Authoritarians versus libertarians on DU..

[The Vinyl Ripper]

After the "Circuit City" and "Taser" threads I've come to the conclusion that there are far more authoritarians on DU than I would ever have imagined.

Will Pitt seems to think that the Taser thing is some old battle resurfacing and I haven't been here long enough to have any clue whether or not that is true.

I would like to get the authoritarian/libertarian conflict directly out in the open though since IMO it is fueling at least some of these "flamegasms".

Particularly on the Circuit City threads it seemed to me that many of the authoritarians basically have the attitude that stepping out of line in any way is reason enough to be hassled by both private security and the cops.

I don't want to live in a country like that.

What do y'all think?

[Nite Owl]

1. We stepped out of line,

that's why we are a country. We didn't sit down and take it from the King and thus we have America. That's the America I want back. It seems that all of *'s scare tactics have worked, they have become acceptable now, not so bad, gotta keep control of people and all that. Not in my America.

[Greyhound]

184. While it has certainly been used (in the extreme) by shrubCo, it was

begun long before. We have succumbed to the constant drum-beat of "be afraid, fear everything and everyone". From your household pets, to every other person on the planet, we are barraged with "news" and "infotainment" (there's a difference?) stories about ax-murdering cheerleaders and the kitty cats that took down granny to eat her carcass.

Your job, your food, your co-workers and neighbors, your swimming pool, your vacuum cleaner and it's appliance allies, the water you drink and the very air you breathe, they're all out to get you. There's a molester behind every bush, every stranger on the street will beat and rob you, and the whole world wants to kill you (especially those brown people, they're the worst).

Sure, bad things happen every day, but then, they always have. If you live in a big city, the fact is that just about anything you can imagine happens every day, it's just the law of averages. The point is that if you let fear run your life, you will never experience it, learn anything about it, or form your own opinions about it, but instead, will simply accept whatever they chose to tell you and believe everything you're told. A nice, compliant sheep, waiting patiently in your pen to be sheared at will.

[ixion]

2. I'm of the Libertarian variety

and I don't think cops ought to be allowed to hassle anyone who is not a violent and direct threat to someone else.

That would exclude the use of force in both these cases, IMO.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

3. You know, maybe a better discussion

would be what exactly does the right to "free speech" mean? I think if we were all closer in our understanding of that right, what seems to be a vast gulf between "authoritarians" and "libertarians" might be more narrow than first appears.

If you feel that I"m hijacking your thread, I'll be happy to delete this post. Ok? :)

I'll start with something that I wrote on another thread:

A person has a right to speak without fear of the government censoring the content of his speech. Thus, he can promote his views on the web, stand on a street corner and pass out fliers, lecture in the town square, etc.

On the other hand, NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD! No one. If this gathering had rules for the students to ask questions, Andrew Meyer had NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to expect that he could speak uninturrupted. He had no constitutional right to grab the mike out of turn and grandstand. None.
When the university official or person in charge determined that his time was up, he had no right to continue without an expectation that he would be removed. What he did have was a right to be safe in his person and safe from the government taking action because of the content of his speech.

HOWEVER, when A. Meyer would not stop speaking, he escalated the entire incident to one where he became of subject of arrest. Once he resisted arrest, he had no right to expect that he would be entirely safe. He did have a right to expect that the police officers would use as much force as possible to subdue him, and no more.

The use of the taser is very questionable and disturbing to me, but I can't say with 100% certainty that they were wrong. I believe they were very likely wrong, but without knowing more, I'll leave that to the official inquiry and hope that it's a fair and honest inquiry.

Between the rightwingers wanting to take away true free speech rights, and members on the left wanting to claim speech rights that don't exist, it's no wonder that Americans don't know what their rights are!

I'm sure someone with more knowledge of constitutional law could do a better job explaining. I apologize if this isn't clearly written. I studied this stuff such a long time ago!

*************The original poster kindly "doesn't mind" my post, but would prefer no "thread drift," so I'm leaving it up and asking folks not to reply, but if anyone would like this discussion on another thread, I think it might "narrow the perceived gap."***************

Thanks very much!

[The Vinyl Ripper]

10. I don't mind your post..

I have a black belt in thread drift myself. :D

But I am well aware that "free speech" is a government thing that has nothing to do with behavior of a private entity.

I would appreciate it if you would start your own thread about "free speech' though since that isn't really my thrust here.

[mike_c]

31. I disagree with a fundamental point you're making....

As I understand it, the specific event was a public forum convened for the expressed purpose of fostering dialog and free speech. As an academic, I would find it absolutely appalling if the circumstances were otherwise at a public institution like UF. Under those circumstances I believe everyone DOES have the right to be heard-- and if that right is not protected by the Constitution then it should certainly be protected by the academic freedom such forums require.

Does that include the right to "act up?" I believe it does-- it MUST-- otherwise, where do we draw the line? The KKK can march down main street but a student cannot express his opinion in a public forum at his own university? How does this event differ from neocons ejecting folks who disagree from Bush pep rallies? I don't think it differs at all. When one calls a public forum, using public funds, on the grounds of a public institution, attendees who wish do indeed have the right to be heard, even if the rest of the crowd doesn't agree with them.

The police action was completely uncalled for. At worst, Mr. Meyer violated the microphone etiquette the organizers requested. That's rude, but it's not illegal (and his total time at the microphone was only about a minute and a half). He was asked to leave but he refused-- that's rude too, but it's not illegal. He "resisted arrest" when the police intervened without just cause, and the situation escalated because he was not compliant. This was never a matter for law enforcement to begin with, and it was the police who made the entire episode inevitable by forcing authority in a situation that called for civil engagement.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

37. I don't see where you and I disagree.. n/t

[mike_c]

58. I was replying to #3....

Good OP, by the way.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

102. Oops

I am deleting the post because I told the OP I wouldn't hijack the thread.

[lumberjack_jeff]

169. I don't see your post as a hijack.

Your point, (paraphrased) 'our right to swing our arms end at the tip of someone else's nose' is eminently pertinent.

PJ O'Rourke once wrote "don't pass any laws that are worth shooting granny over". His point was that if you set up a law in which parking is limited to 30 minutes in front of the courthouse, granny might violate it. If she does, she'll be compelled to pay a ticket, if she refuses, she'll have to go to court. If she refuses... the logical extension of this escalation is that absent her eventual capitulation to society's rule, one day she'll be shot while attempting to escape from jail.

The student didn't respect the rules for questions at the forum, then further, didn't respect anyone's authority to enforce them. Whether he was asking a good question is beside the point.

I don't consider an arrest for resisting police officers to be, by itself, a manifestation of authoritarianism. I wonder if we'd leap to Fred Phelps defense if he'd done something similar.

[cascadiance]

199. I thnk this incident is a symptom of not having something like "the Fairness Doctrine"

What you are saying is somewhat correct, but the problem we have today, is that those with dissenting ideas are not allowed to have as much time to present their ideas/questions/speech to the rest of us than those in control are. It is increasingly hard to have the mainstream media DO THEIR JOB of questioning what is going on in government, and they are part of the problem, since, along with the government, they control so much of the avenues to free speech.

What you are seeing here was a man, whether he was obnoxious or completely in command of his senses or not, who was frustrated with not being given this opportunity to be heard, and who probably also felt that many of us who share his same set of questions/ideas also haven't been able to be heard, and that the limits they were trying to force on him not being heard were part of this problem that the Fairness Doctrine in the past would have addressed. Equal time and access to present ones' ideas.

Now the Fairness Doctrine, were it to be reintroduced today in a completely different media/information landscape, would have to be retooled to do the right thing and have the right teeth to force some degree of parity of voice of ideas, but the fact that control over the public expression of ideas is increasingly being controlled and relegated to a smaller set of people is the problem on why we have folks like this guy doing what he did.

Until we recognize that and have some way of having everyone feeling a decent way of being "heard", we are going to have more incidents like this, and some likely with results even worse (like perhaps Kent State of the past).

[superkia]

237. You just explained my take on this as well, thank you.

[mike_c]

4. I agree wholeheartedly....

I too am dismayed by the number of people I've seen defending what are at best police state tactics for controlling individuals intent on standing up for their rights, no matter how obnoxious that might appear. It's especially chilling to see the degree to which people defend the police practice of using violent force for convenience-- at best it's a failure to avert the need for violence in the first place, and fascist piggery at worst.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Yes. We Should All Use Firebombs Instead Right?

:rofl:

"It's especially chilling to see the degree to which people defend the police practice of using violent force for convenience-"

If I recall, you were whole heartedly defending some psycho criminal who firebombed a bunch of stuff and destroyed a bunch of other people's property right?

Amazing the disconnect, in what chills you to see defense of and what doesn't.

[mike_c]

71. there's no disconnect at all....

In a police state, or a corporate fascist state, or whatever you might want to call it, individuals often have no choice but to take direct action because the institutions they rely on to represent their interests are failing to do so, often willfully. That's not violence for convenience, it's the violence of the disempowered who have no other means of making their voices heard. I don't like it, but I understand it. And we've already discussed the distinctions between violence against people and destruction of property, so lets not kick that dead horse any longer.

In the present discussion, I'm lamenting the all too common reliance of police on violence as a matter of convenience-- when a citizen is acting inconveniently, punch them, trudgeon them, taser them, shoot them, etc. I don't object to police protecting themselves from violent attack, but more often than not police violence results when cops are directly threatened with nothing more serious than refusal to comply. Most of us work those kinds of disputes out amicably, or at least without violence.

[asthmaticeog]

5. Straw man:

"many of the authoritarians basically have the attitude that stepping out of line in any way is reason enough to be hassled by both private security and the cops."

[The Vinyl Ripper]

13. No it's not a straw man

As the Circuit City threads plainly showed.

[asthmaticeog]

36. It IS a straw man. You're cariacaturing a more complex argument to make it easier to knock down.

The plurality of people in those threads, however sympathetic to authority they may or may not have been, did not say that "stepping out of line in any way is reason enough to be hassled by both private security and the cops." Your construction is especially laughable in light of the fact that in this case, the purported victim called the police himself.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

40. In the case of the CC threads..

The man did *not* step out of line.

And yet there were plenty who thought he deserved what happened to him.

[asthmaticeog]

44. Now you're begging the question.

Since there was never any corroboration of the purported victim's assertions, whether or not he was sufficiently "out of line" to merit suspicion is still the chief question that needs to be answered, but you take a side as given and proceed from there.

