Any boot lickers care to argue against this?

what criteria? you haven laid any out

Because those don't cover everyone. You can always pay for those things on top of the basic protection provided by the police.

>Every cop has agreed is to enforce laws
American education.

How's that working out in Somalia?

The answer is obvious if you think about this for more than a split second. The enforcement of the good laws generates a greater amount of positive value for society than the negative value generated by the enforcement of bad laws, leading to a net positive value from the enforcement of all laws.

Also to some extent this:

Why not vote to change the law? Unless there were something wrong with democracy...

Attached: ben-garrison-march-of-tyranny.jpg (600x461, 139K)

>ii. Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, or even cruel and wicked
He states this like its irrefutable and unchangeable. It has to be that laws are """"""cruel and wicked""""". What stops a society from having entirely just laws (even from his point of view)? And how is that critique of the enforcers of the law rather than the legislative process? How the fuck is this guy a doctor?

If you tell them that they get upset.
Always. Without fail they get upset when you tell them they have discretion.

>on the whole, laws are just and make a society safer and more open
Do you honestly believe that?

they shouldn't have discretion 2bh, that's how you get unjust outcomes

This retarded. The law enforcer is doing his job enforcing the law. If the law is unjust it's because of the law maker. Who makes the law in America? The people. By his logic there are no good people.

I have an easier maxim that is much simpler, and once you get a leftist or 1000 to agree with you, you can turn it on niggers or kikes. What is it, you ask?
"Until good ___ stand against/fight against bad ____, there are no good ____"
Try it with "cops" in leftyland aka reddit. Guaranteed faggot-loads of karma. Then, once your comment gets up there, maybe gilded once or twice, add in there, "EDIT: You know what? This works with everything!
Until good black people take responsibility for bad black people, there are no good black people.
Until good Jews fight against bad Jews, there are no good Jews.
Christians and white people already do this so we can tell there are good ones and bad ones.
We need to hold everyone accountable for the crimes of their in-group!"
Then harvest salt.

So how does this guy feel about cops who track down and arrest murderers? For example, if his wife was attacked, raped and killed, would he feel ashamed to call the police to go after his wife's murder? Really makes the noggin crack open.

I don't think it's just to ruin a poor lad's life for tapping some 17 year old ass at 21 across state lines, yet you would suggest otherwise.

Attached: 1510776799341.png (500x400, 231K)

>they shouldn't have discretion
Yes they should, since discretion can only be to your benefit, since they can possibly just IGNORE YOU. If they DIDN'T have discretion, then they would have to enforce EVERY law ALWAYS, which would be fucking awful.

eye roll

also saged this faggot OP

This. Absolutely terrible thread.

There are police in Somalia, faggot

We'll never agree on what just laws are. Consequently, it's either anarchy or a state with law enforcement.

I'm not disagreeing

What's wrong with anarchy?

More than a society without laws, yes. Of course countries can and do go too far to the point where I'd agree with that retarded professor, but not in the USA. There are plenty of unjust laws here but not to the point where enforcing laws makes you evil.

It would cause unjust laws to be repealed instead of ignored and selectively enforced. There is a real problem in this country right now of having too many laws and too many ways that the law can be used against you precisely because the laws are enforced selectively. Why should two people committing the same illegal act be punished differently based on the whims of a police officer?

>How about private guards and insurance?
Which laws will these implement

>We'll never agree on what just laws are
We do in our every day lives - don't aggress against people or their property.
No other laws are needed.

that guy looks like his wife has taken multiple dicks, and more than a few since getting married,

I just wonder how you can have any serious convictions or actions or teamwork. Clearly this guy lives by an ethics of "if it's not good, it's not worth doing", but his idea of "good" is whatever is in his own head. Therefore he'll never be able to concede and work with other people to achieve a greater good or he's just another faggot hypocrite, but takes cheap shots at cops since they're a big, easy target and he'll never have to worry about kicking doors in the projects.

