| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
 Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:30 |
 Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for a public police force. |
A public police force benefits everyone indiscriminately (ideally).
Pat, I think the ultimate reason you have a problem with a public police force is because many of the laws they are forced to enforce are stupid.
A public police force should serve under the auspices of the judicial system, which ultimately is in existence to preserve the rights of the people.
|
Your point is unfortunately not true. Being a public good does not come close to implying that everyone is an equal beneficiary. Also, benefits are only one part of the equation. They must always be balanced by cost, both direct through monetary cost and indirect through corruption and abuse.
My disgust with a public police force has little to do with the laws they enforce. I hate legislatures for that. |
OMG DURR
Which is why I said "ideally." Nothing works out perfectly when it comes to government- that doesn't mean government has no place.
|
You can attach the word ideally to anything. That doesn't serve as a justification. The problem is that ideal scenario doesn't really come close to existing under a public police system.
epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good
with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system
is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
It's called a "conflict of interest." I don't want police investigating me that someone who would do harm to me is paying for. That isn't police- it's thugism. We want an impartial party who gets paid across the board by everyone so they don't become goons to one party or another.
|
What if the same company is employed by you? What if you're being investigated by the the Tennessee police department? Why is the government necessarily impartial? Sure this is easier if we assume that government police forces don't prefer one party to the next. Unfortunately the way that public goods work is that the provider of the public good is responsive to none of its consumers rather than being responsive to all of them equally. The public good isn't payed for which eliminates all incentive to respond to consumer demands. In fact, a disincentive actually exists in many circumstances. |
No company would be employed by me. Under your ideal, I'd just kill anybody I didn't like. End of problem. 
The government is easily the most impartial in this situation if everyone is funding it more or less evenly. No private company can be more impartial than an organization everyone funds more or less evenly.
And your concern starting at "unfortunately" isn't a problem either, because it assumes one provider (i.e., no collective of elected officials).
Overall, I'd say our local police is a good system. What you haven't done is shown how a private police won't result in thugism (and how much more useful it would be in protecting the rights of the people).
|
|
|
 |
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:32 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also? |
I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.
|
I don't really understand what you're saying. The identifying marker of a market system is the ability to do what I have just mentioned. Why shouldn't it be applied to this service? I don't see how anyone has identified this service as being fundamentally different from others. |
Simple - I wouldn't want to have justice only as much as I can afford it.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:33 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also? |
I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.
|
I don't really understand what you're saying. The identifying marker of a market system is the ability to do what I have just mentioned. Why shouldn't it be applied to this service? I don't see how anyone has identified this service as being fundamentally different from others. |
Simple - I wouldn't want to have justice only as much as I can afford it.
|
Food is a much more basic necessity, but we leave that to market forces.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:36 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also? |
I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.
|
I don't really understand what you're saying. The identifying marker of a market system is the ability to do what I have just mentioned. Why shouldn't it be applied to this service? I don't see how anyone has identified this service as being fundamentally different from others. |
Simple - I wouldn't want to have justice only as much as I can afford it.
|
Food is a much more basic necessity, but we leave that to market forces. |
Not really - for those in need ( real need), there are always solutions provided by the community, starting from personal charity to organized forms of charity, public shelters, asylums, etc.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:36 |
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for a public police force. |
A public police force benefits everyone indiscriminately (ideally).
Pat, I think the ultimate reason you have a problem with a public police force is because many of the laws they are forced to enforce are stupid.
A public police force should serve under the auspices of the judicial system, which ultimately is in existence to preserve the rights of the people.
|
Your point is unfortunately not true. Being a public good does not come close to implying that everyone is an equal beneficiary. Also, benefits are only one part of the equation. They must always be balanced by cost, both direct through monetary cost and indirect through corruption and abuse.
My disgust with a public police force has little to do with the laws they enforce. I hate legislatures for that. |
OMG DURR
Which is why I said "ideally." Nothing works out perfectly when it comes to government- that doesn't mean government has no place.
|
You can attach the word ideally to anything. That doesn't serve as a justification. The problem is that ideal scenario doesn't really come close to existing under a public police system.
epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good
with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system
is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
It's called a "conflict of interest." I don't want police investigating me that someone who would do harm to me is paying for. That isn't police- it's thugism. We want an impartial party who gets paid across the board by everyone so they don't become goons to one party or another.
|
What if the same company is employed by you? What if you're being investigated by the the Tennessee police department? Why is the government necessarily impartial? Sure this is easier if we assume that government police forces don't prefer one party to the next. Unfortunately the way that public goods work is that the provider of the public good is responsive to none of its consumers rather than being responsive to all of them equally. The public good isn't payed for which eliminates all incentive to respond to consumer demands. In fact, a disincentive actually exists in many circumstances. |
No company would be employed by me. Under your ideal, I'd just kill anybody I didn't like. End of problem.
