Johnson A libertarian view of "oppressive justice" on the streets.

[flacaltenn]

All views are mine. Not necessarily policy of Johnson/Weld or the LP -- but they absolutely reflect the different perspective that Libertarians bring to the current political debate on policing and justice.

Is the current American system of justice "oppressive" in minority/poor communities? Yes it is. But is it all due to systemic racism or unintentional bias? Don't think so.

The interaction with the justice system in marginally functional economic communities is inept and inefficient. As is the experience in other communities. But in a poor community -- a false warrant, a bad arrest or a $250 car towing can send an economically marginal citizen or family over the edge. There is no recourse for any of those abuses and no incentive for Govt to realize the disparate effect their mistakes and poor service have on the poor.

1) There are too many mistakes made in bringing warrants, arrests, even traffic violations and these take a toll on the limited time and resources when you are struggling to survive. Simple small FINES can seem monumental to folks earning $25,000 a year.

2) MOST time --- the folks who are "oppressed" LOVE the idea of BIG MUSCULAR govt. They look to it as the chief arbiter of everything decent and good. When in reality -- Govt falls far short of excellence in everything they do -- INCLUDING the administration of justice. Although it's a hard sell telling angry people that "this is as good as government gets" -- it IS pretty much true.

3) Once you get "enrolled" in encounters with the Law -- the poor are on a fast ride to having their lives ruined. Can't pay the fines? Can't take time off to appear in court? Don't have proper documentation? Already HAVE a record of OTHER criminal incidences? It all snowballs.

4) I believe --- that if a person is on the edge of existing to begin with -- and a false warrant or arrest is made -- these government agencies should ANSWER for it. Rather than immune from being inept, uncaring, or trying to treat ALL offenders with the same hostile, expensive encounters with the law.

The irony here is sad. Here is a demographic that was promised for 40+ years -- that their favored political franchise had their backs.. And NOW when all this this "street justice gone wrong" escalates again -- the promise is MORE layers of official Govt oversight ROT. MORE watchers to watch the watchers.
And you're still buying that shtick after 40 years?

WHAT DO WE WANT?
---- MORE GOVT.
WHEN DO WANT IT?
---- NOW.

If govt was responsive and focused and MOTIVATED to serve with excellence --- there would be more hope of making the system more humane and aware of the burdens they place on folks of limited means. Stop making the smallest encounters with "the system" -- a life ruining experience.

To do that -- the direction is LESS govt. The direction is PERFORMANCE BASED incentives for public service. And the direction is RECOURSE for terrible mistakes that DISPROPORTIONATELY affect people of limited means.

The LP has focused for 30 years on justice and prison reform. Never gave it a back seat. We ARE LISTENING and we are thinking about the chronic failures that people see over and over again in Govt..

Edit --- See also Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum for SPECIFICS on how local govts can do simple things to make HUGE strides in "Criminal Justice Reform"..

 

[mamooth]

A false dichotomy fallacy, that the only choices are "bad government" or "no government".

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A false dichotomy fallacy, that the only choices are "bad government" or "no government".

Agreed, that would be a false dichotomy, but since he didn't present such a thing that isn't really relevant

 

[mamooth]

Granted, there was also the fallacy that minorities were calling for more government. So there's that fallacy too.

And he's given no good reason as to why only a libertarian government would be "motivated to serve with excellence". I've seen him claim libertarians aren't motivated by winning, but that's absurd. They'd be just as motivated to win as anyone else. That is, if they wanted to be relevant.

Now, we liberals have an actual solution to remove corruption, which is the public financing of elections. If you can't take campaign contributions, you can't be corrupted by them. Strangely, most libertarians hate that idea, and instead want to keep a system that guarantees a candidate can't win unless they constantly accept legalized bribes.

 

[william the wie]

A huge problem is the cop in the shooting today did not observe:

safety discipline
trigger discipline
fire discipline

Judging by his "I don't know" response to why he shot means he probably does not know what any of the above is.

 

[JoeMoma]

Granted, there was also the fallacy that minorities were calling for more government. So there's that fallacy too.

And he's given no good reason as to why only a libertarian government would be "motivated to serve with excellence". I've seen him claim libertarians aren't motivated by winning, but that's absurd. They'd be just as motivated to win as anyone else. That is, if they wanted to be relevant.

Now, we liberals have an actual solution to remove corruption, which is the public financing of elections. If you can't take campaign contributions, you can't be corrupted by them. Strangely, most libertarians hate that idea, and instead want to keep a system that guarantees a candidate can't win unless they constantly accept legalized bribes.