Attached: 1506005442980.jpg (453x410, 88K)

>cruel and wicked law
I'm curious what his definition of this is

>No other laws are needed.
What about noise or pollution? It's not that simple, even if you have a libertarian mindset

>More than a society without laws
No such society has ever existed, because laws exist wherever there are moral norms, which has been everywhere there've been humans always.
Words on paper being law is not the historical norm; most laws have been mores, and they're frankly much more desirable as mores.

Prove that it is necessarily evil to enforce an unjust law.

But why do some cops act like fucking niggers/are niggers
it isn't required by the law for cops to act like fucking niggers
some cops are chill
but they could at least be cool dudes when they enforce the evil and wicked laws or some shit
this doctor is retarded

the state has forced the american people to contend that if they want to enforce sensible laws like murder being illegal, they have to act injustly in other ways. its rational that some would choose to take the job anyways because they need to keep the streets safe.

>It would cause unjust laws to be repealed
That doesn't happen now. Unless there's political secession, the state will only encroach further, and after a single generation the new norm will be more unjust laws that they will claim aren't unjust because they're then the norm.

>What about noise or pollution
That's aggressing against people and property.
If you drop shit on my lawn that's a property violation.

>Many of the laws are unjust
And right there the dumb nigger steps into moral relativism. Nice attempt at logic though.

Attached: 1484176813909.png (443x374, 227K)

>What's wrong with anarchy?
Never said there's anything wrong with it. What I'm saying is that as long as there is no anarchy, there is a need for law enforcement. And we all have different views of what is just, so given
(A) no anarchy
(B) the pluralistic values that exist
We cannot have
(C) good cops
According to the quote of the niggerfaggot in op

you either follow all of the laws or you make it a judgement call, which is just a shitty way of having a justice system and would cause untold number of issues of selective enforcement etc.

this guy didn't think about it very hard clearly. "durr its either all or nothing, some laws are unjust therefore fuck da police"

>We do in our every day lives - don't aggress against people or their property.
Except you need dozens of volumes to define what is meant by this. aka the law.

Those would be aggressions against you and your property according to the law.

That's where the words on paper that make up our laws come from. And there were plenty of unwritten mores throughout history that nobody today would want enforced.

absolutely, there are more just laws than unjust laws. prove me wrong faggot

>That's aggressing against people and property.
How do you drive from A to B then? You make noise.
And how will you produce stuff at all if pollution is aggression that is to be avoided at all costs?

>Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, or even cruel and wicked.
Aaaand the argument falls apart. He doesn't name any specific laws or criteria a law must meet in order to be considered "wicked." That is a false premise and point 3 does not follow from it.

Also, I'm not even saying that the laws aren't unjust, I think many of them are. But if you're gonna make an argument that paints all police as enforcers of evil, you have to argue the case way stronger than "I don't agree with the laws." You would have to dissect the laws that are wicked to enforce and present a moral framework that determines which law is just or unjust. He doesn't do any of this because his purpose is to virtue signal and take the moral high ground rather than actually make a compelling argument.

Today. OP was a faggot.

Attached: 1524026885359.png (800x800, 766K)

>Except you need dozens of volumes to define what is meant by this
No you don't. You just need to agree on people ahead of time who will make judgements about violations.

Police are basically Zog Trooper lite in America. Other countries are smart enough not to give their police guns.

Attached: authority man.jpg (800x547, 206K)

Cops get a free ride too.

Attached: 1528482456114.gif (549x598, 262K)

>That's where the words on paper that make up our laws come from
No, it's not. Now they come from the dictates of rulers. And your rulers understand that to be the case - that's their own understanding of legal philosophy in the Western world. See plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/#2

>Those would be aggressions against you and your property according to the law.
Noise and pollution cannot be avoided entirely

>Doesn’t realize that the “good cop bad cop” is a interegation technique and has literally nothing to do with the ethics of the police at all.
Obvious slide thread is obvious. Saged.

