If Racism is Bad…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Yes it is best to only listen to mainstream, always.

About a hundred years ago there were these two brothers who said they could fly!
After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about "The Lying Brothers." Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local "crazies" who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.

---

Anecdotal evidence, the hallmark of people with no legs to stand on.

No, I just find, form what I can see, that you are very rigged in your outlook. You reject much without examining more than ideology or a named individual.

It is like you fear some polluting influence. Your use of ridicule strikes me the same.

You don’t see the humor in bicycle mechanics proving the mainstream wrong. It is excepted now so it is a safe topic… Is there nothing that sparks your imagination?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

No, I just find, form what I can see, that you are very rigged in your outlook. You reject much without examining more than ideology or a named individual.

---

Most of what you bring to the table is stuff I'm already very familiar with; the loonies on the libertarian fringe rarely come up with something new.

Further, there is a huge gap between statements that science has not yet explained, and statements which science has proven to be false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Most of what you bring to the table is stuff I'm already very familiar with; the loonies on the libertarian fringe rarely come up with something new.

Further, there is a huge gap between statements that science has not yet explained, and statements which science has proven to be false.

---

I beg your pardon?

I post a link you won’t access because it was written by an Austrian economist but discussing the state, because you are afraid of the dangerous ideas, and I am the loony?

Shall we submit ideas to you for your approval before posting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I post a link you won’t access because it was written by an Austrian economist but discussing the state

---

What?

I've read the piece, and several like it. Many times.

Further, I have no need to actually read a linky from Marx someone posts, just seeing that the author is Karl Marx is more than enough to dismiss it as loony. The same goes for libertarian loonies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Further, I have no need to actually read a linky from Marx someone posts, just seeing that the author is Karl Marx is more than enough to dismiss it as loony. The same goes for libertarian loonies.

---

On the plus side, there is quite a few/lot of Marx scientific literature. They just have the tendency to say "Because Marx" at the end of it, whatever the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Anecdotal evidence, the hallmark of people with no legs to stand on.

---

Scientific inquiry and anecdotal evidence are not incompatible. Qualitative research must be carefully framed, conducted, and recorded -- since it cannot rely on statistics without an "n of 30" with which to work. Nevertheless, good work can be done from this perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Yes it is best to only listen to mainstream, always.

---

The problem with Rothbard is that there's not much there. From the article, he talks a lot about the old states, that had a very different structure than the new ones. A blatant example is that the new nobles (multigenerational rich families) are no longer generally located within the state. They're the power players in the free market.

He doesn't discuss how to solve the problems that the state is currently solving, but rather seems to ignoring that they exist at all.

I mean complaining about the police treating assults on the police more serious than an assult on an average citizen? Well duh, any law bringing organisation would do the same, both because it's their own private interest and the interest of them to provide proper law. And letting the rest of us not needing to buy bullets because the neighbours are picking a fight, like we used to (well crossbow bolts and things like that).

For your Wright brothers anology, it's more complex than that, they had several more or less botched demonstrations for the press. Cameras were forbidden as well.
They also didn't want much attention, at least in part for fear of design theft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Scientific inquiry and anecdotal evidence are not incompatible. Qualitative research must be carefully framed, conducted, and recorded -- since it cannot rely on statistics without an "n of 30" with which to work. Nevertheless, good work can be done from this perspective.

---

How is qualitative research anecdotal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The problem with Rothbard is that there's not much there. From the article, he talks a lot about the old states, that had a very different structure than the new ones. A blatant example is that the new nobles (multigenerational rich families) are no longer generally located within the state. They're the power players in the free market.

He doesn't discuss how to solve the problems that the state is currently solving, but rather seems to ignoring that they exist at all.

I mean complaining about the police treating assults on the police more serious than an assult on an average citizen? Well duh, any law bringing organisation would do the same, both because it's their own private interest and the interest of them to provide proper law. And letting the rest of us not needing to buy bullets because the neighbours are picking a fight, like we used to (well crossbow bolts and things like that).

For your Wright brothers anology, it's more complex than that, they had several more or less botched demonstrations for the press. Cameras were forbidden as well.
They also didn't want much attention, at least in part for fear of design theft.

---

As I said, I found the material to be a truism. There are more ways to explain it and this is the most critical of government in general.

The critical question, as I see it is not whether the friend and colleges of the officer have more of a motive to investigate and punish the crime. It is does the law differ in its protection.

I would submit that it is different. Authority protects its self to a greater degree in penalties for the same and even lesser offences. There are even special offences for citizens dealing with the police. I think that is more to the point. Resistance to authority is a crime.

Should it be?

With the Wright Brothers, really the only point was that a scientific journal said it was a lie without an examination of the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Should it be?