What's your next fallacy going to be? My money's on ad hominem.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

47. All we had to go on was the first person account..

And given that first person account, some people thought the man was out of line and some thought he was just standing up for his rights.

BTW, I bet you resort to insults before I do..

[asthmaticeog]

57. Nope. won't happen. You just conceded my point, so I'm done here.

Since, as you now admit, all we had to go on was a first person account, it's entirely unreasonable for anyone to defend that account without corroborating evidence, AS YOU DID upthread.

Because A) on that political compass thingy I always turn up left-libertarian, and B) I think it's probable that in the CC case, the purported victim (there's a reason I'm careful to always say that) AND store security AND the police were all douche-hammers, I have no dog in this fight whatsoever (and I live near that very CC!), but when you commit fallacy after fallacy after fallacy, it sends up a red flag that you might not have an argument to begin with. Make your point without cheap rhetorical tricks, and your point can be discussed instead of the rhetorical tricks, is all I'm saying.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

61. When did I ever claim

That there was anything *other* than a first person account?

How is simply walking by an illegal search being a "douche hammer"?

[asthmaticeog]

68. Your words: "The man did *not* step out of line."

WE. DON'T. KNOW. THAT.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

75. When did I ever claim otherwise?

You didn't answer my question.

When did I claim that we knew more of the incident than the first person report?

People, based upon the first person report, were calling the man a "douchebag" and worse.

[asthmaticeog]

80. The knowledge claim is implicit in your statement.

You, based upon the first person report, said that he did not step out of line. There is no difference between saying that and what you seem to object to. Whether you say he did not step out of line or if others say he did (and was a douchebag), positive claims are being made based on uncorroborated testimony.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

83. You really seem to be missing the point here..

Based on all the information available people were claiming the man was, among other things, "a douchebag".

[asthmaticeog]

85. And YOU'RE claiming he did nothing wrong.

There is no essential difference.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

89. Tell me then...

What *did* he do wrong according to what we know?

[asthmaticeog]

91. My whole point is that we basically know nothing.

Which is why you don't see me making unequivocal assertions - or straw man arguments.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

95. But you didn't answer my question once again..

What did the man *do* that was so wrong that people would be calling him "a douchebag"?

If you can't answer the question then my argument is not a strawman.

[asthmaticeog]

99. I don't *have* to answer for other people.

Your argument was patently a straw man, irrespective of what I may or may not say about anyone else - you took the most indefensible position expressed and acted as though it were the only one.

I am now absolutely done with you. I cannot believe how much time I've wasted on your non-arguments as it is. Good night to you, sir.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

103. So basically the man didn't do anything wrong

To which you can point.

And yet you still defend those who called him "a douchebag"..

[asthmaticeog]

105. *groan*

My entire point: Neither you NOR those who called the guy a douchebag have any place saying anything about the guy because you both know exactly the same nothing based on the same uncorroborated tale. That's not a defense. I'm saying you're both wrong.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

106. No.....

Based on the evidence we have, the man did nothing wrong.

And yet people called him a douchebag.

Those people are authoritarians, they revealed that by their reaction to someone simply walking out of a store without submitting to an illegal search.

[EstimatedProphet]

108. YES!

The point is - WE DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE!

In the course of this thread, you jump from claiming that we have evidence, to we don't have evidence, back to we do have evidence. NO, WE DON'T. What we have is 2 versions of what happened, from 2 different perspectives. That is not evidence. View an objective source like a security video and things may change, but until then, it is one person's story vs. another's. You don't know that the guy did nothing wrong any more than anyone else knows that he was a jerk.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

109. Wrong case...

We were discussing the Circuit City case...

In which the only evidence is the first person account.

And people were calling the man a douchebag based *only* on that evidence.

Evidence which showed all the man did was walk past an illegal search of his private property.

[EstimatedProphet]

112. No, not the wrong case.

That was the original point. What we have is a first person account, and nothing else. That's the reason we don't have any evidence. Some people are listening to the guy's story, and deciding that he is full of shit. Some people are listening to the guy's story, and deciding he's standing up for his rights. NO ONE has anythin but an account from him, so EVERYONE who is taking sides at all is doing so based on their own internal thought processes, and not based on anything objective.

The original point of this whole exercize is that it is a straw man to state that those people who don't support this guy are authoritarians, because no one knows how it went down from an objective standpoint. It is just as easy and invalid to claim that those who support the guy's story are the authoritarians, because they are lining up behind what he says without question. Both positions are wrong.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

113. Here is your answer...

If it were a totally fictional account..

I'd be willing to bet that people would come down on the same side.

Authoritarians on one side, libertarians on the other.

It was a "thought experiment" if you will.

On edit: And that wasn't the only evidence we had.

At least a couple of DU'ers came forth and related similar stories.

[EstimatedProphet]

115. "Willing to bet" and "fact" are not the same thing

And that's the real issue here. You're claiming people that disagree with you are authoritarian. What if instead they're jaded? Maybe they have read enough online blogs to believe that the guy is padding his story, so they discount everything he said.

What we have had in the CC threads is a disagreement, based on incomplete information. The leap in logic comes in in trying to decide what it means. No one knows that, which was the original point. You admit yourself that this is a thought experiment. Thought experiments are not, and cannot be, objective. You are by definition making assumptions.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

116. And those who came down on the side of the authorities

Are making assumptions also.

Authoritarian assumptions..

On edit: Someone else downthread pointed out that many here on DU complain even about small children and even infants acting out.

Now that *is* authoritarian..

[EstimatedProphet]

117. Everyone was making assumptions. That was the point.

"Authoritarian" and "Libertarian" have specific definitions. You, me, Bush, the man in the moon, anyone - we all have the same information, and it is incomplete. Insisting that someone is authoritarian just because they make a certain set of assumptions from an incomplete story is a leap in logic, every bit as much as it would be a leap in logic to claim that they are fascist, or a Republican operative, or a Green, or a Zoroastrian. What if someone is very progressive and libertarian, but they just really hate kids? You're associating certain positions as being representative of a set of beliefs, but those beliefs aren't necessarily defined by those same positions. The association between them is internal to you, not necessarily external.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

122. Positions are determined by beliefs..

If you have the position, based on no other evidence, that a man who simply walked by an illegal search is a douchebag, then your beliefs are going to be more authoritarian than someone who thinks the man was simply asserting his rights.

And anyone who hates kids is no liberal or progressive.

[EstimatedProphet]

135. No True Scotsman fallacy

And anyone who hates kids is no liberal or progressive.

That's your opinion. That's not part of the definition of liberal or progressive.

[asthmaticeog]

138. Citing fallacies doesn't seem to do much for this one, E.P.

It's how I got into this mess to begin with.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

183. Caring for others is not part of being a liberal or progressive?

I'm flabbergasted..

Children are people, people with no political outlook to despise.

Those who hate other people with no reason are not liberals or progressives in any way shape or form.

[EstimatedProphet]

196. "Liking children" and "caring for others" are not the same thing

And not liking children is not the same thing as hating children.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

110. Double post...... n/t

[asthmaticeog]

119. You don't get it.

Based on the evidence we have, we have no basis to say whether the man did anything wrong or not. Therefore you are just as guilty of drawing an unjustified conclusion as those who called him a douchebag. By the way, a lot of the people who called the purported victim a douchebag did so not directly because of the one-sided incident report, but after reading his blog, which is indeed tres douche.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

120. Actually, based on the evidence we have..

The man did *nothing* wrong..

As you already admitted..

[asthmaticeog]

123. I said no such thing.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

126. When I specifically asked what the man had done wrong..

Multiple times..

You refused to reply..

Which is an admission that you can't think of anything he did wrong..

[asthmaticeog]

130. Wow, you interpolate and assume a lot.

You need to get it through your head that you're not psychic, and that you can't just assign motives absent any knowledge. That's been your problem this whole thread. My reluctance to state what the man had or hadn't done wrong isn't an admission, tacit or otherwise, of anything. It's the result of ignorance - ignorance that YOU SHARE WITH ME, because we are both going from the same possibly self-serving account from a possibly unreliable narrator. The difference between you and me is that you're eager to use a lack of information as a basis for drawing conclusions (conclusions that may easily be erroneous - your post that I'm answering right now serves as a dandy example), and I'm - correctly and rationally - saying that a lack of evidence isn't a form of evidence, so I can't and won't say what he did right or wrong. Because I don't know. And neither do you.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

131. All you have to do is tell me what the man did wrong..

And I will agree with you completely.

Fair enough?

[asthmaticeog]

132. How does this not penetrate?

I DON'T KNOW. YOU DON'T KNOW. THERE IS NOTHING I CAN TELL YOU AND I DON'T CARE IF YOU AGREE WITH ME.

Given how astonishingly dense and irrational your posts in this thread have been, I think I prefer if you don't agree with me, to be blunt.

edit: sp

[The Vinyl Ripper]

133. Why won't you tell me what the man did wrong.?

According to what information we have..

If you will do so, I'll happily apologize and admit that you are completely correct.

[EstimatedProphet]

136. Because the man did and did not do something wrong at the same time!

It's Schrodinger's Cat! It's a black box, and WE DON'T KNOW EITHER WAY!

The information we have is not complete. Therefore it is not valid to say it is right or wrong, or even exists.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

137. I'm going to keep asking until you either go away or answer

According to the information that we have...

What did the man do wrong?

It's a simple question, why do you refuse to answer?

[EstimatedProphet]

139. 12!

[The Vinyl Ripper]

144. Why do you keep refusing to answer the question?

ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION WE HAVE

What did the man do wrong?

[asthmaticeog]

141. It's a simple question, yes. It's also an invalid one.

Because there isn't enough information to form the basis of an answer. I've said so what feels like a dozen times now.

Question: are you doing this based on the specious "rule" that if the person you're arguing with online abandons the discussion, you automatically "win?" Because you're acting like a toddler incessantly asking "how come?" as if you're trying to wear me down or something.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

143. Yes there is plenty of information..

Because I am asking.

ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION WE HAVE

What did the man do wrong?

[asthmaticeog]

147. We. Don't. Have. Enough. Information. To. Make. A. Fucking. Judgment.

That is the answer to your question. I have answered it several times now. Now you answer mine: are you doing this because you think that if I leave the discussion you've somehow "won?"

Or are you trying to goad me into making the ad hominem you bet me I would make?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

150. I didn' t bet you would make a personal insult..

Which is not the same thing as an ad hom.

I bet that you would do it before I did..

In response to your statement that I would descend to personal insults.