Attached: 324E6B07-E396-4425-AE65-03E83F7C9F35.jpg (640x853, 43K)

>groveling
Thanks Ben. Wouldn't have gotten it if you didn't label that

>absolutely, there are more just laws than unjust laws
Most laws are petty local ordinances and business regulation laws, which are all unjust.

So judges? And so there isn't any confusion we should write down what the judge decided and use that consistently in the future. Congrats you just invented Common Law.

Exactly. He criticizes cops because he knows they won't take revenge. This guy wouldn't look a gangbanger in the eye.

When do we pass laws ordering the roundup and termination of the Jews who took over America turning it into a modern day hellhole filled with their lying news and corrupt politicians?

Attached: 1528296319421.jpg (519x488, 76K)

Eventually private guard and security forces would become the police

Yeah but to consider them "wicked" is just hyperbole, they are mild inconveniences drawn up by an over-active bureaucracy, OP's guy is acting like American cops are out patrolling and doing hits like the USSR. Also most local ordinances and shit aren't something the police deal with often, usually you just get your business fined and a court date.

Who is he to judge what is unjust or cruel?

People can make common sense determinations about what is and isn't reasonable.
If I bitch around the town that Kyle drives past my home at night and his truck happens to be loud, that is worth no one's time and energy to take seriously and I'd be a petty fucker who should be rightfully ignored.
If Kyle wakes me up at 3 AM every morning with a megahorn blaring Take On Me and then laughs as he drives up when I come out to bitch at him, that's clearly a wrong that people WOULD give ear to.

Cops need to enforce the law to maintain order in a society, if a law is unjust then it is the duty of the citizens to campaign to have it changed

Robert Higgs emigrated from America ages ago, retard. America is a police state and is filled with sheep like you who sit still while their government continuously restricts their individual rights.

i agree
get rid of police and institute the militia and military that will not coddle the degenerate entitle wusses

>So judges
Not in the sense of "judges" now, who are essentially your legal rulers, but people you ACTUALLY SELECT to be a neutral arbiter in the case of dispute.
You have to realize that right now, laws aren't predicated on harm. They're predicated simply on themselves, which is ridiculous. In historical law, for action to be taken against people, some wrong must have been done - there had to be some party who was a victim. The VAST majority of cases that government "judges" preside over are cases where there is NO INJURED PARTY.

>Any boot lickers care to argue against this?
Yes, come live in Rio de Janeiro as you seem to agree that good cops don't exist. It will be the perfect place for you.

>Yeah but to consider them "wicked" is just hyperbole
You think if I tell you to obey me in some regard that is completely unjust for me to demand, and that if you don't I will attack you, that that isn't deserving of being called wicked...?

bump for this genius libertarianism.

Attached: 12FE3A81-F314-4C24-86AA-FB606C99036F.png (1200x630, 434K)

>Yes, I raped your wife.
>But I also donated $100,000 to charity and built twenty orphanages in Botswana! That's clearly more good than bad, so there's nothing wrong with any of my actions and you can't possibly suggest I'm a bad person! :DDDD

I agree, that's why society votes on representatives who can set reasonable limits on those things.

>The VAST majority of cases that government "judges" preside over are cases where there is NO INJURED PARTY.
I don't think that's true. Most criminal cases I see are crazy drug addicts either acting crazy or stealing for drug money. I don't support the drug war btw. On the civil side most disputes come to a conclusion between the parties before going to trial.

t. lawyer

What about the farmer that uses pesticides that end up in your water supply?

Most cases are traffic violations and other non-violent "offenses" where there is nobody who has been hurt.
C'mon bruh.

I'll bite. You show me a workable alternative first.

If he hurts people he owes them damages.
Restitution is the proper object here.

OMG are you like a nahtzee or something?
>Kek

My point is that you have to define some arbitrary threshold of what kind of externalities are still acceptable.
Not everyone has his 'common sense' threshold at the same level as you have

How many prosecutions are there for that annually

I have zero problem with there being rules of the road. The only place I've ever seen people pulled over for being anything other than a dangerous jackass was in California.