A majority of minorities vote democrat, thus they are seeking government solutions to their problems.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

A false dichotomy fallacy, that the only choices are "bad government" or "no government".

1) "Good government" is a contradiction in terms.

2) Give us no government, in the here and now, for awile so we all can make an informed choice.

 

[JoeMoma]

Granted, there was also the fallacy that minorities were calling for more government. So there's that fallacy too.

And he's given no good reason as to why only a libertarian government would be "motivated to serve with excellence". I've seen him claim libertarians aren't motivated by winning, but that's absurd. They'd be just as motivated to win as anyone else. That is, if they wanted to be relevant.

Now, we liberals have an actual solution to remove corruption, which is the public financing of elections. If you can't take campaign contributions, you can't be corrupted by them. Strangely, most libertarians hate that idea, and instead want to keep a system that guarantees a candidate can't win unless they constantly accept legalized bribes.

Government financing of campaigns would play into the hands of people that already have high name reconizition.

 

[flacaltenn]

A false dichotomy fallacy, that the only choices are "bad government" or "no government".

There is NO way that those OP words advocate "NO government". You are a one-note pony with your false comparisons when you're stumped. I don't expect ANYONE to "get this" -- the 1st time out. But if you look at all interactions in poor communities with govt --- they have MORE exposure, LESS recourse, and more to LOSE than the rest of us --- when it comes to the usual crappy service and accountability of govt.

You blitz right the fuck over words like --- "performance based incentives" and "recourse for screwing up lives" --- didn't you? Typical. You're not a trustworthy convo partner. You probably don't reward or value trust if you're defending the "other choices"..

You do realize that there's a FULL SPECTRUM of opportunities to make govt WORK BETTER? Don't you?
Like being to reward excellence, firing the incompetent and expanding the ability to LITIGATE against gross malfeasance and govt negligence. Why is it that we PROTECT govt from accountability and EXPECT error-free excellent service? It's the Unions partly. I'm not a Union buster -- but they DO protect a lot of ambivalence and incompetence.

Think you piece together a REAL reply?

 

[flacaltenn]

Granted, there was also the fallacy that minorities were calling for more government. So there's that fallacy too.

And he's given no good reason as to why only a libertarian government would be "motivated to serve with excellence". I've seen him claim libertarians aren't motivated by winning, but that's absurd. They'd be just as motivated to win as anyone else. That is, if they wanted to be relevant.

Now, we liberals have an actual solution to remove corruption, which is the public financing of elections. If you can't take campaign contributions, you can't be corrupted by them. Strangely, most libertarians hate that idea, and instead want to keep a system that guarantees a candidate can't win unless they constantly accept legalized bribes.

They are. They want to Federalize every act of police negligence or bureaucratic abuse. They want "investigations, sanctions, Panels, Reports. They want MORE OVERSIGHT. More funding, more overhead on the product.

But no where in there is the simple revelation that what they get is "good enough for government work". A scary phrase that first heard in (of all places) Kennedy Space Center.

 

[flacaltenn]

A false dichotomy fallacy, that the only choices are "bad government" or "no government".

1) "Good government" is a contradiction in terms.

2) Give us no government, in the here and now, for awile so we all can make an informed choice.

I think the Anarchist Forum is out the door and further to the left ..

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I think the Anarchist Forum is out the door and further to the left ..

The points remain.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think the Anarchist Forum is out the door and further to the left ..

The points remain.

What? NO government is a point? You accept the US Constitution? Bill of Rights?

 

[JoeMoma]

I think the Anarchist Forum is out the door and further to the left ..

The points remain.

What? NO government is a point? You accept the US Constitution? Bill of Rights?

Excellent example of libertarian style government, when it originated. With case law, it has morphed into something else.

 

[flacaltenn]

Granted, there was also the fallacy that minorities were calling for more government. So there's that fallacy too.

And he's given no good reason as to why only a libertarian government would be "motivated to serve with excellence". I've seen him claim libertarians aren't motivated by winning, but that's absurd. They'd be just as motivated to win as anyone else. That is, if they wanted to be relevant.

Now, we liberals have an actual solution to remove corruption, which is the public financing of elections. If you can't take campaign contributions, you can't be corrupted by them. Strangely, most libertarians hate that idea, and instead want to keep a system that guarantees a candidate can't win unless they constantly accept legalized bribes.

Sure --- let the politicians be the "Sole Payer" for campaign cash. Brilliant move. MORE power to abuse. Almost ZERO chance for ANY competition to the 2 dysfunctional EXISTING parties. Are you CRAZY?