The government is easily the most impartial in this situation if everyone is funding it more or less evenly. No private company can be more impartial than an organization everyone funds more or less evenly.
And your concern starting at "unfortunately" isn't a problem either, because it assumes one provider (i.e., no collective of elected officials).
Overall, I'd say our local police is a good system. What you haven't done is shown how a private police won't result in thugism (and how much more useful it would be in protecting the rights of the people).
|
The government isn't funded evenly. Not even close. The people in power in government don't receive pay checks due to consumers purchasing their services because they desire them. Their paychecks are guaranteed by government might via coercion. Corruption becomes the main means to acquire profit.
I'm not so sure I have to do that since our public police force has resulted in thugism. Aside from that I don't really no how to respond. Could you explain to me how it would result in thugism?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:38 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also? |
I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.
|
I don't really understand what you're saying. The identifying marker of a market system is the ability to do what I have just mentioned. Why shouldn't it be applied to this service? I don't see how anyone has identified this service as being fundamentally different from others. |
Simple - I wouldn't want to have justice only as much as I can afford it.
|
Food is a much more basic necessity, but we leave that to market forces. |
Not really - for those in need (real need), there are always solutions provided by the community, starting from personal charity to organized forms of charity, public shelters, asylums, etc.
|
And this wouldn't apply to their provision of justice equally well why? Even in our governmental system pro bono work runs rampant. It would only increase if all justice funding became privatized.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:40 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
By that logic, if you pay less, you don't get full fairness. I guess this is big enough a flaw.
|
How is that implied by that logic exactly? |
Because by market laws if you don't have much money you can't buy the premium product ("full fairness" in this case), only the cheaper products.
|
The same logic applies to production of any necessity. Should government provide food also? |
I thought I made it clear that my point is that we shouldn't apply this logic from one domain to the other exactly because it provides aberrant results. Your last response highlights this perfectly.
|
I don't really understand what you're saying. The identifying marker of a market system is the ability to do what I have just mentioned. Why shouldn't it be applied to this service? I don't see how anyone has identified this service as being fundamentally different from others. |
Simple - I wouldn't want to have justice only as much as I can afford it.
|
Food is a much more basic necessity, but we leave that to market forces. |
Not really - for those in need (real need), there are always solutions provided by the community, starting from personal charity to organized forms of charity, public shelters, asylums, etc.
|
And this wouldn't apply to their provision of justice equally well why? Even in our governmental system pro bono work runs rampant. It would only increase if all justice funding became privatized. |
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:43 |
|
You say private charities exist to provide food for the needy. Why wouldn't the same apply to the realm of justice. I then pointed out that private charity already routinely helps out those who can't afford legal fees, and we would only expect to see this increase the more privatized the system becomes.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:53 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for a public police force. |
A public police force benefits everyone indiscriminately (ideally).
Pat, I think the ultimate reason you have a problem with a public police force is because many of the laws they are forced to enforce are stupid.
A public police force should serve under the auspices of the judicial system, which ultimately is in existence to preserve the rights of the people.
|
Your point is unfortunately not true. Being a public good does not come close to implying that everyone is an equal beneficiary. Also, benefits are only one part of the equation. They must always be balanced by cost, both direct through monetary cost and indirect through corruption and abuse.
My disgust with a public police force has little to do with the laws they enforce. I hate legislatures for that. |
OMG DURR
Which is why I said "ideally." Nothing works out perfectly when it comes to government- that doesn't mean government has no place.
|
You can attach the word ideally to anything. That doesn't serve as a justification. The problem is that ideal scenario doesn't really come close to existing under a public police system.
epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
And a private justice system would work like the market, thus money will reign, not fairness.
Rob is right about the likely reason for Pat's weird idea of a private police force. |
The market maximizes people's preferences for a good
with respect to cost. The element to be maximized for a justice system
is fairness. I don't see any validity in your objection. |
It's called a "conflict of interest." I don't want police investigating me that someone who would do harm to me is paying for. That isn't police- it's thugism. We want an impartial party who gets paid across the board by everyone so they don't become goons to one party or another.
|
What if the same company is employed by you? What if you're being investigated by the the Tennessee police department? Why is the government necessarily impartial? Sure this is easier if we assume that government police forces don't prefer one party to the next. Unfortunately the way that public goods work is that the provider of the public good is responsive to none of its consumers rather than being responsive to all of them equally. The public good isn't payed for which eliminates all incentive to respond to consumer demands. In fact, a disincentive actually exists in many circumstances. |
No company would be employed by me. Under your ideal, I'd just kill anybody I didn't like. End of problem.
The government is easily the most impartial in this situation if everyone is funding it more or less evenly. No private company can be more impartial than an organization everyone funds more or less evenly.
And your concern starting at "unfortunately" isn't a problem either, because it assumes one provider (i.e., no collective of elected officials).