No you haven't answered the question.

We have information, people decided the man was a douchebag based on that information.

What, according to that information, did the man do wrong?

[asthmaticeog]

154. For the last time, it's not incumbent upon me to answer for other people.

I'm not going to answer the same invalid question over and over anymore. If you can't accept the answer, that's on you, not on me.

[EstimatedProphet]

148. Given the following information:

"I have to tell you this: the - "

What happened?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

152. You are making less and less sense... n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

153. That's because I'm using your argument.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

156. No you aren't

I'm using actual words and logic..

You are not any more..

On edit:

According to the information we have, what did the man do wrong.

Either answer or go away.. Because I'm going to keep asking.

[EstimatedProphet]

160. Yes, I am

Because "According to the information we have, what did the man do wrong" makes no sense if we have incomplete information. You were never using logic, because it is illogical to try and force an answer to a question before the information needed to correctly answer a question is available.

And isn't insisting on asking the same question until you get an answer, even though an answer makes no sense, just so that you can try and force an answer in order to win a point you can't win otherwise...authoritarian?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

166. People are watching you make some very illogical statements..

Because "According to the information we have, what did the man do wrong" makes no sense if we have incomplete information.

There is no such thing as "complete information" only varying degrees of incompleteness.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that.

[EstimatedProphet]

172. In that case there can never be enough evidence

So we can never answer your question anyway.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

174. You and I and everyone reading this knows why you won't answer the question..

So go ahead and give it up..

[EstimatedProphet]

177. I won't answer your question because it's invalid

I also won't answer your question because it has nothing to do with why you call people that disagree with you aythoritarians.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

179. People made judgments based on the evidence we have..

Those who made the judgment that the guy was a douchebag had the same evidence that those who made the judgment that he did nothing wrong.

Those who thought he was a douchebag were more authoritarian than those who thought he did nothing wrong..

[EstimatedProphet]

185. OK...

People made judgments based on the evidence we have..
Yes.

Those who made the judgment that the guy was a douchebag had the same evidence that those who made the judgment that he did nothing wrong.
Yes.

Those who thought he was a douchebag were more authoritarian than those who thought he did nothing wrong..
You don't know that.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

186. OK,

Give me another interpretation of the facts I outlined above then..

[EstimatedProphet]

193. you mean other than that the people who disagree are authoritarians?

It could be any number of things.

Maybe they don't like Cleveland.

Maybe they don't like people that shop in big box stores.

Maybe they don't like his name.

the point is, it makes no sense at all to state that they are authoritarians just because they drew certain conclusions, any more than it makes any sense to state any of the things I listed.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

195. You're reaching..

Harder and harder..

Now give me a reasonable alternative explanation..

[EstimatedProphet]

198. Why are any of those things less reasonable than that the posters are authoritarians?

They aren't! That's the point! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MOTIVATES THEM!

[The Vinyl Ripper]

207. Let's see now...

I seriously doubt that it was because they hate Cleveland, the man was not from Cleveland.

Most of the ones I heard calling him a douchebag were obviously big box store shoppers themselves.

Hating someone for their name? That's pretty damn dumb..

You can do better than that..

Come up with a reasonable alternative explanation or concede..

[BlackVelvet04]

134. And that's why the CC thread was so damn stupid.....

most people were arguing the facts as we knew them and then a couple of posters wanted to argue about whether or not the first person account was true, which is something we aren't likely to ever know. There was an argument of apples and oranges because some people couldn't grasp the concept of arguing the case as it was presented.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

140. Exactly..

That's what I keep trying to point out but some people simply don't get it.

[EstimatedProphet]

149. That's exactly the opposite of what you are trying to point out!

[The Vinyl Ripper]

158. I keep asking ..

According to the information we have

What did the man do wrong..

Which is pointing out that we have no other information.

[EstimatedProphet]

161. Which is why everyone else keeps pointing out that there is no point in answering the question!

[The Vinyl Ripper]

167. Come on...

Just tell me what the man did wrong according to the information we have and I'll apologize and agree that you are completely correct.

What is so hard about that?

[EstimatedProphet]

173. Why?

1) There isn't enough evidence to support whether he was in the wrong or not, therefore there isn't enough evidence to try and define it; and,

2) The point is, and always has been, that because there isn't enough evidence, calling your fellow posters authoritarians just because you disagree with what they say is out of place and an invalid argument.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

176. You and I and everyone else reading this knows why you won't answer such a simple question..

Go ahead and give it up..

[EstimatedProphet]

178. No

Again:

1) It's invalid

2) It has no bearing on why you're calling people authoritarians.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

181. People made judgments based on

THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE

Those judgments reveal their beliefs.

That you will not say whether the man did anything wrong or not shows that you know he did not according to the information upon which people made their judgments.

[EstimatedProphet]

191. Invalid

People made judgments based on THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE
Yes

Those judgments reveal their beliefs.
No, unless they specifically voice them. That is the point I have been trying to make clear to you. You don't know what they are thinking. There are any number of reasons for which someone may decide they didn't like what was reported by the guy in question. You are assuming it is because they are authoritarian. Whether or not people agree with you makes no difference, it is still your assumption.

That you will not say whether the man did anything wrong or not shows that you know he did not according to the information upon which people made their judgments.
No it doesn't at all. It shows I hold your argument as invalid. Keep telling yourself whatever you want though.

In summation: your argument is invalid, because it is a presupposition on your part that the people who don't agree with you are an authoritarian menace. This is not going to change whether I keep correcting you or not - you will remain holding onto an invalid strawman argument. Feel free to claim whatever you want. The invalidity remains.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

197. But you have not yet posted any convincing reasons..

For why people would react to this by calling the guy a douchebag..

Come on, if there are other convincing reasons I'm sure you can come up with at least one..

[EstimatedProphet]

201. So, "convincing" means something you believe to be true?

I gave you some upthread, which, given the lack of information people have about the story, and the lack of knowledge you have about what motivates the people you don't like, are every bit as reasonable as what you are proposing.

If you want to find out what the reasons are, put up a poll. Ask people.

Until you do that, YOU DON'T KNOW THEY ARE AUTHORITARIANS. You're projecting onto them. Period. Fact.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

208. LOL... Put up a poll

Like people are going to say "Yep, I'm an authoritarian".

You're quite amusing..

Bend and wiggle as you like, you are stuck like a butterfly on a pin..

[Romulox]

164. Umm, innocent until proven guilty? Or not... nt

[asthmaticeog]

200. 1) The store and the cop are also innocent until proven guilty.

2) This is a discussion board, not a court.

[Romulox]

205. You don't seem to understand the difference between suspect and accuser...nt

[asthmaticeog]

206. LOL! That line's been blurred beyond all recognition in this case! nt

[iamthebandfanman]

202. thank you!

"B) I think it's probable that in the CC case, the purported victim (there's a reason I'm careful to always say that) AND store security AND the police were all douche-hammers"


EXACTLY.

i dont think anybody comes outa the CC incident smelling like roses.
sounds to me they were all rude assholes.
which is a different problem all together.
lol

[The Vinyl Ripper]

217. Why is just walking by an illegal search being

"a rude asshole"?

I honestly don't understand that point of view.

[superkia]

238. And in this country you are guilty until proven innocent, show the receipt damn it.

[GirlinContempt]

284. The strawman is standing on a rug woven of

misrepresentation and misunderstanding, so which came first?

[rwheeler31]

6. Dam I thought we were liberals.

I think you are all great. Carry on.

[renie408]

7. Why does it have to be either/or? And why is having common sense viewed

as being 'authoritarian'?

You think I am an authoritarian because I didn't leap to pet somebody for pitching a hissy fit over having their SHOPPING BAG checked? You know, my thing is I don't give a damn. If that is what gets you through the day, take off. But I don't think you deserve some kind of freedom medal for it. It seems like a pretty petty statement to make to me.

As for this last thing, the kid was acting like a nit. Period. When my son stood up and politely contested his Social Studies teacher about some comments she had made about religion and got after school detention for it, I stood behind him all the way. When the Leadership Conference he attended over the summer had some woman from AIPAC come and lectured and she told the kids (basically) that it was the Palestinians fault that they lived the way they do and he stood up and politely disagreed with her, I was so proud I cried. But he didn't scream and he didn't take a swing at a couple of cops. HE was exercising his right to free speech. Within the context of civil behavior, he said what he had to say.

Being free doesn't mean being free to do whatever the hell you want. I don't think that makes me authoritarian.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

19. Just the way you frame it shows your bias..

The man did not "pitch a hissy fit", he simply walked by the receipt checker.

It was store security and the cops that were the jerks in that story.

[EstimatedProphet]

69. This is exactly what Asthmatic was talking about earlier

You've already decided that the cops and store security were wrong, and jerks. Therefore anyone who doesn't think they are, is authoritarian.

It is entirely within your rights to side with the guy in the story. However, since you have clearly done so, why isn't this issue at rest for you?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

145. And you have already decided that the man was a jerk n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

162. No, I haven't

I haven't made a determination one way or the other. I'm discussing your argument, not whether someone I've never met who published a blog I've never read is a jerk.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

168. If you don't think he is a jerk..

Then why are you wasting so much time on this thread?

[EstimatedProphet]

171. You don't think he's a jerk, and you're wasting time on this thread, so why shouldn't I?

My point is, was, always has been that you are defining a bunch of people you don't agree with as authoritarian simply because you don't agree with them. You've tried to pin this all on what his blog says, and several people (myself included) refuse to accept that that is enough evidence to start calling out your fellow posters.

That's why I'm posting in this thread.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

187. I never once mentioned his blog..

I never read it..

And it's my thread..

[EstimatedProphet]

194. Isn't that the source of the information?

That's where his story is right? If it isn't, I apologize. What I am talking about is his story that he wrote online somewhere, and that's what everyone was referencing in the CC threads.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

219. That may be..

I simply read it on DU..

It probably did come from his blog, now that I think about it.

I did read where he was living his life according to principle rather than to be accommodating.

Something I applaud, since I try to live by my principles also..

[Selatius]

23. It's a sliding scale. You can think of the libertarian-authoritarian scale as a ruler.

Most people fall in the middle. Some lean closer to authoritarianism, and some lean closer to libertarianism, but very few people are absolute libertarians or absolute authoritarians.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

26. I realize that..

But the dividing line seems very sharply drawn in some cases, particularly the CC one.