They are afraid to let other parties on the ballot. Afraid to debate a competent Johnson/Weld ticket in any forum. You think having them IN CHARGE of all political monies is a GOOD THING? Get outta Dodge.

How about instead we keep them from doling out favors that they really don't have the Constitutional authority to make? Stop them from picking winners and losers in the marketplace? Stop the corporate handouts COMPLETELY for crap that's been on the open marketplace for years?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I think the Anarchist Forum is out the door and further to the left ..

The points remain.

What? NO government is a point? You accept the US Constitution? Bill of Rights?

You speak as though those pieces of paper have constrained statist totalitarians, when the objective evidence shows otherwise.

How much evidence do you need of the oppressive nature of the monopoly on proactive coercive force, before you begin to reject it?

 

[flacaltenn]

I think the Anarchist Forum is out the door and further to the left ..

The points remain.

What? NO government is a point? You accept the US Constitution? Bill of Rights?

You speak as though those pieces of paper have constrained statist totalitarians, when the objective evidence shows otherwise.

How much evidence do you need of the oppressive nature of the monopoly on proactive coercive force, before you begin to reject it?

I've rejected it since I caught James Carville and Mary Matalin shacking up in cheap motels on the campaign trail as they ran the Clinton -- Bush campaigns. It was about then I woke up and realized that if THEY don't take this deadly seriously -- then I was never again gonna support EITHER of their parties.

It's about offering ALTERNATIVES and choices on the ballot right now. Not even about winning. Just getting respect and a seat at the table..

Do you ACCEPT the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Intend to enforce it? Intend to roll-back abuses? It's a Herculean task and I don't believe in miracles. It's hard work.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I think the Anarchist Forum is out the door and further to the left ..

The points remain.

What? NO government is a point? You accept the US Constitution? Bill of Rights?

You speak as though those pieces of paper have constrained statist totalitarians, when the objective evidence shows otherwise.

How much evidence do you need of the oppressive nature of the monopoly on proactive coercive force, before you begin to reject it?

I've rejected it since I caught James Carville and Mary Matalin shacking up in cheap motels on the campaign trail as they ran the Clinton -- Bush campaigns. It was about then I woke up and realized that if THEY don't take this deadly seriously -- then I was never again gonna support EITHER of their parties.

It's about offering ALTERNATIVES and choices on the ballot right now. Not even about winning. Just getting respect and a seat at the table..

Do you ACCEPT the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Intend to enforce it? Intend to roll-back abuses? It's a Herculean task and I don't believe in miracles. It's hard work.

OK, so you have bought into the belief that you're less of a prisoner because you get to choose the warden.

I'm simpatico, I was there. I was able to find a way to let it go.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think the Anarchist Forum is out the door and further to the left ..

The points remain.

What? NO government is a point? You accept the US Constitution? Bill of Rights?

You speak as though those pieces of paper have constrained statist totalitarians, when the objective evidence shows otherwise.

How much evidence do you need of the oppressive nature of the monopoly on proactive coercive force, before you begin to reject it?

I've rejected it since I caught James Carville and Mary Matalin shacking up in cheap motels on the campaign trail as they ran the Clinton -- Bush campaigns. It was about then I woke up and realized that if THEY don't take this deadly seriously -- then I was never again gonna support EITHER of their parties.

It's about offering ALTERNATIVES and choices on the ballot right now. Not even about winning. Just getting respect and a seat at the table..

Do you ACCEPT the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Intend to enforce it? Intend to roll-back abuses? It's a Herculean task and I don't believe in miracles. It's hard work.

OK, so you have bought into the belief that you're less of a prisoner because you get to choose the warden.

I'm simpatico, I was there. I was able to find a way to let it go.

I've watched the decline of respect and competence of govt. ESPECIALLY on the Fed level. It's a tragedy. We could ALL be more trusting of power if it was exercised correctly. But sidelining yourself when there's a huge new complex in Utah to spy on Americans --- just fails common sense. It's like waiting for the Mother Ship to arrive.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I've watched the decline of respect and competence of govt. ESPECIALLY on the Fed level. It's a tragedy. We could ALL be more trusting of power if it was exercised correctly. But sidelining yourself when there's a huge new complex in Utah to spy on Americans --- just fails common sense. It's like waiting for the Mother Ship to arrive.

For me, that's a tremendous incentive to reject them all. That facility will remain no mater which warden is elected.

You know in your heart this is true. Reject Stockholm syndrome.