At 0: 56, the cop says, “You’re responsible as a citizen of the United states to dispel any services in that way.” First off, that is nonsensical, and she should be forced to take a sobriety test before driving anywhere. Secondly, it is completely false that we have to cooperate with police until we’re under arrest or being interrogated. I keep asking the question whether police actually believe the stuff they say, or whether they’re just lying. Surely, she can’t be that stupid, so she must be lying. But then again, she does seem pretty stupid, so maybe it’s not so crazy that she’s borderline retarded.

The PR for the thin blue line says they protect our rights. Now, most people you run into who worship the police really are so stupid that they actually have bought into that. But are the more professional cop apologists that stupid, or are they lying?

Either way, the PR for the police says they’re protecting our rights, which would certainly include the 4th and 5th Amendments. But that is demonstrably false, as I’ve shown on this blog many times. So, the police are so confident that what they’re doing is so great, that they’re willing to force me to pay for their services via sales tax and property tax, not counting whatever money they receive from the federal government. Yet what they are providing isn’t what they say they’re providing. They’re committing fraud on an enormous scale, and I want my money back.

I hope they sue the crap out of this police department. 

This is a very good video. But let’s say you disagree completely that the cops provide bad service. You think they provide great service. So what? The arguments still stand. Your neighbors shouldn’t be forced to use the same service you choose to.

Here’s a video where a conservative defends a big-government welfare-based government monopoly, and a liberal puts forth alternative free market solutions.

The liberal talks about Latinx and Trans people and other liberal buzz words, which rubs me the wrong way. The conservative shows such little respect for liberty and justice. No wonder we’re in such a mess.

Here’s my response to the video:

I don’t think this guy has ever thought critically about the police for a single millisecond. It is rare for police to ever stop a crime in progress. So police aren’t for protection. In fact, they aren’t even legally obligated to protect you. Ideally speaking, they are there to find criminals after they’ve committed the crime and bring them to justice. Their other purpose, which never comes up in government PR, is that police are there to collect taxes.

Even in cases like terrorist shootings that he mentions, police rarely protect anyone. At Columbine, police hid outside in fear, even after the shooters killed themselves.  The conservative never explains why hundreds of thousands of cops across the country are necessary for a couple of shootings a year. Why can’t citizens with an AR-15 respond to situations like that? They couldn’t do much worse than the cops.

He then talks about a lady being murdered and trying to call 911, and being told there are no police. Again, it’s rare for police to show up to prevent a crime in progress, so the whole thing is just a fantasy. Wouldn’t a better solution be to have an app on your phone that you can alert your neighbors that you need help. And wouldn’t it be nice for the men in the neighborhood to be men and show up to help to show that they love someone enough to potentially lay down their lives for someone else? We don’t have to do that, because we pay the government to do it.

The conservative then raises the question of how we could deal with situations like shoplifting. Maybe the same way the founding fathers dealt with crime before police, when we were still a free people. The police take the information from the store, and then try to locate the suspect. That doesn’t have to be done by police. That can be done privately by investigators, bounty hunters and the courts, which is how early America did it. Read this excellent article on that history.

Then, the liberal says that the job of cops is to manufacture criminals. I think that isn’t the day-to-day mindset of the cop on the street, but I think that is true. With the tough-on-crime mentality of the latter half of the 1900s, politicians made a lot of things illegal that weren’t illegal, and increased prison sentences dramatically. I’ve also heard that there are district attorneys offices whose budgets are wildly too big with a lot of extra staff. What does a prosecuting attorney with nothing to do start looking for? What will happen when we start putting cops in every junior high and high school? You’re going to get more criminals. There have been cases where private prisons bribe judges to send them inmates. This is not far fetched, and the conservative is just not well informed. It’s not exactly surprising that cops aren’t told this, or that this isn’t in the government PR message.

Then the conservative mocks the idea of policing for profit, and says that cops only make $30,000 per year. I suppose there are some places where cops aren’t well paid, but there are also cops who are making great money, and even have pensions worth a couple million. Check out this Forbes story on that.