---

Yes.

What you and every other libertarian misses, is that a police officer and a civilian is not in the same position. The police officer is exposed to more crime as part of his job, and being the victim of a crime for a police officer means that his job is hindered, meaning he will be unable to stop other crimes for a while. Therefore, punishing offenders against the police harsher than others reduces overall crime, which is in our own interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes.

What you and every other libertarian misses, is that a police officer and a civilian is not in the same position. The police officer is exposed to more crime as part of his job, and being the victim of a crime for a police officer means that his job is hindered, meaning he will be unable to stop other crimes for a while. Therefore, punishing offenders against the police harsher than others reduces overall crime, which is in our own interest.

---

It is not only police, however. There are other crimes that can only be committed against government officials and penalties for common crimes against and official can carry harsher penalties, even if the perpetrator doesn’t know.

But in dealing with the police in particular, let us say you were stopped on the street by the police and told that you just had some violation. You find it absurd and recognize nothing of the sort. Practically anything you do or say from that point on may also be translated into some sort of crime. Harassing an office, the use of foul language, resisting the police. The list could go on. And don’t reach for your ID or phone, they may think you are a threat to their safety and shoot you, and perhaps a bystander or two in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It is not only police, however. There are other crimes that can only be committed against government officials and penalties for common crimes against and official can carry harsher penalties, even if the perpetrator doesn’t know.

---

Interfering with other parts of the government follows the same reasoning as the cops. Interrupting government business hurts the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

But in dealing with the police in particular, let us say you were stopped on the street by the police and told that you just had some violation. You find it absurd and recognize nothing of the sort. Practically anything you do or say from that point on may also be translated into some sort of crime. Harassing an office, the use of foul language, resisting the police. The list could go on.

---

This is only a problem for nutters who haven't learned to behave themselves. It does not happen to normal people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

And don’t reach for your ID or phone, they may think you are a threat to their safety and shoot you, and perhaps a bystander or two in the process.

---

This is US-specific, and caused by the gun laws. Outlaw all civilian guns, and you won't have this problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Interfering with other parts of the government follows the same reasoning as the cops. Interrupting government business hurts the population.

---

So all people are equal except those working for the government who are more equal because of position.

Which makes since from your view point as a government worker.

Quote:

---

This is only a problem for nutters who haven't learned to behave themselves. It does not happen to normal people.

---

An there never was, is not now, and never will be anyone in position of authority who abused there position?

Quote:

---

This is US-specific, and caused by the gun laws. Outlaw all civilian guns, and you won't have this problem.

---

Police over most of the world carry guns and big sticks, and are known to use them. People are shot in disarmed countries too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

So all people are equal except those working for the government who are more equal because of position.

---

Jobs are of unequal importance, yes. Some jobs depend on someone else to do their job in order to get stuff done. A functioning justice system(as well as other types of infrastructure, like mail or electricity) is critical to a society, and needs to be operational at all times. Just like you get a higher penalty for sabotaging the local power plant than the local grocery, you get a higher penalty for obstructing law enforcement than you do obstructing a gardener.

This is highly unproblematic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Which makes since from your view point as a government worker.

---

I am not employed by, or work for, the government.

But kudos for the failed attempt at an ad hominem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

An there never was, is not now, and never will be anyone in position of authority who abused there position?

---

Of course there are, and you find just as many of those in the private sector as you do in the government. In the private sector, however, such things are mostly regarded as business as usual, while government figures are routinely thrown in jail.

I am intrigued that you would use this type of argument, however, seeing as you are a gun advocate. As you should know, this argument applies equally to gun ownership; by your reasoning we should ban all guns because some use them for murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Police over most of the world carry guns and big sticks, and are known to use them. People are shot in disarmed countries too.

---

Our don't. Further, while Europeans certainly end up shot by the police occasionally, a European police officer generally does not worry about the suspect being armed, with the appropriate change in methods. You have to take a very different approach when you have good reason to suspect a hidden gun compared to when you have good reason to suspect an unarmed individual.

This should be pretty obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It is not only police, however. There are other crimes that can only be committed against government officials and penalties for common crimes against and official can carry harsher penalties, even if the perpetrator doesn’t know.

---

Being honest, you would have to be pretty ignorant and foolhardly not to know. Typical behaviour is usually being cautious and hesitant around an on-duty police officer due to feel of being intimidated/caught guilty with something even though you are innocent.

If you start bad mouthing and smacking an officer, you are 'asking for it'.

