Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

How is a documentary program an accessory to murder? It seems rather likely that they have critical footage needed to bring suit against the guilty in this gross mismanagement of the law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'll go further. I'm going to to agree with John and say its even worse, they're guilt og conspiracy to commit murder.

Consider this: the cops took extra measures to make the attack "look good for TV." I even so much as suggested that a grenade, smoke bomb, tear gas, sniper rifle or even going in with their guns drawn would "look good" then they are potentially guilty of murder.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Good intel and preparation would obviate the need for this sort of assault 90% of the time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh, and some of the local anti-gun folk, who are as a rule brainless at the best of times, are going on about how the plethora of guns leads to this kind of thing - and forgive me for it, but I mean to ram that down their throat on a bayonet by pointing out that all those guns and stormtrooper gear, and this particular bit of death and carnage...


But all that is a side order to the real point, which is preventing this kind of thing from happening, and a very large part of it is holding police accountable for their actions, which no one seems willing or able to do without threats of serious violence -

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Depends on what you mean by criminal defense.

On paper, what should happen in a courtroom is if there's a trumped up crime, or a cop is lying about something, then that would come out. The defense attorney would expose any lies or ulterior motives of the cop witness, and if the cop were guilty of obstructing justice or perjury, he would be punished, maybe even charged himself. And the defense attorney would always try to attempt to plead the case of the defendant as well as they can. The judge overseeing the case would be fair and impartial, and all evidence relevant to the case would be intact and presented for consideration.

That isn't what necessarily happens in real life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Mincing is not helping his/her argument when he/she begins with "I am gunning for your rights" and proceeds to "I want to be part of the system" while arguing "The model you described does not always work, of course, but even at its worse is preferable to people attempting to vindicate their 'rights' at the end of a gun."

I'm not the sort to jump into revolution. But Mince's own words suggest that the system is out to get me.

1) I don't respect your rights.
2) I'm part of the system.
3) The system protects your rights.

Even an elementary-schooler can determine which of these statements doesn't belong with the other two.

Please, Mince, stay far away from any system that is supposed to protect my rights. I only want people who believe in my rights to be part of the system.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I agree. But that's still a different point than what you said was his basic point, which you said was "trust the system." That really doesn't seem to be his point at all.

Which is actually quite common with Mincingbeast, he likes to snark subtly. He may be taking a little potshot at the system "no, you maybe shouldn't trust it," even though he's kinda sorta defending it, or at least saying it's better than rule by gun. Which I agree with myself, though I disagree with mincingbeast over when scenarios of rule by gun might come up. I think it's possible to HAVE guns, and little government, and NOT have rule by gun or might is right. But that's an Anarchist perspective, and not shared by many people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Video from pre-raid probably...Cam crew probably...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

"Did the tv crew conspire with the cops to endanger human life? You bet your ass they did."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
No use of force is preferable to any use of force.

Ah, but I'm forgetting who I'm talking to. You'll come back with a joke about how the strongest and most powerful are uniquely suited for rule, as evidenced by the fact that they continue to rule. Just as the system continues to function, which thereby validates the system continuing to function.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

"Did the tv crew conspire with the cops to endanger human life? You bet your ass they did."

---

Your right...in fact I was watching a similar conspiracy on Animal Planet the other day of a tv crew murdering a gazelle with the help of a lion.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

"Did the tv crew conspire with the cops to endanger human life? You bet your ass they did."

---

Your right...in fact I was watching a similar conspiracy on Animal Planet the other day of a tv crew murdering a gazelle with the help of a lion.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Oh, but I have. And I dislike cops enough to dedicate my wretched existence to battling them. I am, however, too chickenshit, and optimistic, to suggest shooting at them as a way of improving the situation.

---

Quote:

---

I thought you disfavored the strong devouring the weak, which is what you've described, with private guns as a proxy for strength.