And the conservative makes fun of the idea that poorly-paid cops are going around trying to put money in other people’s pocket. Well feast your eyes on the video below. Oftentimes they’re trying to put money in their own pocket, as has been verified in local newspapers over the last week or so.

He then goes on to say that cops need to be one step ahead of criminals as far as militarization goes. Criminals have an AR-15 so why go against them with a pistol? The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is that the people are to be as well-armed as the government.

The people are paying the police to protect the citizens, but the police seem much more concerned about their own safety than those they’re paid to protect.

The liberal makes a great point that to end police, their budgets need to be cut. The conservative says that budgets are too small as it is, and for more training, they need more money. That is crazy as far as I’m concerned. When you see 6 or 10 or 15 cops show up to a simple call, it seems like the best thing to do is lay off about 90% of cops. When I’ve had the cops called on me for doing perfectly legal evangelism on a public street, 8 cops showed up. They must have been bored stiff that night.

Starting around 5:15 to 5:53, he then makes a point that I think is important. He says that all shootings are different and have different policies, training, etc. This is something that I’ve been harping on for a long time. Arizona defines murder in a different way than Indiana, which is different from Mississippi. Is it the government’s job to define murder. I have a Christian friend who said officers were justified in one particular incident, and he appealed to state law. Ok, Christian, if you allow the state to define murder, abortion is perfectly legitimate, because the state says so. God defines murder, and every cop who kills someone will stand before God and be judged by His clear and precise law. God will not judge anyone based on Colorado law.

He then mocks the liberal idea of rapid response justice teams saying that cops are that system. But that presupposes that cops bring justice, and the government isn’t stealing to fund their very existence. But he’s clearly someone who hasn’t thought about this stuff very much and seems to worship government power. Here is where he most blatantly shows that he’s a big-government conservative, and cares not a wit about free-market solutions, but in forcing his chosen solution on everyone based on force.

And he thinks the state-sanctioned rapid response justice team is automatically better than the free market rapid response justice team. It’s like he thinks the government people are magical, and this service is only possible through the power of the state. I think a lot of the same people would be involved in the free market security service, except that they could much more easily be held accountable.

So that is it. I’ve debated many people on this, and I never get rational arguments. All they have to offer is emotions.

Sometimes I wonder what it will take to convince people that the police are an occupying army roving our streets. Surely if they killed an innocent man from the turret of one of their armored SWAT vehicles that would convince people.

THEY DID.

Here’s an interesting video where Carrier (HVAC company) announces to their workers in Indianapolis that they’re moving the factory to Mexico.

I don’t know why they’d announce such a thing with more than a year’s warning. Those workers are now angry and likely to not put forth full effort. There could be a lot of factors I don’t know about, of course, but I would tell them at 5:00 the day they’re laid off.

Why is a Mexican workforce so much cheaper than an American workforce? Because the U.S. government puts all kinds of barriers in place for employers and employees. When, for example, government makes a law giving employees a new right, it just makes employees that much more expensive. Government has stepped into the relationship between employer and employee and dictated to both that the employer has to do X, and the employee must receive X. Neither has any choice in the matter.

The employee can’t opt to reject that benefit in order to be more competitive, or even to receive the benefit as a pay raise. That new benefit sounds good, but in reality, the employee is paying for it, or he’s pricing himself out of the market, and in the case of Carrier, the employee’s competitor is a Mexican.

Minimum wage is a more concrete example. In Seattle, the city has dictated that minimum wage is $15. The entry-level worker earning minimum wage may not be producing $15 worth of value for his employer. In that case, the entry-level guy will be laid off, and replaced with someone who can produce $15 or more worth of value. Or some company’s may be able to move out of Seattle, or some jobs can be replaced with computers, such as cashier jobs, where one cashier will monitor several self-checkout systems.