Overall, I'd say our local police is a good system. What you haven't done is shown how a private police won't result in thugism (and how much more useful it would be in protecting the rights of the people).
|
The government isn't funded evenly. Not even close. The people in power in government don't receive pay checks due to consumers purchasing their services because they desire them. Their paychecks are guaranteed by government might via coercion. Corruption becomes the main means to acquire profit.
I'm not so sure I have to do that since our public police force has resulted in thugism. Aside from that I don't really no how to respond. Could you explain to me how it would result in thugism? |
We're not talking about government overall. We're talking about local police under the jurisdiction of locally elected persons. Keep it in perspective, chuckles.
Our public police force has not resulted in thugism. A small portion of it may have- as I said, no system will be perfect. I'm saying this is better than what you are proposing.
Let's try again- under what authority would private policemen have in negating my government-protected right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and detaining me (or shooting me)?
|
|
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:55 |
|
Thanks for explaining. As far as I know charity goes for the desparate causes. I don't think the community would be impressed by the fact that for the moment I am not able to pay the bill for a patrol team that I'd need in order to help me with minor, not life-threatening issues. I guess they'd keep their money for those really in need.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:55 |
How does the situation change when only examining local government? Everything I said equally applies.
Ask a black person over the age of 40 if the police force is full of thugs.
I don't understand you question. Could you rephrase?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 20:57 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
Thanks for explaining. As far as I know charity goes for the desparate causes. I don't think the community would be impressed by the fact that for the moment I am not able to pay the bill for a patrol team that I'd need in order to help me with minor, not life-threatening issues. I guess they'd keep their money for those really in need.
|
Someone being left to the whims of any thug who wants a new tv is less immediate than a homeless man getting a warmer jacket or cancer researchers getting a cool mil to make marginal advancements?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 21:07 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
How does the situation change when only examining local government? Everything I said equally applies.
Ask a black person over the age of 40 if the police force is full of thugs.
I don't understand you question. Could you rephrase? |
Local government is easier for the people to govern than the federal government is.
Ask about half of America if corporations are made up of greedy people who should be taxed more.
I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase?
|
|
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 21:09 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Thanks for explaining. As far as I know charity goes for the desparate causes. I don't think the community would be impressed by the fact that for the moment I am not able to pay the bill for a patrol team that I'd need in order to help me with minor, not life-threatening issues. I guess they'd keep their money for those really in need.
|
Someone being left to the whims of any thug who wants a new tv is less immediate than a homeless man getting a warmer jacket or cancer researchers getting a cool mil to make marginal advancements? |
An attack is not what I was talking about, an attack can easily be life threatening. I was referring to more basic jobs.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 21:10 |
|
"Ask a black person over 170 if Americans keep slaves."
God, Pat, come on. You've been saying some inane things lately.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 21:13 |
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
How does the situation change when only examining local government? Everything I said equally applies.
Ask a black person over the age of 40 if the police force is full of thugs.
I don't understand you question. Could you rephrase? |
Local government is easier for the people to govern than the federal government is.
Ask about half of America if corporations are made up of greedy people who should be taxed more.
I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase?
|
Ok. But easier to control doesn't imply controllable and a government being local doesn't remove any of the inefficiencies inherent in any governmental enterprise.
The situation I referenced was one based on direct observable evidence rather than popular opinion. Your analogy doesn't fit.
? Your question wasn't even readable. If you don't want me to respond that's fine, but I didn't understand it.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 21:15 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Thanks for explaining. As far as I know charity goes for the desparate causes. I don't think the community would be impressed by the fact that for the moment I am not able to pay the bill for a patrol team that I'd need in order to help me with minor, not life-threatening issues. I guess they'd keep their money for those really in need.
|
Someone being left to the whims of any thug who wants a new tv is less immediate than a homeless man getting a warmer jacket or cancer researchers getting a cool mil to make marginal advancements? |
An attack is not what I was talking about, an attack can easily be life threatening. I was referring to more basic jobs.
|
You not being able to purchase the abilities of a protection agency would leave you vulnerable to attack. (of course ignoring your ability to defend yourself)
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 21:16 |
Epignosis wrote:
"Ask a black person over 170 if Americans keep slaves."
God, Pat, come on. You've been saying some inane things lately.
|
Hell change my question to ask a person who has grown up in the inner city if police behave anything close to reasonably.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 21:18 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
"Ask a black person over 170 if Americans keep slaves."
God, Pat, come on. You've been saying some inane things lately.
|
Hell change my question to ask a person who has grown up in the inner city if police behave anything close to reasonably. |
Since when do you care about the opinion of the inner city American?
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 02 2011 at 21:22 |
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
"Ask a black person over 170 if Americans keep slaves."
God, Pat, come on. You've been saying some inane things lately.
|
Hell change my question to ask a person who has grown up in the inner city if police behave anything close to reasonably. |
Since when do you care about the opinion of the inner city American?
|
Evidence is not opinion...
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!