[Selatius]

33. That's what we call polarization, and it's been happening in America for a while now.

i.e. the struggle between civil liberties and national security.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

42. The CC case had *zero* to do with national security n/t

[Selatius]

46. I know that. Just citing an example of a classic struggle along that sliding scale. n/t

[Telly Savalas]

59. I'm still confused about the libertarian position.

Is it:

I can go into Circuit City and do whatever the fuck I want because I'm free and anybody who disagrees is an authoritarian douchebag imposing fascism on the people.

or

Circuit City can do whatever the fuck it wants on its private property because it's free and anybody who disagrees is an authoritarian douchbag imposing a nanny-state on the people.

Or is it simply the case that these are both libertarian positions with the former representing Left Libertarianism and the latter representing Right Libertarianism?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

77. Not at all...

The libertarian position is, Circuit City cannot search my private property without probable cause..

Simply walking by an illegal search is not probable cause.

[GirlinContempt]

286. So, I would have a civil rights case

if I went to a night club and refused to let them search my bag before I went in, as they had no 'probable cause'?

[Selatius]

79. I would agree with it being a difference between left- and right-libertarianism.

Right wing libertarians are favorable or absolutely support the right to own capital, while left wing libertarians generally are ambivalent towards or simply don't agree that it is an absolute right. Some of my philosophy is derived from individualist anarchism, which does believe in the right to own capital, in as much as it is used and simply not owned for ownership's sake, like a monopoly that owns all the factories but only runs a fraction of them in order to create a supply shortage and thus jack up prices.

In the absence of a policing authority, Circuit City would probably try to stop the person walking out, asserting that your right to movement does not trump its right to make a profit off that product if it believes you are stealing. The conflict comes when Circuit City's interest conflict with the freedoms of the individual. Does the freedoms of the individual weigh more than Circuit City's need to protect its profits?

However, even in the absence of a policing authority, libertarians both right and left would agree that nobody's rights should be violated, that one's need does not trump another's freedoms, and that the best avenue is that both meet on equal terms to hash it out. In light of that, I would've recommended they both go to court to hash it out, not try to manhandle each other.

[Katherine Brengle]

220. Great post.

[WilliamPitt]

8. DU is not America

Basically the point of my thread.

Not a good thing to forget.

[razors edge]

9. I think you will get

nothing but over the top distortions of both ideologies from those who take a side.

:popcorn:

[NutmegYankee]

11. I don't think its that simple.

Take the taser case - there were plenty of non-violent ways to buck the authority of "the man". The guy chose to fight the officers, which is no longer an argument about authority or libertarianism, and becomes a crime.

There are civil non-violent ways to get the point across. The Circuit City case was one. Get arrested and then embarrass the police with publicity and get the issue addressed in court. Don't fight the cops physically!

[The Vinyl Ripper]

25. It's the Circuit City case that I'm mainly referring to here..

According to the story, the man did everything he was supposed to do and yet there was a sizable contingent here who were sticking up for the corporation and the cop.

[NutmegYankee]

39. I thought that case was textbook passive resistance.

I think the cops were wrong in the circuit city case, and correct in the Kerry incident (in that they, legally, had the authority to remove him, with the taser being the end result of his fighting them). What does that make me?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

45. I think the cops were right to remove the disruptor..

But I think the tazering was way over the line..

Tazers can be fatal and should only be used as the last resort behind firearms.

[NutmegYankee]

104. depends on the type.

The hand held ones are far safer and inflict localized pain, while the shootable dual electrode types can cause cardiac arrest.

The hand held ones are pretty safe, but I think they are now the second most common torture device, after the regular coke bottle fell out of use.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. ...

:boring: :boring: :boring:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

17. Have you come up with any examples of whistleblowers

In the military yet?

You know, the ones turning in their buddies for abusing Iraqi kids.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. What On Earth Are You Talking About?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Who said anything about turning in buddies or anything? Are you ok dude?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

28. Don't play coy,

You know damn well what I mean..

You got asked several times on another thread to provide examples of whistleblowers re: some troops abusing Iraqi kids.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HEyHEY]

210. You must be dictating, it's hard to type with a straightjacket on

[The Vinyl Ripper]

222. Could you elucidate?

I have no clue what you are talking about..

[omega minimo]

53. ...

:boring: :boring: :boring:

[mudesi]

15. Authoritarians are driven by fear

Quite simply, the authoritarians are easily manipulated by the constant fear mongering that streams daily through the corporate mass media. The police can do no wrong to them because the police catch the "bad guys" lurking around every corner.

It's all emotional, and even liberals have emotions.

[scarletwoman]

16. I think you'll get a pretty clear picture of the ratio of "authoritarians" vs. "libertarians" by

the nature of the responses to your post.

And, yes, the number of DUers who fall on the "authoritarian" side IS distressingly high.

sw

[porphyrian]

18. Truth is relative, so everyone is right and wrong.

It's like the story where a bunch of blind people are trying to define an elephant based on which part they have access to, but different.

[Annces]

20. That was what I wanted to say

but yours sounds much better.

[porphyrian]

24. I'm glad I said it then.

;)

[The Vinyl Ripper]

30. That's not true in every case..

Bush is an out of control sociopath.

True or false?

[porphyrian]

41. By contesting my assertion, you proved it true.

See that?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

51. LOL

Sophistry will get you nowhere with me..

[porphyrian]

54. I didn't realize I was trying.

I gave you my take on your original assertion, you tried to disagree, I pointed out the irony of your disagreement. Take it or leave it, I won't lose any sleep.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

72. You said truth is always relative..

I pointed out that is not true.

Where is the irony?

[porphyrian]

82. You disagreed with my assertion that truth is relative, you didn't prove it false.

And, in doing so, you acted just like one of the blind people describing an elephant, insisting that you know what it is and that I am wrong about it. The irony is that, even with my pointing it out, you don't realize that you are acting out exactly what I said.

Get it yet?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

84. But your statement was false..

Truth is not always relative.

It has nothing to do with elephants or blind men.

[porphyrian]

87. I didn't say "always," you did, and you haven't proved me wrong yet, you've only disagreed.

Frankly, I don't give a shit if you believe me or not, but this isn't the Argument Clinic, so either make one or stop wasting my time.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

90. You never qualified you statement..

Which means that you considered your statement to be *always* true..

[porphyrian]

93. False. You lose. Try again. - n/t

[The Vinyl Ripper]

96. False how..

Show me where you qualified your statement.

Quotes please.

[porphyrian]

97. Are you being intentionally daft?

Really, it's not funny anymore.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

98. So you can't show me where you qualified your statement..

Which is what I expected since I know you didn't.

[porphyrian]

175. You're the only one demanding it. Everyone else understood.

I'm glad I could help you keep your mediocre thread kicked this long, but now you've bored me entirely.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

221. Now you are being the mind reader..

"Everyone else understood"

How do you know that?

[EstimatedProphet]

111. Maybe, maybe not

Are you a qualified professional clinical psychologist? Have you sat down with Bush in an analysis session? If the answer to either of these is no, then your statement is an opinion. It can only be fact if both of the questions I asked are true.

Is Bush "out of control?" Define what "out of control" looks like. He acts within normal boundaries on camera. I've never seen him start throwing things, or breaking things, or begin to speak in tongues, or start rolling around on the floor having spasms during a press conference. How, objectively, is he out of control?

[Selatius]

21. People can be measured on a sliding scale between authoritarianism and libertarianism.

Most people aren't absolute authoritarians and aren't absolute libertarians. Most people fall in the gray area in between the two poles. To be sure, I lean closer to the libertarian pole than the authoritarian pole, but that's because of my family's experience with communism, but there's not necessarily anything wrong with leaning towards authoritarianism, as opposed to falling all the way over into Stalin/Hitler land.

The other sliding scale I use is the scale between collectivism and capitalism. I lean closer to collectivist than capitalist. People who favor mixed economies like in the gray area between the two poles.

I generally place myself as a market socialist, a left-libertarian.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

32. Yes, I'm a leftist libertarian

On the Political Compass test..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I Think You Created A False Choice Or False Dichotomy

eom

[The Vinyl Ripper]

29. Perhaps you could expand your statement a bit..

I don't follow..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. I Can Hold Two Contradictory Ideas In My Mind And Believe Both To Be True...

Because I can believe the police might have used excessive force and that the excessive force was the result of a provocation...In the video the police are trying to escort him out and he's physically resisting...

[The Vinyl Ripper]

50. But that is not the only case I'm talking about.. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. I Am For The Maximum Amount Of Freedom Consistent With Order

Or the proverbial your right to swing your fist ends at my dome....

[The Vinyl Ripper]

76. I agree, conditionally..

You will have to define what you mean by "order".

[1monster]

74. Ah, but why should the police have intervened in the first place? Kerry said he would

answer the questions. The man was not being violent, even if he was embarrassing some of the people at the forum.

He asked legitimate questions, albeit in a less than dignified manner.

Yes, I'm aware that the organizers asked the police to remove him, however, that request should have been tabled once Kerry agreed to answer the questions.

I sincerely hope that the student organizers who requested his removal rethink their actions should they hold any future events of this nature.

And I think that the young man in question needs to join go the the meetings of the Toastmasters Club before he tries to ask a question in a public forum again.

The police actions were way over the top and played directly in to the hands of the student who will have grounds to sue the police, the school, and the student organizers.

The student's actions after being asked to leave were very historonic.

[Geek_Girl]

34. I think your more correct than Will Pit

There are many on DU who see this form dissent as distasteful and counter productive. Others feel this is the kind of thing we need to see more of in our country in order for real change to occur. I can understand both sides.

My generation the Gen Xer's haven't seen much dissent in our lifetime and it's kind of weird to see others put themselves out there like that.

[spindoctor]

43. There's a thread about binary thinking somewhere

You don't have to be either authoritarian or libertarian. You can actually, and this might come as a shock, take different positions on different issues.

A forum like this attracts people who will have an opinion on anything. That's what they, you, and I get our kicks from. So for every opinion (other than sentiments on Republicans) there will be counter opinions.
Now ideally, a healthy debate would result in a giant think tank from which we could all learn and grow. More often we just see large collections of soap boxes.
Oh well, its all in good fun.

Being a libertarian means accepting that there will be people who are not.

[rwheeler31]

55. You dear souls need to decide

what to fight about. Carry on

[The Vinyl Ripper]

66. And being an authoritarian means not accepting

That there are people who are not authoritarians.

Frankly, I see it as some people who automatically take the side of the authorities and some people who do not.

As I have already stated, I think the man should have been removed from the venue.