In life, we typically get away with a lot of things, simply because no one usually cares to get the authorities involved. But when they are involved, incidents are treated without the same disregard a joe or jane public might do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Jobs are of unequal importance, yes. Some jobs depend on someone else to do their job in order to get stuff done. A functioning justice system(as well as other types of infrastructure, like mail or electricity) is critical to a society, and needs to be operational at all times. Just like you get a higher penalty for sabotaging the local power plant than the local grocery, you get a higher penalty for obstructing law enforcement than you do obstructing a gardener.

This is highly unproblematic.



I am not employed by, or work for, the government.

But kudos for the failed attempt at an ad hominem.



Of course there are, and you find just as many of those in the private sector as you do in the government. In the private sector, however, such things are mostly regarded as business as usual, while government figures are routinely thrown in jail.

I am intrigued that you would use this type of argument, however, seeing as you are a gun advocate. As you should know, this argument applies equally to gun ownership; by your reasoning we should ban all guns because some use them for murder.



Our don't. Further, while Europeans certainly end up shot by the police occasionally, a European police officer generally does not worry about the suspect being armed, with the appropriate change in methods. You have to take a very different approach when you have good reason to suspect a hidden gun compared to when you have good reason to suspect an unarmed individual.

This should be pretty obvious.

---

1)Here is the basis of privilege and elitism. Masters and servants. Grocers and gardeners are just as desirable as policemen. Maybe more so.

Utilities workers are not protected, nor anyone working for a private firm, like ambulance attendants or medical personnel. Of possible interest: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-in-california (is NPR subversive?)

I guess he was a nutter though, huh?

2)Oh, you work for a private academy?

3)I wish!

4)Actually the US problem is one of mentality. With the rise of SWAT units all the cops shifted to a different mind set. The result is lots of casualties. Most victims of police shootings are unarmed.


Police forces, by the way, were created for control of the population for the benefit of those in power and the wealthy. Law enforcement was simply an afterthought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Being honest, you would have to be pretty ignorant and foolhardly not to know. Typical behaviour is usually being cautious and hesitant around an on-duty police officer due to feel of being intimidated/caught guilty with something even though you are innocent.

If you start bad mouthing and smacking an officer, you are 'asking for it'.

In life, we typically get away with a lot of things, simply because no one usually cares to get the authorities involved. But when they are involved, incidents are treated without the same disregard a joe or jane public might do.

---

The question is not should you harass police, it is whether they need special protections under the law that private citizens are not entitled to.

I would say striking jane public is just as serious as striking a police officer. If anything the cop is better equipped to deal with violence than some guy on the street corner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

1)Here is the basis of privilege and elitism. Masters and servants. Grocers and gardeners are just as desirable as policemen. Maybe more so.

Utilities workers are not protected, nor anyone working for a private firm, like ambulance attendants or medical personnel. Of possible interest: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-in-california (is NPR subversive?)

I guess he was a nutter though, huh?

---

Interrupting medical personnell, ambulances in particular, carry heavy penalties. The 'we are all the same'-bit is just nonsense. We are not all the same, our jobs are not equally important. Those jobs needed to make other jobs function are more important by definition. Usually, because of their importance, these functions are government controlled, as the private market is too unreliable for these services to function as needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

2)Oh, you work for a private academy?

---

I work for an IB school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

4)Actually the US problem is one of mentality.

---

....which is what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Police forces, by the way, were created for control of the population for the benefit of those in power and the wealthy. Law enforcement was simply an afterthought.

---

Extreme political paranoia: check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Interrupting medical personnell, ambulances in particular, carry heavy penalties. The 'we are all the same'-bit is just nonsense. We are not all the same, our jobs are not equally important. Those jobs needed to make other jobs function are more important by definition. Usually, because of their importance, these functions are government controlled, as the private market is too unreliable for these services to function as needed.

---

You are fundamentally stratifying society with that approach. Is it more of a crime to rob a rich man than a poor one? Is it more serious to shoot a lawyer than a farmer?

These are crimes. If circumstance warrants special treatment for a crime, then a judge should decide the penalty but not special laws for favored classes. Individual government workers are no more necessary to societal function than all the others.

Quote:

---

....which is what I said.

---

No it is not. The public didn’t get more dangerous, the police did.

Quote:

---

Extreme political paranoia: check.

---

I wouldn’t want you to be harmed but why don’t you travel to some of the countries in Easter Europe for a time and let me know what you think afterward. Norway is not much like most of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

You are fundamentally stratifying society with that approach. Is it more of a crime to rob a rich man than a poor one? Is it more serious to shoot a lawyer than a farmer?

These are crimes. If circumstance warrants special treatment for a crime, then a judge should decide the penalty but not special laws for favored classes. Individual government workers are no more necessary to societal function than all the others.

---

Hi there.

There is a fundamental difference, recognized by law, between an individual performing a certain role, and that same individual when not performing that role. "Favoured classes"? What rubbish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

No it is not. The public didn’t get more dangerous, the police did.