I wonder who this faggot is going to call when a dindu breaks into his house and starts raping his wife. Years of vegan onions diet has left him incapable of serving as the male role in his family. I'm sure hes anti-gun so he has no way of keeping a welfare warfare bonobo from fucking his wife.

>My point is that you have to define some arbitrary threshold of what kind of externalities are still acceptable
You really don't. People have common sense notions of what is reasonable and what isn't, and in the case of settling disputes people select people whose judgement they approve of. There need be nothing more than that - if me and Bob have a dispute, and we both agree in advance that Jim should be our judge because we think Jim's judgement is solid and reasonable, we'll just abide by Jim's judgement. Nothing else is needed.

>muh ancap voluntary slavery is preferable to laws n sheeit

>I have zero problem with there being rules of the road
You should have a problem with most of them, given most of them aren't about safety at all - they're excuses to loot you.
Take for example registration stickers. What are those things DOING for you? You're already required to have license plates, so what in GOD'S NAME are those stickers accomplishing in terms of a positive good?

that option is literally available to you right now

the problem is that one of you won't agree to it

This faggot speaks as if he's quoting the 3 laws governing robots in I Robot. It's human beings. I've encountered many nice cops and a few dick cops. One time me and a black friend encountered cops, it was a BLACK cop that gave my friend shit. Guarantee you this fucking beta man would be begging the police to help him if his house was infiltrated.

ii. is a matter of opinion. Therefore iii is a matter of a opinion.

>that option is literally available to you right now
In some sense that's correct but in most senses it isn't, because one party can - and is incentivized to because he is FORCED to pay for it in the first place - force the other party into the state court, because the state court sees itself as an absolute authority.

youtube.com/watch?v=nBuGpTOwQbM
^ this is how a sane legal system instantiates.

>there are laws I don't agree with so we should aboish law and order

Why do liberals believe that everyone can just live in perfect harmony like some fairytale?

What I fucking hate about mongoloids making such absolutist ""arguments"" is that they smugly think they've figured it out. How the fuck do you come to such a retarded conclusion and think to yourself, "Anyone who disagrees with this is unironically wrong." unless you're mentally slow?

> salt harvesting
reddit doesn't do that anymore, they just ban you and then try to doxx you from your reddit history

Robert Higgs is a libertarian, retard. Police are a greater threat to the average person than any private gang. You are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

His logic is sound. If you disagree, you are wrong.

>society
>votes
>representatives

There is, as a matter of objective fact, no such thing as a society. As a society does not exist as a physical entity, it cannot think or act, much less 'vote'.

The State is an extortive enterprise run by a league of senile bureaucrats, who receive 'legitimacy' from the votes of a large number of individuals. These votes do not alter the ethical nature of their actions as theft, kidnapping, and murder. There is not some magical property of votes that renders what could only be regarded as a savage act of violence when committed by any civilian (kidnapping your neighbor because he's smoking a plant you don't like) acceptable and moral when commited by a bureaucrat or agent of a bureaucrat.

How you slavishly try to justify people herding you about like chattel and stealing the fruit of your labor is honestly quite disgusting. It's behavior to be expected from a dog or sheep, not any self-described man.

Oh, forgot to mention that cops should be brutally executed on the spot like any other common thieves when engaging in aggression against the rights of the individual. The (((judges))) should be held criminally and civilly liable for all the shit they've done over the years, the State prosecutors too. I would hang all of them if that was feasible.

I could, but first riddle me this... What assumptions is he asserting?
Also, point out where his argument turns into pure emotional pandering.

If you can answer these, then I'll deem you worthy of an answer.

I bet you're the same asshole who got caught doing 33 in a 30 yesterday. I'll remind you once more. If you don't want to be punished for disobeying a law. DON'T BREAK THE LAW