---

Quote:

---

* Anarcho-Communism: The most popular movement, which calls for abolition of private property, corporations, and the state. People produce whatever they want to for a common pool of resources, and everyone takes what they need from it following a consensus made in a direct democratic vote. It's assumed that what you'll get will be correlative to your cooperation, unless you are a too young/old to work, or you need special care. This system was in place in some parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War and, believe it or not, it worked, until Franco's fascist regime took over. This is also known as Libertarian Communism.
o Collectivist Anarchism: Like Anarcho-Communism, but products are distributed according to work performed rather than need, through direct democracy.
o Anarcho-Syndicalism: Focuses on the power of non-statist organizations like workers' associations and unions to limit the government. Related most often to Anarcho-Communism and Mutualism. This was the way it was done in Anarchist Catalonia.
* Mutualism: Original anarchist movement started by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, author of What is Property? which contains the famous "property is theft" conclusion-he was also the first to call himself anarchist. Before that it was an insult; hey, come to think of it...This was the first Free-Market Anarchist movement, but unlike today's Free-Market Anarchists, it argues for the Labor Theory of Economic Value. Mutualist Anarchists believe that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive goods or services embodying the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility. They accept money and private property as long as it's actually being used by the owner. Mutualism, owing to its embrace of the Labor Theory of Economic Value, supports democratic cooperatives of workers who own the means of production, instead of traditional capitalist bosses.
* Individualist Anarchism: A movement (very similar to Mutualism) of US origin focusing more on a society of independent craftsment owning their own tools and thus free of employer domination. Like Mutualism it held to the Labor Theory of Economic Value. Individualist Anarchists supported worker cooperatives if they wished, but with the provision each part of it be held separately, thus a worker could leave and support themselves if necessary. The rise of capitalism and the anarcho-communist reaction eclipsed the Individualist Anarchists, though some exist. This was what most people knew as Free Market Anarchism, along with the Mutualists, until:
* Anarcho-Capitalism: Anarcho-Capitalists (the modern Free-Market Anarchists) are essentially Individualist Anarchists but instead of advocating the Labor Theory of Economic Value, they advocate the Subjective Theory of Economic Value (which has been accepted by nearly all economists since Walras, Menger and Jevons). As such, they do not see Capitalism as inherently exploitative; rather they see an employment contract as no different to any other form of contractual relationship. Anarcho-Capitalists also reject the view that "big business" and "big government" are enemies; they see the two as mutually-reinforcing institutions where the latter dispenses priveliges and favors upon the former.
o Agorism: Agorism is a movement related to Anarcho-Capitalism, but not quite. Agorists hold as a revolutionary goal the development of freely-competing, market producers of law and security through non-aggressive black market activity, which will eventually drive the state out of existence. In fact, this is precisely what sets Agorism apart from other forms of anarchism.
* Ecological Anarchism: Similar to Anarcho-Communism, but with a higher emphasis on respecting nature. The more radical forms of this, like Anarcho-Primitivism, believe that civilization is inherently oppressive, and wish to abolish industrial technology, agriculture, writing etc., returning to a primitve (hence the name) existence as hunter-gatherers.
* Egoist Anarchism: The reason why the Bomb Throwing Anarchists trope exists. Basically, they believe that anything that an individual can do, should be done. Also known as Nihilist Anarchism and Project Mayhem. Here is a classic text by Situationist International, advancing a collectivist form of egoism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Anarchy is less a socio-economic system than a slogan, I fear, but yes, that's my bias. I thought you disfavored the strong devouring the weak, which is what you've described, with private guns as a proxy for strength. So really, we don't disagree at all, do we?"

Hello,

This isn't an argument for or against the strong devouring the weak. It isn't even an argument for or against government.

It might be an argument for WHICH organization you trust to carry out the law.

Police Departments exist because of the sacred trust and tax dollar of the citizenry, provided to carry out their mandate of public defense.

But what happens when the Police Department loses the sacred trust of the people? What happens when the people no longer believe in them to carry out their mandate?

That's more along the lines of what's being discussed here. Putting labels of anarchy vs order and law vs chaos is muddying the water. It's much simpler than that. It's that a bunch of folks don't think the Police are protecting their interests any more.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

---