---

Yes, because agents usually operate in a vacuum. /sarcasm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I wouldn’t want you to be harmed but why don’t you travel to some of the countries in Easter Europe for a time and let me know what you think afterward. Norway is not much like most of the world.

---

I was in Bosnia and Croatia a month ago; I didn't see the police running about ordering folks around, sorry.

Not at all. The US congress has been known to exempt themselves from the laws the pass. Federal employees in the US on or off duty are covered under federal, not state law making crimes against them a federal matter. And surely that could happen no where else...Never mind what you recommended.

And because you never have police approach you no one else dose. Police brutality is a myth huh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Police brutality is a myth huh

---

https://s13.postimg.org/g3e1w0wdj/Strawman_light.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Federal employees in the US on or off duty are covered under federal, not state law making crimes against them a federal matter.

---

Completely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How is qualitative research anecdotal?

---

Take, for example, anthropology....one researcher studying one tribe to learn of its culture....a single "story" or anecdote is the result. Popper would not approve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Take, for example, anthropology....one researcher studying one tribe to learn of its culture....a single "story" or anecdote is the result. Popper would not approve.

---

For much of the early anthropology, I am inclined to agree.

EDIT: But then again, my knowledge of early anthropological research is rather limited, except for the many errors they made...

Still, qualitative research also includes stuff like including an open question on a question sheet as part of a larger quantitative question sheet. With a thousand individual responses, you're not very anecdotal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Not at all. The US congress has been known to exempt themselves from the laws the pass. Federal employees in the US on or off duty are covered under federal, not state law making crimes against them a federal matter. And surely that could happen no where else...Never mind what you recommended.

And because you never have police approach you no one else dose. Police brutality is a myth huh

---

The risk of corruption of police is always there. But that's something you have to accept, since it comes with the enforcement of law itself.

Having induvidual law enforcement would mean that the first time you get a large gang, it would take a long time before you'll get a proper response. Then you'll get the really large gangs (think riotsized, but controlled), that would require military to suppress, or they take power. PI:s would be the only ones with time to do better investigations. Plenty of wrongful convictions, etc, etc.

Having private forces? Their first mission would be to protect their employers (aka the rich) against everyone else. The treatment of everyone else is only relevant if it's so bad that everyone else makes an uprising. They would also need a control organ, that needs to be independantly funded, or you're having corruption more or less built in from the start.

And yes, attacks on civic infrastructure should be (slightly) harsher in punishment. That also means that the same induviduals getting assulted in private should be treated as the average citizen (not fully possible of course, but as an ideal).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

For much of the early anthropology, I am inclined to agree.

EDIT: But then again, my knowledge of early anthropological research is rather limited, except for the many errors they made...

Still, qualitative research also includes stuff like including an open question on a question sheet as part of a larger quantitative question sheet. With a thousand individual responses, you're not very anecdotal...

---

Are we confusing the research data (quantitative or qualitative) to how that research is tested?

If you have an open ended question and then statistical analysis of the answers its quantitative.

If the researcher goes "Answers were long for most of them, so we think most people care about the question." It's going to be a qualitative answer and therefore anecdotal evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Are we confusing the research data (quantitative or qualitative) to how that research is tested?

If you have an open ended question and then statistical analysis of the answers its quantitative.

If the researcher goes "Answers were long for most of them, so we think most people care about the question." It's going to be a qualitative answer and therefore anecdotal evidence.

---

There is plenty of qualitative research and analysis in Psychology, it plays a good part in understanding behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The risk of corruption of police is always there. But that's something you have to accept, since it comes with the enforcement of law itself.

Having induvidual law enforcement would mean that the first time you get a large gang, it would take a long time before you'll get a proper response. Then you'll get the really large gangs (think riotsized, but controlled), that would require military to suppress, or they take power. PI:s would be the only ones with time to do better investigations. Plenty of wrongful convictions, etc, etc.

Having private forces? Their first mission would be to protect their employers (aka the rich) against everyone else. The treatment of everyone else is only relevant if it's so bad that everyone else makes an uprising. They would also need a control organ, that needs to be independantly funded, or you're having corruption more or less built in from the start.

And yes, attacks on civic infrastructure should be (slightly) harsher in punishment. That also means that the same induviduals getting assulted in private should be treated as the average citizen (not fully possible of course, but as an ideal).

---

Yes, indeed it is to be expected but rather than just accepted it should be guarded against, and actions taken to remove it.

The setting apart of government officials because of position is simply a bad idea. Primarily because the people drawn to such positions are often those who wish power over others. To complicate the matter further, even the perception of privilege or authority has a tendency to build resentment on both sides of the issue.

With the rest I agree.