What I disagree with is that the man should have been tazered, something which many here seem to think was a great idea and fully justified.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I think it depends on the issue and context. Overall I think most of DU leans fairly libertarian.

I haven't been following the taser threads, frankly, but in a larger context I can tell you where the majority of DU sits on a few basic authoritarian/libertarian issues:

The majority of DU thinks the drug war is a waste of time and a sham. Most of DU doesn't want to see meth sold at the 7-11, but certainly the vast majority here thinks pot should be legal, regulated, and taxed.

The majority of DU -an overwhelming majority- is pro-choice on reproductive issues. Despite some generalized anti-libertarian grousing I've seen recently in other threads, NONE of the self-described small-l libertarians on this board that I've come across consider the right to reproductive choice anything less than a front burner, deal-breaker political issue.

Likewise, the majority of DU is committed to equal rights for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, including full marriage equality.

The majority of DU thinks it should be legal for consenting adults to look at pictures of other consenting adults naked or fucking. There is, of course, a small, rather vocal minority that seems to embody the pro-censorship, anti-sex, puritanical outlook. But most people here have no interest in spending their of time or energy trying to prevent consenting adults from having "unauthorized" orgasms while looking at pictures of other consenting adults naked.

You and I disagreed on the Circuit City issue. I think the matter there- solely around reciept checks in a retail environment, mind you- is that many of us, despite our libertarian leanings, do not feel that situation-specific in store security measures clearly designed to prevent shoplifting carry any larger implications for civil liberties in society-at-large.

Smoking bans are another one where some might argue I break with the libertarian approach- but again, context and situation is everything. Just because I understand why cities and states might ban smoking in indoor, public establishments, doesn't mean I think cigarette smokers should be hauled off to prison the way pot smokers are. It's about context and situation. I would wager even the most ardent anti-smoking ban person understands why you can't light up at a gas station or in a hospital ICU. I think alcohol and pot should be legal for consenting adults, but that doesn't mean I think it should be legal to drive under the influence. I think consenting adult porn should be legal, but that doesn't mean I think people should be able to walk into an amusement park, sit down on a bench in front of a bunch of kids and start reading Hustler. There are times and places where we don't have the freedom to do exactly what we want. You have freedom of speech, but if you start reciting the declaration of independence in the middle of a movie, the theater may kick you out. You can say what you want on the internet, but if you break DU's rules, you'll get deleted or booted. Etc. etc.

Dig?

Like I said, I haven't been in on the Kerry/Taser threads and I only read a brief synopsis of the story. But it sounds like the guy may have been behaving in a way where it was appropriate for security to deal with him in some fashion. Didn't it take place if Florida? Isn't that where the dad holding the newborn got Tased?

Maybe they're just real fuckin' taser-happy, down there.

But overall, if you map it all out (someone actually did a while back, I can find the graphic if you want) on most personal freedom issues I think the majority of DU sits firmly on the left-libertarian side of the graph. Rest easy.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

60. You and I are definitely going to have to agree to disagree

About the receipt checking.

I see it as an insidious chipping away of one's right to be secure from unreasonable searches.

Without probable cause, a search of your private property is unreasonable, particularly by a private entity.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. I Was Falsely Arrested

I was falsely arrested... I didn't resist... The charges were subsequently dropped, my record was expunged, and I successfuly sued the city and the police department and recieved $3,500.00 in 1980....That would be about $15,000.00 in 2007 dollars...

I was adamant about defending my rights within the framework of our justice system...

Does that make me an authoritarian or a liberterian?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

67. I'm not sure that particular incident had anything to do with my OP..

The man in the CC case was also falsely arrested and did not resist.

And yet many here painted him as "a douchebag" among other derogatory terms.

Simply for standing up for what was right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. I Will Defend My Sovereignty To The Nth Degree

My personal sovereignty is an obsession with me...

That being said if a cop tells me to do something I'm going to do it and if what he has asked me to do is unlawful you can bet your ass he's going to be hearing from me in civil court...

[The Vinyl Ripper]

78. I wouldn't resist the cops either..

All you are going to do is get hurt and thrown in jail.

But you would be surprised how often an illegal arrest can be made to stick.

Cops call it "testilying".

[Warren DeMontague]

100. And I respect where you're coming from on that.

Nevertheless -and this probably has a lot to do with the years I worked in retail- I think when you enter a store, to some extent you are agreeing, implicitly at least, to play by their rules.

Honestly, the 4th Amendment was pretty much rendered meaningless a long time ago, due to the drug war- and it wasn't because big box stores were checking receipts, it was because the government convinced people that what consenting adults were doing in their own homes, bodies and bloodstreams was somehow their neighbors' business. If anything, the mentality that gave us that comes from the church and Western Religion, starting with the idea that our bodies don't belong to us, but to "God".

[The Vinyl Ripper]

107. Even if you implicitly agree to play by their rules..

That would be an implied contract.

Violating a contract is not a matter for criminal justice.

Rather it is a matter for a civil court.

I agree with you about the drug war, although I think that it is an even worse violation of civil rights than is the issue of reproductive choice.

In reproductive choice there is at least the arguable point that there is another life involved beyond the woman. In the drug war no such arguable point exists.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

52. How about a battle of modesty versus the attention whores?

Morons like this kid and Bill O'Lielly are destroying civil discourse in this country.

[Marr]

62. I am no authoritarian, and I don't see the issue here at all.

What if he wanted to cut in front of the line and ask a 30 minute question about unicorns and fairies? Is that his right? Would interrupting the unicorn speech make me an authoritarian?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

101. That wasn't the only incident I was referring to..

Also the Circuit City thread where people were calling someone "a douchebag" simply for walking by an illegal search.

[slowry]

63. This shit blew the fuse on my silliness meter. n/t

[salin]

64. flame bait.

imo - free speech and all...

[bullwinkle428]

70. I, for one, welcome our new Blackwater overlords!

I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their fascist work camps!

[mark414]

151. don't blame me; I voted for Halliburton

[saltpoint]

81. I trust Lou Reed in such matters.

And Petula Clark.

Ms. Clark lends the international sensibility required for the long view. Multi-lingual, perfect pitch, entirely cosmopolitan, yet demure and agile.

Mr. Reed gives us the visceral truth, is acquainted with the night, as the poem goes. Mr. Reed defends Poe's house. Mr. Reed knows a thing or two about needles.

I think a lot of tension is resolved in the marriage of those two identifiable and essential strains of human endeavor.

The child of their union is the messiah.

[Avalux]

88. !!

:rofl:

best post all day.

[blondeatlast]

265. Possibly the most brilliant post I've ever read on DU. Funny as well. Thank you! nt

[bread_and_roses]

86. Try reading the threads on police handcuffing a five year old a few years ago,,,

...if you want to see "authoritarian" thinking in action. Enough to curdle my blood, it was. For that matter, any thread about less than perfectly behaved children - even infants. Or threads about people on welfare.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

92. Yeah, I know what you mean..

Misbehaving children just roll off me like water off a duck's back..

We were all children once, so many seem to forget that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

94. Well I am not a libertarian

but I don't like authoritarians at all.

[gollygee]

114. It's a false dichotomy

I'm not a libertarian, and I'm not an authoritarian. I'm a progressive.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

118. OK, here's what happens.

1) An article referencing some conflict between authority and disorder is posted in GD.

2) Someone reads the article and posts several intriguing and interesting questions.

3) Shortly thereafter, someone shows up and says "FUCK THE POLICE."

4) Very soon after that, someone shows up and says "MY BROTHER'S A POLICE OFFICER SO FUCK YOU."

5) Battle lines drawn, many posters begin to feel that it is necessary to out-authoritarian or out-fuckthepoliceitarian the posters in steps 3 and 4 in order to get a point in edgewise, leading to calls for shooting the police, the police shooting the disruptor, both the police and the disruptor being shot by vigilantes, and all parties involved dying in fiery nuclear armageddon.

6) A gay celebrity gets caught drunk driving with illegal immigrants in his SUV, and the debate moves on, without the questions in step two ever being addressed...

[PDenton]

121. mildly libertarian

The Circuit City guy got what was comming... the Andrew Meyer tazering was shocking to watch

[Stuckinthebush]

124. Logic versus emotionality

You don't want to live in a country where there are rules on how people should behave? You want to live in a free for all society where I can do whatever the hell I want? You want to live in a country where I don't have a right to see if someone stole something from my store? You want to live in a country where any yahoo can take over the microphone at a public discussion and refuse to let others talk?

OK...well good luck with that.

[Romulox]

165. Yeah. If you didn't do anything wrong, then you should submit to a search!!!

:sarcasm:

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Stuckinthebush]

182. I assume you are talking about Circuit City

Private property - rights of owner to insure rules are followed on their property.

[Romulox]

204. Not specifically talking about CC, but when the state becomes the agent of ENFORCEMENT

Then the 4th Amendment does indeed apply. See also the 14th Amendment.

[LanternWaste]

125. There is absolutely no objective definition...

I think for the most part, we'll call anyone an 'authoritarian' if they take the position of law enforcement on a particular issue that we do not.

On the other hand, we'll toss the sobriquet of 'anarchist' at anyone who doesn't take the side of law enforcement on an issue we do.

There is absolutely no objective definition of either Authoritarian or Libertarian on DU-- they're both subjective pejoratives used to insult a poster we don't agree with. Much like the Fascist label, it's used not to make a salient point, but merely to insult another poster. Period.

I've never met anyone so stupid as to believe we can exist without law enforcement, nor have I met anyone so narrow as to believe Totalitarianism tastes great and is less filling.

Lots of looking through the wrong end of the telescope going on around here lately. Lots of hyperbole and melodrama.

I'm not going to accuse someone of being an anarchist or an authoritarian because we don't see eye to eye on one particular scenario, and then use their contrarian position as false evidence of an "ism" to target them with-- that's both the height of hubris and mirrors Free Republic just a little too much for my tastes...


That's what I think.

[bryant69]

127. So go live somewhere else - some fantasy land

Libertarianism is bullshit.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[The Vinyl Ripper]

128. So you don't think civil liberties are worth worrying about..

Small "l" libertarianism is not the same thing as Libertarianism.

One can be a leftist libertarian, which I am.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[bryant69]

129. That political compass is bullshit too

Civil Liberties do not allow you to infringe on other's rights.

Bryant

[The Vinyl Ripper]

159. Where did I say that they did? n/t

[bryant69]

163. If a guy pushes past others to begin a long rambling loud diatribe he is infringing on others rights

in my opinion.

