Via Liberty.me: The status of the police is bound up with the perception of the value of the entire public sector. The police are the “thin blue line,” long perceived as the most essential and irreplaceable function of the state. Now that this perception is under pressure from public opinion over what happened (and is happening) in Ferguson (and many many other places around the country), a shift in intellectual opinion that's been developing for decades is gaining traction.

What’s at stake here if not the very foundation of public order as we know it? If government can’t do this right -- if the police are accomplishing the very opposite of what they claim to accomplish, namely, to "protect and serve" -- if they are, in fact, undermining the public's security rather than providing for it, (and this is widely understood to be the case, time and time again), then we have the making of not only an ideological revolution, but an authentic turning-point in the history of politics.

Security is not the most essential function of the state; it is the most dangerous one, and the very one that we should never concede lest we lose our freedom altogether. The "night watchman" is the biggest threat we face because it is he who holds the gun and he who pulls the trigger should we ever decide to escape from their "protections" and provide for ourselves.

You're 100% spot on, and that along with systemic corruption from top to bottom of politics and business (..but i repeat myself..) is going to be the legacy of this era - the Age of Deception. We MUST look good, we CANNOT afford to admit wrong.. these are phrases that should be anathema to politicians and public services, but they are words that literally define the modern statesman.

And as the supposed greatest amongst us, people flock to their example and are rewarded for doing so. We need both a psychological revolution, so we stop the rot of our civilisation, but also a physical one, because those in power are absolutely not going to relinquish it or even reduce their grip.

Why on Earth should we allow people who show themselves to be incompetent continue to hold the reins? We need a way to hold these people to account for their words and actions.

In CA our cop cars don't say "To Protect and Serve" anymore, they say "Service With Concern"

*controversy *law

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Law) - requested by MrFisk.

Your entire comment was plagiarized from here:

http://tucker.liberty.me/2014/08/22/the-death-of-minarchism/

Next time, get an original thought in your head.

http://i.imgur.com/KvBpAPs.jpg

godammit trance.......

Plagiarism? Uncool, dude...uncool.

Or is that another libertarian privilege?

not @Trancecoach 's first trip to the rodeo:
http://videosift.com/video/TDS-2-24-14-Denunciation-Proclamation

i wont call his comment on this thread plagiarizing but rather paraphrasing but on the last thread?
oh yeah..plagiarized ...verbatim.

dammit trance...making us all charlie brown to your lucy.
where is your pride?

And I hope you'll all read Tucker's articles. (thanks for upvoting)

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.

If you respect his writing so much, next time maybe put a link to it instead of editing it in later after someone calls you out for stealing it and portraying it as your own.

And guess what? My name isn't really Trancecoach, either!
Shocking!

WTF does that mean? Unless you're saying your name is Jeffrey Tucker, I fail to see your point.

Are you Jeffrey Tucker? Did you write those words? Or are you just some random jerkoff who got caught ripping off Jeffrey Tucker's article after trying to pass it off as if you wrote it?

Your apparent emotion about this amuses me greatly. Thanks for that.

My previous comment means that I don't take this forum (or any forum in which its users interact under assumed names or "handles") to be of any serious importance, such that my comments need not come affixed with references or citations.

Edit: Here's a recent topical article which posits that originality doesn't actually exist, only authenticity.

In other words, you're just a troll. And yeah, that's not really shocking news to me or anyone else at this point. The thing is though, you want to be taken seriously, or you wouldn't put so much effort and time into it.

Unfortunately you're just really not very good at it. You're sort of a "blankfist lite". Basically all troll without the interesting and original bits.

The entire site is rife with trolls. That is what the culture of the site apparently supports. And, no, I have no vested interest in being taken "seriously," but as long as you seem intent on making this into some kind of "cause," then yeah, you'll have to deal with the likes of Blankfist, myself, and many, many others who aren't gonna fall for it.

It's not a cause for me, but I am curious as to why you want to be one of them. There are plenty of people who don't troll here. Used to be a lot more. Scumbags drove a lot of good people away.

I don't get what you're saying about the culture of the sift supporting trolls. Just because the sift allows people a lot of leeway to discuss things doesn't mean you have to be an asshole. Sure, you can be an asshole, but it's not a requirement lol.

If you want to respond, hit my profile because this sift's comments have been derailed enough.

Actually, when it doesn't matter, that's when your true character is shown.

I mean, if you actually wanted to send people to Jeff Tucker's site, why not just say, "Hey, Jeff Tucker said <copypasta> and I agree."

Man, SOOOOO many extraneous keypresses.

Plagiarism gets you banned from schools, and if you care so little about this forum I guess you wouldn't mind a ban here either.

The sift has maybe three trolls (check my ban list), unless you think trolls are people you just disagree with.

Great quote; small quibble:

The police are BOTH undermining the public's safety AND securing it. A society without any police is far less secure than one even with a really bad police force. The power we currently give police officers allows them to be abusive and undermine security. We can reel in their power so they're less able to undermine security, and do it in such a way that they're still empowered to enforce security.

The quote that Cenk tossed out about the sandwich doesn't apply to this situation. Basically what it means is that if a Prosecutor goes to the trouble of bringing a case before a grand jury, he is usually 100% certain that he can get a trial result.

However, I direct you to http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/ for a much better explanation. I'll try to sum up what the article says briefly.

Trials involving cops are much harder to get an indictment from a grand jury. People tend to trust cops and this could lead to fewer indictments. Prosecutors could be throwing the case rather than risk a hostile working environment. But the most logical reason is simply that in a non-high profile case, i.e. one other than a possibly racially motivated shooting that is being reported about non-stop, a prosecutor is typically only going to bring cases before a grand jury that he is certain he will gather an indictment back from them.

In a case like this, where a prosecutor is pretty much forced to bring an indictment due to public outcry, a weak case is not going to get past the grand jury. This was a weak case.

In the end, right or wrong, the officer faced due process and was considered by a jury of his and the victim's peers to be non-indictable. While I am sorry for the victim, his family, and friends, it was the victim's decision to assault a police officer and attempt to take away his weapon.

It's odd to me that there's not more of an outcry against the DA. He seemed to shirk his duties, and not zealously represent his client, us, when he didn't act as prosecutors normally do with grand juries.
What normally happens is the DA/prosecutor presents the evidence he chooses, gives his theory about what that evidence means (meaning presents it in the least favorable light for the defendant) and asks them to indict the defendant. In this case, it's been reported that the DA handed over ALL the evidence he had, both the stuff that indicated the officer's guilt AND that which indicated either no guilt or that there was a question (like the one witness that supported his story contradicting all the others), allowed the officer to testify without any cross examination or contradiction of his view of the events, then asked the jury to weigh it all and decide for themselves. That is not the norm, and is not zealous representation of his client by any stretch. I hope he'll be disbarred.