Raising the minimum wage sounds good, but it only hurts those who most need help. Furthermore, if raising it to $15/hour were a good idea, why not $20 or $50?

There are thousands of ways that government interferes in an evil way to price American workers out of the market. The only way for Americans to be competitive and get manufacturing jobs back is to get government out of the picture, and get them to stop meddling. B

I’ve given up on the Republicans for the most part. The American government at all levels is anti-Christ, and none of them see it. None of them want to end socialism, and some of them want to increase it. But here’s the highlight of all the debates so far.

For argument sake, let’s propose the following. I have passed a new law saying:

1. I am the government.
2. I can drive whatever speed I like.

If a cop pulls me over for speeding, I will pull out my law book and quote to him, “I can drive whatever speed I like.” Of course, he’d have a good chuckle and write me a ticket. He has a gun, and just as importantly, the willingness to kill me.

The knee jerk reaction of 99.9% of people reading that would say my government is not valid. But why? Why is the state of Colorado law valid, and my government and law invalid?

Isn’t making up a new government exactly what the state of Colorado (or whatever government at whatever level) has done? A group of guys got together and said, “We are the new government.”

Then, they say something like, “Let’s write a consitution! The constitution will define our territory and we’ll make up out of thin air a process for new laws to be passed. Somewhere in the law or the constitution, we’re going to have to say that we have the right to apply our laws to the people within our boundaries. If someone comes along and asks whether we have the right to do this, we’re going to be able to quote to them from our laws saying that we do have the right.”

So, they’d say the law applies, because the law says it applies. This is circular reasoning, and isn’t a valid answer. If I said Islam is true because the Quran says so, you’d say that’s circular, and you’d be right to reject my answer.

I’ll put forth a few devil’s advocate answers to the question about why the government of Colorado laws might be valid.

The laws of the government of Colorado are valid because:

1. They control the territory defined as Colorado.
2. The government has been in existence in its current form since 1876.
3. Anyone who enters the territory of Colorado agrees to abide by the law or face the consequences.
4. Government agents have guns and are more than willing to use them. They rule by force.
5. The Bible says we should obey the civil magistrates (Romans 13:1-7).

Numbers 1 and 4 are really the same. Forcing or threatening people doesn’t really make laws or a government valid, though it can be very effective.

Number 2 is not really a valid answer. It’s possible that the government has been invalid since its inception, or it has become invalid at some point. So, 1, 2 and 4 aren’t good answers.

Number 3 is a little bit more interesting. At least it adds a layer for us to peel away. There are people in Colorado who don’t agree to submit to the laws of Colorado. (If none of the other five million, there is at least me.) Why does the law apply to those who don’t agree to submit to Colorado law? And you’re back to the original question. Answer number 3 is just fluff.

Number 5 is really the only answer that would come close to being a good answer. However, if you’re going to claim number 5, you’d have to see whether the government qualifies as being valid by the standard of Scripture. I’ll tell you that it fails miserably.

This answer leads to a conundrum for government, because they explicitly reject that they might rule by biblical standards. They have rejected the Bible and Christianity as possible sources of guidance for government. THEY have rejected the only possible reason for their validity.

The only valid government is one that enforces God’s law as prescribed in God’s law. If they rule by God’s law, then they have God’s blessing in forcing people to do certain very limited things.

While I may not have covered every possible response to the question of why the government of Colorado is valid, I assure you there are no valid answers other than the biblical answer.

My made-up government, consisting of one citizen, is more valid than the state of Colorado, assuming I adopt God’s laws. They have no God-given or moral authority. All they have is the threat of force.

Oh, good news, I just made my wife and kids citizens as well, so now my government has 5 citizens. Care to join me? You might want to check out what God’s law says, but it is beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMhNFGzqtIQ

I’m a little bit surprised they even have the ability to arrest him for such a silly thing.

How long are we going to put up with this kind of behavior? I wish all the people protesting the cops could actually spend their time doing something useful, like working to cut the budget of police or something specific.