Bryant

[Warren DeMontague]

232. Well, if you say so, mr. one sentence answer.

I guess we should all pack it up and go home, since you can sum up the rebuttal to any argument in five words or less, not including the word "bullshit".

But, then, I wouldn't expect someone who is an outspoken member of the anti-choice minority here to want to spend a great deal of time going over the nuances of social or left-libertarianism, a philosophical proposition you obviously have no grasp of whatsoever.

[DrunkenMaster]

189. what a nuanced, intelligent argument!

Perhaps we should agree with your assertion that "libertarianism is bullshit" just because you said so? What a pathetic f**king joke.

[ecstatic]

142. Even more troublesome is the selective Authoritarianism

Like most of us, these well meaning DUers begin from a liberal template... but when it comes to their *favorite leaders,* ANYTHING goes. Logically, they know they'd be screaming bloody murder if a repug did the same things, but when it comes to their *favorite leader,* they will blindly follow and excuse any "off" behavior associated with the leader, or behavior geared towards protecting the leader. (For instance, Chavez supporters)

I'm not sure exactly where I fall, but I know that I will turn on any of my favorites quicker than you can blink if they promote or start trying to implement bullshit, fascist policies. I don't give a f*ck how great they've been in the past... When they jump the shark, you've got to know when to let go.

[alcibiades_mystery]

146. The Authoritarian Personality is strong here...

You should see them gush approvingly over prison rape and torturing people to death.

Then you have the particular brand of douchebag who is "usually against the death penalty, but in THIS case..." Uh huh...

Then you have the street corner commissars who enforce Party Loyalty(tm) to such an extent that they think they own the board. Democratic to them only means one thing: whatever the latest press release out of the DNC tells them it means. And they call Republicans fascists! Chutzpah, is what we call that little reversal.

Too many people on these boards think fascism has to have a little SS insignia on the lapel, and the jackboots. That's not what it is. Fascism is the love of power, period. The people who fall all over themselves to praise Bill Clinton's "leadership" are no less fascist than the crazed-eyed Bushbots fawning over their Leader. It's Fuhrerprinzip all the way down, as much alive on these boards as elsewhere.

When will we have done with Leaders, at last? When?

[ShortnFiery]

215. "Fascism is the love of power, period. " Excellent - and worth repeating.

Having been one of the first women to complete the Infantry School Program known as "Airborne," I was often confronted by General Officers whom I, (an ornament, due to my cute 2ndLT looks and pretty new Airborne badge) was tasked to give our Brigade Size Station Briefing to all the illustrious uppity-umps.

When some of these Generals attempted to be cute by quipping, "Lieutenant, did you really attend Airborne School at Fort Benning?" My response was always the polite, "Yes Sir." But I was also thinking concurrently, "What do you surmise DUMB-ASS? That our protocol made me purchase the badge at the PX?"

I hold respect for "the rank" but will not deny that there are far too many Generals who value their own personal careers over the welfare of their troops. That is, Although I love the Army and I'm also proud of my AD service, there's a strong undercurrent of resentment for *unbridled and arrogant* authoritarianism.

Further, today rest assured that the vast majority of General Officers "with integrity" have resigned/retired.

I honestly can't find the appropriate words to describe how saddened I am that "The Unitary Executive" has nearly destroyed the Army that I so love and was honored to serve. :(

No, please consider NOT allowing yourself to be "star struck" by these General Officer's lying to us? They are NOT representative of those "in battle" - the infantry company grade officers (2LT,1LT & CPT), whom I have been informed via my AD sources, are resigning their military commissions at record numbers. Yes, it's patriotic - our founders would want us to Question the Authority of The Unitary Executive. :patriot:

You don't have to have an Authoritarian Personality to excel within military service. You only have to choose to lead "a morally sound career." The ability to be true to your values and that of the overall welfare of the troops gets more and more difficult as you enter "the politics" of General Officer Ranks.

Wes Clark and Anthony Zinni are living examples of men who do not hold POWER as God Almighty. In or out of uniform, Clark and Zinni are the leaders with integrity ... morally centered leaders (NOT Authoritarian Personalities) whom troops would follow into Hell and back. :patriot:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

223. I would add General Shinseki to your list...

You might enjoy this milblog, it's one of the very best blogs I've read, truly quality discussion..


http://www.intel-dump.com/

[ShortnFiery]

242. Agreed. General Shinseki is awesome. Thanks for the Info. nt

[Enrique]

155. you nailed it

libertarian obviously sounds better than authoritarian.

I do believe that a lot of people form their opinions based on the desire to appear they belong to the better-sounding group in your dichotomy.

[jberryhill]

157. In the CC situation...

There was a private dispute among individuals. The shopper, by his own account, was free to leave at the point where he, on his own decided to open the car door for further conversation.

At one point in the story, one of the individuals decided to call upon a uniformed gun-bearing officer of the state to enforce his point of view in the dispute.

Who invited the uniformed gun-bearing officer of the state into the situation and, by doing, consented to the involvement and further investigation by that officer?

Who willingly consented to being searched (i.e. being shown the contents of the bag) by the invited uniformed gun-bearing officer of the state?

Two simple questions. Answers please?

In your quest to identify and cleanse the world of authoritarians, start with people who call the police whenever they believe they need their own security force.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

234. The shopper consented to the legal search by the officer..

He also called the police when he, out of politeness, opened the door of the car to talk to the store employee and then the store employee physically blocked it.

Questions answered..

Now you answer a couple of mine.

What was he supposed to do in this case, physically force the employee from the car?

Wouldn't that be assault?

[jberryhill]

278. He consented to the legal search

...and then interfered with the search in the course of the investigation which he requested. That is what he was charged with.

Once he had left, entered the car, and then opened the door to carry on the conversation, then it is triable issue of fact as to whether the totality of his behavior reasonably placed him within the terms of the merchant detention law.

What was he supposed to do in this case, physically force the employee from the car?

Wait until the detention was over, sue the store for unlawful detention, and then, again, put it to a jury. Where have I said that this guy is not entitled to do those things? He most certainly is entitled to bring suit against anyone who violated any right of his.

That is how we resolve disputes over these sorts of things.

He is perfectly entitled, right now, to bring action against the police and the store to seek redress of any perceived infringement of his rights or tortious act visited upon him. NOBODY is denying his access to the courts to remedy his complained injuries.

You seem to believe that rights are somehow self-executing. They are not. Any number of your rights may be violated at any time by any number of actors. The real exercise of your rights is in the enforcement of them.

I do not see where, at all, anyone has barred this man access to a court of competent jurisdiction in which he may seek redress of the alleged injury to his rights.

I had a dispute with a merchant once, over behavior more bizarre than this and in which the merchant attempt to enforce a claimed debt against me arising from the dispute. We went to court. I won. That was that.

What is wrong with this guy that he can bloviate about rights this and statute that, but he cannot figure out how to write up a civil complaint, pay the clerk, and await his court date?

What I really don't get in your false libertarian/authoritarian dichotomy is the extremely basic libertarian concept of "my house, my rules". You don't like the private consensual and posted rules to which you must agree to be on my property, then you are not a guest on my property - in fact you are trespassing on my property. My right to my property and my right to contract are fundamental libertarian concepts.

BTW, that also goes to the highly relevant question of "Are you a student?" and the fact that every student on a school campus has voluntarily and freely consented, as a condition thereof, to adhere to a student code of conduct on that campus.

[KillCapitalism]

170. I'm with you Vinyl Ripper.

Good post. I'm one who leans very libertarian when it comes to civil rights, and this incident has disgusted me. Incidents like this lead to more severe abuses of power which strengthens the police state. If you deny that we have a police state, just look at what all has went down in the past seven years such as "free speech zones," and warrantless wiretapping.

[Greyhound]

180. K & R

:kick:

[DrunkenMaster]

188. human beings are authoritarian by nature

I think the Milgram Experiment pretty much cleared that one up.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

190. Not all human beings..

There was a small percentage that didn't go through with the experiment..

[ShortnFiery]

225. Awe, The Milgram Experiment. Perhaps many here also have fell into

"learned helplessness" due to the constant FEAR-Mongering?

Once you slack, just a little: "Muslim Americans don't receive their Constitutional Rights because 9/11 changed everything." OR "Impolite and boisterous activists also do not enjoy Civil Rights for the reason, they are impolite activists."

See where I'm going here? ... Who is NEXT? :scared: Soon, we will ALL be forced to submit to any authoritarian and may be kept incommunicado as long as "the authorities" deem that we are no longer a threat. :scared:

[iamthebandfanman]

192. Well, you can label me whatever you please

but with so much going on in the world, why should i give a flying fuck about some guy who decided he was to busy and wanted to be an asshole to someone who was just trying to do their job ?

honestly, with all the injustice in the world you want to single out some jackass who couldnt take the whole 20 seconds out of his life to avoid everything that happened afterwards.

im sorry but i see nothing 'authoritarian' about letting a guy who works for the business you are INSIDE OF take a look at your damn receipt. it happened to me YESTERDAY for fucks sake when i left walmart! it took all of 10 seconds for him to mark my ticket and off i went! he knew i didnt steal anything, i knew i didnt steal anything, but guess what... THATS HIS FUCKING JOB!

you have a problem with them doing that, then maybe you should be out writing letters and making phone calls to these business's instead of coming on DU and pronouncing that a horrible crime against humanity has been comitted. especially when it was only because someone was an asshole.


sorry, thats how i feel. call it what you want.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

211. How is simply walking by an illegal search

Being an "asshole"?

I really would like to know how you figure that..

[iamthebandfanman]

214. well

please show me how its illegal for someone to ask to see your receipt?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

229. It's not illegal to ask,,

But searching someone's personal property without probable cause is..

So the *search* is illegal..

Capiche?

[iamthebandfanman]

270. welp

i did a little research and found a guy who specialises in security type deals, including these kinds of stores that do it. tho one could probably assert that refusing could be considered probably cause. dont know how that would fly tho.

"Bag Check Policy
What these consumers are complaining about is a local store policy where an employee or security guard will check customer purchases against their receipt. This radical loss prevention tactic is usually used in high-ticket specialty stores who have experienced large inventory losses. For example, stores that sell computer hardware and software products, small handheld electronics, music CDs, and videotapes might employ this method. This bag inspection applies to store purchases only and not to other items you might be carrying. The store management knows that the door bag check procedure is not consumer friendly, but must believe it is a necessary step."


