5 ms·

This happens all the time for officers and not for officers. It depends on what the political agenda is of the mayor and DA. Counterexample: look at what is hap

This happens all the time for officers and not for officers. It depends on what the political agenda is of the mayor and DA. Counterexample: look at what is happening in Portland right now. The DA is flat out refusing to bring charges against criminals. (Also for a longer history of counter examples, see what happens to people who are criminal finaceers. Spoiler alert: nothing.) What people fail to realize time and time again is so many of our contemporary issues come down to power struggles. It all has to do with power dynamics and how one set of grifters is vying to keep it over another set. My answer has always been limitations. Limited powers, limited government, limited terms. But happy to hear of other realistic solutions that don't resemble an anarcharist approach.

sp332 6y ago
If you're in favor of limited government, why so negative about anarchy?
- bzbarsky 6y ago
  Because there is a qualitative difference between "limited government" and "no government"?
  - modwest 6y ago
    Never fails IME people who say they favor “limited government” really mean “government for thee, not for me.” They want laws enforced, sure, but mostly just the ones about keeping the rabble from getting in the way of the fReE mArKeT. It’s painfully obvious to me, now, after everything, that pursuing a “limited government” requires making it harder for certain groups to vote and gerrymandering. Can’t have the rabble voting in their own welfare; that means higher tax rates on top earners —- aka “getting in the way of the fReE mArKeT” —- to pay for it. It’s the inevitable conclusion, as we are seeing in the United States.
    - dimitrios1 6y ago
      This is sarcasm, right? There haven't been this many broad-as-daylight examples of "Laws for thee and not for me" than the authoritarian, wanna-be tiny-emperor governors and mayors, and representatives of a certain political ideology all across the country with their draconian, unscientific lockdowns. > It’s painfully obvious to me, now, after everything, that pursuing a “limited government” requires making it harder for certain groups to vote and gerrymandering. You have been reading way too much propaganda. First of all, Gerrymandering is enjoyed by each side of our ruling class. So that invalidates the rest of your nonsensical point.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - modwest 6y ago
        uh huh one "certain political ideology" stormed the capitol and murdered a police officer. maybe you saw it, it was led by a centaur furry right through them beating a cop to death on the steps of the capitol building. But sure, yeah, absolutely, it's the libs who are destroying america. Give me a break. You're not a serious person. Go back to qanon or whatever new conspiracy theories you "liberatarians" are on to next. edit: But since you're obviously struggling with a social life, I'll give you some help. > I can't get people I am close with to even consider engaging in conversations about firmly held beliefs they have if I even remotely present myself as possibly holding a different opinion. Yeah because you're an annoying asshole my guy. All you do is cast yourself as the victim. Gee whiz I wonder if you're a mediocre white-passing guy in tech, it's really a whole mystery. Have fun responding, I'll see you in 6 months when I check this account again.
        dimitrios1 6y ago
        Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, et all all called for similar insurrections during their favorite completely debunked conspiracy theory that we've heard about incessantly for the last 4 years. When businesses were being burned and looted during the summer, and 24 people died, they complicity supported it, and used it as an opportunity to advanced their political talking points, and attack their political foes. Get your head out of your own ass.

sp332 6y ago

If you're in favor of limited government, why so negative about anarchy?

bzbarsky 6y ago
Because there is a qualitative difference between "limited government" and "no government"?
- modwest 6y ago
  Never fails IME people who say they favor “limited government” really mean “government for thee, not for me.” They want laws enforced, sure, but mostly just the ones about keeping the rabble from getting in the way of the fReE mArKeT. It’s painfully obvious to me, now, after everything, that pursuing a “limited government” requires making it harder for certain groups to vote and gerrymandering. Can’t have the rabble voting in their own welfare; that means higher tax rates on top earners —- aka “getting in the way of the fReE mArKeT” —- to pay for it. It’s the inevitable conclusion, as we are seeing in the United States.
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    This is sarcasm, right? There haven't been this many broad-as-daylight examples of "Laws for thee and not for me" than the authoritarian, wanna-be tiny-emperor governors and mayors, and representatives of a certain political ideology all across the country with their draconian, unscientific lockdowns. > It’s painfully obvious to me, now, after everything, that pursuing a “limited government” requires making it harder for certain groups to vote and gerrymandering. You have been reading way too much propaganda. First of all, Gerrymandering is enjoyed by each side of our ruling class. So that invalidates the rest of your nonsensical point.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - modwest 6y ago
      uh huh one "certain political ideology" stormed the capitol and murdered a police officer. maybe you saw it, it was led by a centaur furry right through them beating a cop to death on the steps of the capitol building. But sure, yeah, absolutely, it's the libs who are destroying america. Give me a break. You're not a serious person. Go back to qanon or whatever new conspiracy theories you "liberatarians" are on to next. edit: But since you're obviously struggling with a social life, I'll give you some help. > I can't get people I am close with to even consider engaging in conversations about firmly held beliefs they have if I even remotely present myself as possibly holding a different opinion. Yeah because you're an annoying asshole my guy. All you do is cast yourself as the victim. Gee whiz I wonder if you're a mediocre white-passing guy in tech, it's really a whole mystery. Have fun responding, I'll see you in 6 months when I check this account again.
      - dimitrios1 6y ago
        Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, et all all called for similar insurrections during their favorite completely debunked conspiracy theory that we've heard about incessantly for the last 4 years. When businesses were being burned and looted during the summer, and 24 people died, they complicity supported it, and used it as an opportunity to advanced their political talking points, and attack their political foes. Get your head out of your own ass.