Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam Hussein, Congress, congressional approval, Military, bombs, planes, guns, occupation, loss, terror"

>> ^imstellar28:
Education isn't a commodity like milk, because it has varying levels of quality. However, the analogy with milk is still valid. I can sustain myself in many ways--be it mcdonalds, frozen dinners, milk, vegetables, fruit, or gold-laced packages of caviar. To force an education on me which is more or less expensive, or of higher or lower quality than I would have chosen is economically inefficient.

Ahh, see, that's the problem. I don't want to force you to buy something more expensive, I want to force everyone to pay "their share", and get everyone something as close to gold-laced caviar as I can. People like Bill Gates will pay a lot, people like me will pay a moderate amount, and people who're scraping by pay nothing.

Bill Gates and I are both still capable of spending additional money, out of our after-tax income to buy fancier platinum-laced caviar from an exotic fish, but it doesn't excuse us from our responsibility to others.

You don't make everyone eat the same food, or live in the same size house, so why would you make everyone learn the same way?

I wouldn't, within reason. I'd do my best to make it impossible for people to choose diseased or spoiled food, indigestible items, toxins, and some forms of particularly unhealthy foods (trans-fats, say).

Dropping the metaphor, I think gifted children, children with mental disorders, children from broken homes and "average" children all need different environments -- and while I think parents should be driving that choice, I don't think the costs should be the determining factor.

If I can teach my children with online video lectures, .pdf class notes, and electronic text books--why would you deny me this cost-saving option?

...because they're only cost-saving if you already own a computer and internet connection. If the cost of providing that, plus the license fee for electronic books is cheaper than buying the printed book, I'd happily make it mandatory.

Bureaucracies get a bum rap, but there's no reason they can't be organized in such a way that they encourage cost-savings, or even decentralized cost-savings (e.g. only the "gifted" school uses them). Corporations are able to do this at least some of the time.

Likewise, if I aspire to be a manual laborer--say a carpenter--because it runs in my family--why would you force me to achieve a higher level of education than is economically relevant? If I want to be a doctor, why are you sending me through economics, calculus, and chemistry? Shouldn't I be free to learn these things on my own time--and focus on advancing the skills relevant to my career?

As a student, I often said "I know I want to be a programmer, why do I have to learn history?"

What do you think my teacher said to me? "Because the damned Department of Education forces us, at gunpoint, to teach you things we know will be irrelevant to your life?"

There's a value to educating people in a broad range of subjects, because it makes them more well-rounded individuals, and you never know what might come in handy in your life.

They might even change their mind about carpentry, and decide they want to be a doctor.

It is true you have less "dollar-votes" than Bill Gates, but do you think Bill Gates is going to be buying that much more milk than a typical family? Or that many more loaves of bread? He will be spending money--perhaps on luxury items which you wouldn't buy anyways--

That's why I'm happy to take a big share of his income in taxes...

but he will also be investing the largest portion of his income in small business--like the grocer, shoemaker, or car salesman who just opened business in your neighborhood. That is because all those millions of his dollars aren't just sitting in his closet--they are in a bank, which is giving out loans to business owners like your neighbor, or maybe even yourself.

Sure, but why should he get to choose not to help pay for the education of the people in his community/state/nation? He benefited from it, and benefits from the labors of those educated employees he hires, or those educated entrepreneurs he loans money to.

Doesn't he have a debt to society, since society has given him so much?

There is no such thing as a community. Can you go outside and touch the community? Can you tell me where it is, or what it is currently doing? The community is an illusion--the only thing that exists is the individual. It is individuals that make up the community, and to forsake the individual for the sake of the community is to lose all bearing of what really exists.

I can't touch happiness either...or libertarianism.

Here's the real separation of our beliefs: you hold the individual supreme, I hold the good of society supreme.

There are many different "societies" or "communities" to choose from, families, neighborhoods, nations, book clubs, sports teams, political activist groups, armies, gangs, companies, online communities, etc., but I think people are most moral when they put the needs of the group above their own.

That's why I so happily support judicious trampling of "individual rights" when I think it's truly for the good of the whole (though I don't think "the right to never pay taxes" is really a "right"). I think certain individual rights are vital to the functioning society (e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, protection from illegal search & seizure, etc.), but I think certain restrictions of behavior, above and beyond the libertarian triumvirate of stealing life, stealing money, and breaking contracts are vital too.

In the case of schooling, I think it's a vital part of society, and we all have an obligation to provide for it, whether we "choose" to or not.