"Can Merchants Do This?
Yes. The bag inspection should occur past the last point of payment solely for the purpose of verifying the sales transaction that just occurred. The door bag checker is looking to see that the cashier correctly charged for all items in the shopping bag or cart. Once this is done, the bag checker makes a distinctive mark on the receipt to indicate that it was checked.

A merchant is free to put procedures in place to help curb their losses due to theft. It is estimated that 11 billion of dollars are lost every year due to shoplifting alone. These unchecked losses will soon put many retailers out of business unless they take some proactive step. This bothersome procedure is very effective in preventing employee theft, shoplifting, and refund fraud.

Merchants already have lots of anti-theft procedures in place that consumers endure. There are video surveillance cameras and undercover officers that watch you shop. There are little plastic devices attached to soft goods called electronic article surveillance tags (EAS) that must be removed by a salesperson to prevent an alarm from going off at the exit. There are items displayed under lock and key that you can’t access without assistance. There are items where you must take a paper ticket to the cashier to have the item brought to the checkout stand. None of these procedures are consumer friendly, but are deemed necessary by some retailers for survival. After reading this, if this procedure is still offensive to consumers they should shop elsewhere."

"Are Door Bag Searches Legal?
Yes, as long as the inspection is voluntary. No, if the bag check is coerced. This is a rather fine legal distinction that is subject to misunderstanding and abuse. Basically, nothing in the law gives the merchant the right to detain a customer for the purpose of searching a shopping bag unless there is a reasonable suspicion of retail theft. See my web page on Shoplifting: Detention & Arrest for more details

A customer can refuse to have their bag checked and simply walk out the door past the bag checker. Hopefully the bag checker has been trained to know that they cannot force anyone to submit to a bag search without cause. This is important because the expectation of the bag checker is that all bag contents have been purchased. The worst thing that could happen is that an aggressive bag checker would forcibly detain or threaten a customer who refused to comply with the voluntary search."

"How Should the Bag Check Proceed?
The bag check procedure should be routinely handled just like the checkout process. Most customers don’t give it another thought as long as there isn’t a long delay. It is helpful if the bag checker is non-threatening in manner and appearance. Many stores make the mistake of placing someone at the door that looks and acts like a bouncer with aggressive body language that sends the wrong message. Not only does the bag checker help catch mistakes and deter theft, but also aids in the return procedure. The special mark that is made on the receipt is a signal to the refund desk that the item passed by the door checker after being purchased. Unmarked receipts suggest that the items might be stolen or purchased at a different store. This could adversely hamper speedy refund processing.

My suggestion is to be patient with the store bag check procedure and understand that the store is trying to survive by preventing theft. If the bag check still offends you then I suggest shopping elsewhere."

[The Vinyl Ripper]

287. So I was right..

Bag checks are not legal..

My suggestion is to be patient with the store bag check procedure and understand that the store is trying to survive by preventing theft. If the bag check still offends you then I suggest shopping elsewhere."

It's getting to the point that there isn't anywhere else to shop..

At least where I live..

[iamthebandfanman]

288. to a degree, it doesnt apply to all stores who do it

turns out places like Sams Club and CostCo make bag checks a part of the agreement you sign for membership. so by becoming a member youve consented to the search already. so there they have every right to check you and deny you sale if you refuse it, along with termination of your membership obviously

[jpgray]

203. Your logic is very flawed

First of all, not siding with the taserboy or the CC guy is not de facto evidence of authoritarianism. Not siding with either -does not mean- one wholly supports the actions of the cops. It's not an exclusive, binary choice. It's not "either you're with these two or against civil liberties," it's not "you either are for or against the troops." These are dishonest arguments. Here are a few viewpoints that side neither with the individuals nor the cops:

Tasering the kid was wrong, but he and the cops are both guilty of escalating the situation into an incident. Had the kid not burst in and shoved to the front of the line, the cops wouldn't have been on his ass from the start, and had the cops not tried to walk him (as Kerry wanted to avoid), it wouldn't have escalated into a situation where the cops overreacted and tased him. NOBODY is the snow pure defender of liberty and freedom--not the kid, not the cops. This viewpoint doesn't excuse the police behavior -or- the massive assholery of a guy who exercises his free speech by subverting the speech of others and being a douchebag.

Involuntary receipt checks and compulsory ID checks without much cause are wrong, but the CC guy behaved in such a way as to cause the behavior. It is perfectly understandable that the manager and officer made the wrong decision, since the guy behaved in the suspicious manner of a shoplifter. That doesn't excuse the overreaction, but noble civil liberties defenders aren't as consistent with avoiding a receipt check and being uncooperative with police as, say thieves. Managers/cops experience a lot more of the latter than the former, and thus their unreasonable behavior is easily explained without pretending it is a grave symptom of civil liberties erosion. Cops and store managers at almost all points in this country's history could have exhibited this behavior--it isn't a commentary on our times. Ignoring FISA and incarcerating people without the need for habeas corpus? Now -that's- relevant. Behave suspiciously enough and frustrate people enough, and you will elicit an overreaction and create an incident. Again, neither the CC guy nor the cops wholly caused the incident, and both are guilty of causing the incident to escalate.

Nobody gets a total pass from me in either situation. Why are you so eager to hand one out?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

212. What was "suspicious"?

Simply walking by an illegal search?

I'm going to ask the question that no one will answer..

What did the guy do wrong?

[orleans]

233. i used to think they needed "justification" to search the customer's property

after you pay for something it's your property. it doesn't become your property only until you leave their fucking store.

what happened to those security buzzers in the posts that are supposed to go off when a security bar hasn't been deactivated?

some stores don't bother to get the security polls by the door--they just put the tag on the item, but there is no security buzzer that goes off. (that happened to me when i bought my daughter a dress for $120 and the store was 45 minutes away from home. i was furious to see that fucking big white security tag on this long black dress! when i called them they told me they really had no store security--they just tagged their crap so people would THINK there was store security.) (i digress)

there was a time when stores couldn't search you unless security saw you possibly slip something in your pocket/purse/etc. otherwise they are randomly picking out customers who LOOK like they might be a criminal--isn't that called profiling?

they're too cheep to hire those undercover store detectives and too cheep to install those security posts. so they hire these kids for $8 an hour to harass the customer.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

235. My wife manages a retail chain..

I asked her and she confirmed that they not only have to see you hide the item, they also have to watch you the entire time until you walk out of the store.

At least that is the case in my state.

[orleans]

257. that's what i thought.

so this random "let me see your bag/purse/receipt" is just a crock of shit in my opinion.

years ago i had an "incident" at a kmart--where i went right up to the camera counter and dropped off film and then headed out. i was stopped and told they wanted to search my purse! i had a baby i was trying to get home to and my father, who was recently home from heart surgery, was in the car waiting for me.

i let them look through my fucking purse.

i figured i looked like a degenerate to someone because my tattoo was plainly visible. (long hair, jeans, hippie purse, tattoo--i must be stealing, right?) but i told them if they ever do this shit to me again i won't be in such a hurry and we'll all call the police and have a fucking parade over it.

hot topic was the store with the fake security. that was a few years ago.

[Bongo Prophet]

209. There are only 2 kinds of people - binary thinkers and non-binary!

Oh wait.

[Kelly Rupert]

216. You mean 10 kinds, I'm certain nt

[Bongo Prophet]

224. LOL 010101010101010LOL!!!

:)

[11 Bravo]

213. I wondered how someone who has been here less than 2 months could have 1000+ posts

I no longer wonder.

[Bongo Prophet]

226. I am learning too. A few have hundreds in less than a week. Much freshness!

I guess the less you have to say...

[The Vinyl Ripper]

231. LOL,,,

My skin is far thicker than that. :hi:

[Bongo Prophet]

236. I'm glad VR, I think you are just feeling feisty today.

Trying to keep it light, myself...

[The Vinyl Ripper]

239. No problem..

I'm a born rabble rouser and completely independent thinker..

Which is why I end up making waves on both conservative and liberal blogs..

Although I don't get many replies on conservative blogs because I pull far fewer punches than I do here..

[Bongo Prophet]

244. You rabble rouser, you. Us rabble should be grateful to be so roused.

While I still have my dictionary open...

rabble |ˈrabəl|
noun
a disorderly crowd; a mob : he was met by a rabble of noisy, angry youths.
• ( the rabble) ordinary people, esp. when regarded as socially inferior or uncouth.


Tha's DU alright!
Rabble rabble, ya tore your dress
Rabble rabble yo face is a mess...
:)

[Katherine Brengle]

218. I think you missed a group: the "I must fight authority at all times regardless of the reason" group

I'm all for freedom of movement and conscience, but freaking out about authoritarianism because a door-person wants to check a receipt is just ridiculous. And the kid that got tasered was kicking the police officers trying to retrain him. He was asked to leave and refused, which is fine, but violent resistance never yields positive results. In the face of violent resistance, police officers are required to use sufficient force to counteract that resistance. If we think that's a problem, then we need to fight to change the system, not rail against the officers who were following protocol in dealing with the situation.

That's not authoritarian - it's common sense. Don't like the system? Change it. Fight for revolution.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

228. The man was not "freaking out"

He simply walked by an illegal search.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

[Katherine Brengle]

247. In the discussion here there was much freakage. I didn't mean

that the original person freaked out at the moment the incident took place. How hard is that to understand?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

250. Sorry..

But someone being arrested by a cop that can't even figure out what the charge is until he gets back to talk to his buddies at the station house is indeed a cause for concern.

What "freaked me out" was that so many here automatically took the side of the store and the cop and called the guy a douchebag simply for walking by an illegal search.

The man stated that he was living his life by principle, not convenience, a stand I applaud since I try to live my life by my principles.

[Rabrrrrrr]

227. I think that as long as you continue to your authoritarian definitions of people, we're okay.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

230. Excuse me?

I don't follow you.

[otherlander]

240. Are those the only two choices?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

263. What other choices might there be.. n/t

[Gregorian]

241. It appears to me that the man was not a threat.

From what I saw, if the cops had just stood back, this man would have asked his question. Even if he was shouting and jumping to the front of the line. Even if he was shoving people to get to the front of the line, he was not a threat nor a danger.

I cannot believe people can't see that. Unless I have missed some critical piece of evidence whereby the man was revealed to be a danger to those around him, I think the force was just plain wrong.

Maybe we need a thread to discover what the evidence was. What the situation was. Not whether the cops were wrong.

You know, when I step back and compare 1965 with this, I have a very distinct comparison. Police didn't even have their woop woop sirens yet. Still the old mechanical whining sirens. They didn't have mace. No tasers. They were still just good old police.

