6 ms·

There's nothing wrong or unprecedented about creating exceptions for particular circumstances - people acting in a specific capacity or otherwise. For example,

There's nothing wrong or unprecedented about creating exceptions for particular circumstances - people acting in a specific capacity or otherwise. For example, ambulances and firefighters are certainly also allowed to speed, when they're carrying out their duties - we've added exceptions to our laws for those circumstances, and done so as part of the normal democratic process. More mundanely, a park ranger is going to be allowed to do things like not pay the same parking fees that everyone else is allowed to, or cull animals out of season when the general population isn't allowed to hunt. This is fine! In a democratic society, we make the laws, and within certain bounds we can make whatever we want legal or illegal. We can also debate about whether or not certain groups that represent us should have certain powers, and it's also perfectly fine to have different points of view about what exact powers they should have. But fundamentally, all that's really going on here is we're deciding to delegate certain powers and responsibilities to a particular branch of government, which of course works on our behalf. The problem here isn't that the police have these exceptions carved out for them, the problem is that - at least arguably, there's room for debate here - the democratic process and rule of law has broken down in this instance, and the police aren't following the law at all. Now there's always considerable shades of gray in situations like this - arguably more so in common law countries, where there's layers and layers of interpretation on top of everything, and a good deal of vagueness in quite a lot of the law. It's been generally accepted for a long time that the police have a certain amount of latitude to break various laws in ways that are not remotely spelled out in the course of investigating crimes; many would argue (with some justification) that this covers what the FBI is doing here. There's nothing inherently wrong with this argument, as long as there really are checks and balances - that is, if the interpretation of what laws police are allowed to break isn't arbitrary, but is the result of some kind of consensus where the judicial system and the legislative system (the democratic process) has set bounds as it sees fit. I personally would be in favor of generally stricter limits, less vagueness and greater scrutiny of precisely what laws the police are allowed to break and when - but still, there's nothing _inherently_ wrong with the situation we're in now, at least to the degree that police conduct does follow the rule of law and it isn't "police getting away with things just because they're police". And on the more general subject of police and the rule of law - I don't find this particular instance with the FBI particularly problematic; I would prefer stricter limits here but I don't think this is an instance where the rule of law has broken down. I do think that the situation with entrapment in general _is_ a genuine problem - for example, the FBI has been manufacturing terrorist plots and cajoling/bribing people to help out in some small way that never would have if they didn't need the money, just because they're Muslim (which the FBI has been doing repeatedly). That, I think, is a clear example of an instance where the judicial system has clearly failed. Or even worse, the many police departments that routinely murder black people with hardly ever any real repercussions. But again - the problem isn't with the police having exceptions to the law, the problem is with a breakdown of the rule of law.

syshum 10y ago
>>>>For example, ambulances and firefighters are certainly also allowed to speed, when they're carrying out their duties - we've added exceptions to our laws for those circumstances, and done so as part of the normal democratic process. More mundanely, a park ranger is going to be allowed to do things like not pay the same parking fees that everyone else is allowed to, or cull animals out of season when the general population isn't allowed to hunt. and see I do not agree with these exemptions, or rather I believe it should be acceptable for a normal person to also speed when there is an emergency that would require it. So the Police and Fire are not exempted from the law, it is simply acceptable for all persons to speed when X is happening, and in most instances X would only apply to police and fire. The same is true for park rangers, If there is need to cull animals is should be open to all persons to cull them when the need arises. This is generally true today, as most places will hold a lottery or some other activity to give the public limited access to an area to cull the needed number of animals. >>This is fine! In a democratic society, It is not fine. I will set aside the fact that I am not a strong supporter of democracy, democracy is mob rule, and simply end with a Quote from an essay that I feel should be the Basis for law. ----- The Law by Frédéric Bastiat "What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." ---- If you believe in individual freedom at all, then it should be held that the collective force (government) can have no more power than that of an individual, and the government does not have the legitimate authority to grant powers and privileges to one individual (police, fire etc) that are not granted to all individuals.

syshum 10y ago

>>>>For example, ambulances and firefighters are certainly also allowed to speed, when they're carrying out their duties - we've added exceptions to our laws for those circumstances, and done so as part of the normal democratic process. More mundanely, a park ranger is going to be allowed to do things like not pay the same parking fees that everyone else is allowed to, or cull animals out of season when the general population isn't allowed to hunt. and see I do not agree with these exemptions, or rather I believe it should be acceptable for a normal person to also speed when there is an emergency that would require it. So the Police and Fire are not exempted from the law, it is simply acceptable for all persons to speed when X is happening, and in most instances X would only apply to police and fire. The same is true for park rangers, If there is need to cull animals is should be open to all persons to cull them when the need arises. This is generally true today, as most places will hold a lottery or some other activity to give the public limited access to an area to cull the needed number of animals. >>This is fine! In a democratic society, It is not fine. I will set aside the fact that I am not a strong supporter of democracy, democracy is mob rule, and simply end with a Quote from an essay that I feel should be the Basis for law. ----- The Law by Frédéric Bastiat "What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." ---- If you believe in individual freedom at all, then it should be held that the collective force (government) can have no more power than that of an individual, and the government does not have the legitimate authority to grant powers and privileges to one individual (police, fire etc) that are not granted to all individuals.