I am looking at this from all standpoints. If I were a cop. If I were the man. I fully understand wanting a method of protecting myself, as an officer. But still this doesn't hold up to being a valid confrontation.

Maybe it's time to go back and rewatch the video. Even if I am wrong, I still can't justify a huddle of cops needing a device above and beyond their own overpowering numbers. It's not like the guy was the Hulk on PCP.

[mondo joe]

243. I don't seem the same conflict you see. Libertarians are not anarchists.

And I suspect most Libertarians would respect that not one person has all the rights in a given scenario.

In the taster incident, a Libertarian might say the organizers have the right to kick someone out.

In Circuit City, a Libertarian might say the store owners have the right to reasonable measures to prevent/identify theft.

[ShortnFiery]

245. No, you must make the distinction between Right Wing vs. Left Wing Libertarians.

I come from a family of Right Wing Libertarians al la slightly to the left of The John Birch Society.

However, Left leaning Libertarians would not concur with your analysis above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism

Here's and excellent reference that I just hit upon thanks to "The Google." :P

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory127.html

The issue, as always, is power vs. liberty, the state vs. freedom. In the end, we do not need libertarians to move toward the left or right. We need only that people move toward libertarianism, and that libertarians maintain their principles and resist the state’s many temptations to adopt its agendas and inverted morality. In short, we need libertarians to be libertarians, rather than government apologists who use libertarian rhetoric to defend state aggression. Whether libertarians see themselves as more on the left or on the right is not as important as that they see libertarianism as their true ideological home, liberty as the highest political value, and the state as liberty's eternal enemy.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

248. Certainly stores are entitled to reasonable measures

To prevent theft.

But the law in most states is that they must have probable cause to search your private property.

Walking by an illegal search does not constitute probable cause..

I agree in the taser incident that the organizers had the right to evict anyone they wish.

However, it was the sheer glee of some people here over the man getting tasered that prompted my post.

[mondo joe]

267. Ah, but I don' think that refects authoritariaism vs libertarianism.

By that I mean one can have their legal thinking sorted out just fine but one a personal level hold someone in disregard, or consider them deserving of something.

I'm not there myself, on this matter, but I don't think it = authoritarianism.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

268. The Circuit City threads were far more clearcut..

The man basically just walked by an illegal search which precipitated a chain of events which led to his arrest on charges that the cop didn't even figure out until he conferred with his buddies at the stationhouse.

One segment of DU automatically took the side of the authorities although from the evidence we had the man had done nothing at all wrong.

That is why I call them authoritarians.

If you read the thread you will see that I have asked many, many times what based the evidence we had the man did wrong and none of the authoritarians will answer.

[mondo joe]

269. Actually, we don't know what happend at CC.

His testimony was exceedingly inadequate as "evidence".

Some recognized that.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

271. We really have no way of knowing if anything at all happened at CC..

But that has nothing to do with my argument.

Assume for a moment that the story was entirely fictional.

When presented with the story, DU basically split into two camps.

One camp took the side of the authorities and called the shopper a douchebag.

The other camp took the side of the shopper and called the store employee and the cop jerks.

Despite numerous requests not one member of the camp which took the side of the authorities will tell me what the shopper did wrong, according to the story as presented.

Do you see my argument now?

[mondo joe]

272. I saw more than two camps.

I see your argument. I don't agree.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

274. What other camps did you see?

And why do you disagree?

[mondo joe]

277. Well...

I saw people who suspected the guy was lying or hiding the truth and made some assumptions about what else might be at play.

I also saw people who felt that if the store had a known policy the shopper can be said to have agreed to it.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

279. If the store has a policy to which the shopper agrees by entering the store..

Then it is an unwritten contract..

Breaking a contract is not a criminal violation, it is a matter for civil court.

And the ones who suspected the guy was lying were calling him a douchebag too (or something equivalent).

And you didn't tell me why you disagree with me.

[mondo joe]

281. I'm sorry - I didn't tell you why I disagree with you about what?

?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

283. I'm not sure myself..

Here is the post I'm referring to.

I see your argument. I don't agree.

Why are you disagreeing with my point?

[Snarkturian Clone]

246. Both the circuit city and taser threads happened

because of rabble-rousers who were trying to become famous. This therefore tainted the incidents to the point where the claims of police-statism became invalid. When things like this happen to normal people under normal circumstances, then the argument over authoritarianism and libertarianism will be valid.


I, for one, didn't comment on either issue because of this.... until now of course.

[ShortnFiery]

249. But who? Which authority gets to make the distinction of "normality vs. rabble rousing"?

:wow:

[Snarkturian Clone]

252. Rabble rousing

in this case is making trouble just to get camera or internet time. Both rabblerousers were successful. When this police state stuff happens to an actual activist with honest intentions (which it has.. I'll have to search for the video), then the argument can begin in ernest.

[ShortnFiery]

275. Then what authority decides "honest intentions?"

:evilgrin:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

253. I've asked this question probably fifteen times on this thread now..

And had no replies at all.

How is simply walking by an illegal search being a "rabble rouser"?

I don't think I'll get a reply this time either..

[Snarkturian Clone]

254. dupe. nt

[Snarkturian Clone]

255. The circuit city dude

had an agenda to purposely be defiant for the purpose of fame. When it happens to a normal person that defies security for the sake of freedom, the argument will be valid enough to be useful.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

258. I gathered that his agenda..

Was to live his life according to principle rather than convenience. I noticed that *every* authoritarian that quoted him left that off that part of the quote.

I applaud anyone who attempts to live their life by principle since I do so myself.

And besides, we have had several DU'ers relate similar stories already, one on this very thread.

[Snarkturian Clone]

259. I question the guy's personal beliefs

because he is trying to garner fame through his actions, not change. THAT is the whole point I'm trying to make. The fact that this questions exists in my mind taints the whole argument.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

261. Actually..

If you look at the entire thread you will see that I'm referring to the way people reacted strictly to the man's story, not any possible motives behind what he did.

Before anything was said about motives and all we had to go on was the story there were numerous people saying the guy was a douchebag.

That is why I call them authoritarians, because they automatically took the side of the authorities in a case where the man was clearly in the right according to the information we had.

[Snarkturian Clone]

262. I had something snarky to say but I'll keep it to myself.

The mystery is why I would post that I'm not going to post anything.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

264. I don't mind snark at all...

My skin is made of Nomex..

[BlooInBloo]

251. Can't get the conflict going that way. No-one *admits* to authoritarian leanings....

... just like no-one admits to being racist.

EDIT: And it should be noted that leaving a store with your child is NOT "stepping out of line in any way". Quite the opposite. Or was it leaving the store with your duly purchased belongings? I forget. Happily, it doesn't make any difference - neither is "stepping out of line".

[The Vinyl Ripper]

256. Exactly

It's not really though that no one admits to being an authoritarian I suspect it is more that no one thinks of themselves that way.

[Vektor]

260. I don't really thing you have to be "authoritarian" to believe

that it's ok for the police to detain, arrest, or taser someone for being violent, combative, and disruptive.

I don't think DU is all that divided between authoritarians and libertarians, either.

I never saw the Circuit City threads, but I think at least in the case of the taser incident, DU is divided between those who gleaned from whatever coverage of the story they saw (and it's been different for everyone, regarding HOW much of the tirade they saw, how biased the reporting was, etc...) either that the young man was a combative disruptor, or a free speaker who was just a little overzealous.

It goes way deeper and is way less black and white than just being authoritarian and/or libertarian. I think MOST on DU probably are law abiding citizens, for the most part, but have different boundaries as to what constitutes lawlessness, and how far one can/should go before before they are considered out of line, and deserving of arrest or force.


I think the people who support the police on this one saw the young man as being combative and a genuine threat. The ones who support Meyer did not see him as an actual threat.

None of us were there - who's to say what we might have felt if we saw the whole entire incident at arm's length.

All we have to go on is the various and sundry versions of the event which are floating around all over the net and the TV, and how we as individuals interpret them.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

266. The Circuit City threads were far more clearcut..

The man basically just walked by an illegal search which precipitated a chain of events which led to his arrest on charges that the cop didn't even figure out until he conferred with his buddies at the stationhouse.

One segment of DU automatically took the side of the authorities although from the evidence we had the man had done nothing at all wrong.

That is why I call them authoritarians.

If you read the thread you will see that I have asked many, many times what based the evidence we had the man did wrong and none of the authoritarians will answer.

[Vektor]

273. I never got to see any of those threads.

I'll see if I can find one.

It sounds like there might have been a different situation there. :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

276. Who decides - gets to define what is disruptive? Perhaps they'll just default to punishment? Taser

:shrug:

[Vektor]

280. That's kind of what I'm saying.

It's not really black and white. There will be several different views on that, depending on one's own personal limits of what they can tolerate, what type of coverage of the event in question they saw, how they perceived it, and if they were there or not.

The same exact behavior can be perceived by two different people very differently. They will decide two different things.

[benEzra]

282. It's about the creation and manipulation of Fear.

As H.L. Mencken cynically observed,

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

The creation and manipulation of Fear is an effective tool to keep people in line and clamoring to be told what to do. The glow of power attracts authoritarian leaners from both the right and the left, unfortunately.

The right is currently using Terrah as the hobgoblin du jour; before that it was the Soviets, hippies, drug users, nuclear war (check out the eye-popping emergency powers acts put into place by the "no big government" conservatives sometime), people with dark skin, people from Europe, etc. The left is sometimes guilty of playing the same game with the hobgoblins of Terrah, drugs, gun owners, CEO's (some ARE crooked, though), militias, and fundies. Regardless of the direction it comes from, the goal is almost always to take authority from individuals and give it to self-appointed Anointed Ones, who in their wisdom will make the decisions of the Little People for them.

IMHO, that attitude is fundamentally incompatible with the Enlightenment roots of progressive thought, and is a throwback to more medieval ways of thinking. The Enlightenment was all about empowerment of the individual, and the flattening of authoritarian hierarchies.

BTW, Mencken was both liberal and libertarian (small "l"). He'd be a Dem today, but not an authoritarian/communitarian DLC'er; he'd call those people "Upholders."

[The Vinyl Ripper]

285. Yeah, I know..

Authoritarians are afraid.

Afraid of anyone that doesn't conform.

Which is why I was so surprised to see it here on DU.. I figured this would be a non conformist bunch to the core.

So much in the world is counterintuitive, I should have known..