btw I'm like 90% sure proph is missile dog

Where are you not exaggerating? Are you a survival of the fittest kind of thinker? Is that the purpose of human life that government helps defeat with it's 'scheme' of due process, equal protection, and the bills of rights?

I have a fantastical drooler on my FB feed who always is posting links to police brutality stories. It's tiresome and is the quintessential example of confirmation bias at work.

Let's do some math!

500,000 (approximately) sworn officers in the police force.

How often do you think, on average, police officers interact with the public? 3 times per day? 10? More? Let's just pick 5, considering some percentage of these officers are administrative or brass and work a desk.

500,000 x 5 = 2,500,000 incidents involving police officers interacting with citizens per day.

What would the incidence rate need to be of police brutality to justify some sweeping overhaul of the system? I don't have this answer, but I do feel comfortable when the crazy guy advocating for anarchy cites 30 instances of brutality over the past 10 years as evidence.

You ready for this? That math works out to 3 per year, or 1 per 3 months...or 1 per 225,000,000 police/citizen interactions!

PROPH - Do better. Show me data that backs up your claims of rampant police brutality and then we'll talk. Until then the pointing and laughing will continue without mercy.

Hmmm...

I'm 20% LIRVA, 20% MD, and 55% it's the dad of that one anarchy thread poster (2/7 or 4/7, maybe 7/4 ins) who posted nothing but memes and youtubes.

Oh and 5% one of the koch bros

Of course I clicked the link Proph, that's how I know the dates of the cases and that one of them was from the UK most likely.

A hell of a lot more than zero cases would be my number Proph. Especially since they aren't even going to count the cases of unjustified mob violence in your system, which is tailor made for abuse and lack of over site.

They won't even have to make stuff up like you are suggesting ALL cops do, it will be more like "He was a ginger so I shot him" or "he was late with the rent one too many times so I shot him."

You are such a buffoon.

There's a guy around the corner from me who sells ice cream. Joe over here likes ice cream and sometimes he goes and buys some from him. However, there are other people around who don't like ice cream so much and don't feel like doing business with him. He makes them pay their fair share anyway, and offers them the option of having an ice cream cone if they want it (they benefit from the ability to have "free" ice cream).

Is the fact that joe likes the ice cream relevant?

* you still haven't shown your work

* what are you not getting coherent feedback on?

I think people should be self-reliant, which might be a negative description around here.

How is there equal protection, when you're taking from one group of people?

Of course, inalienable rights are none of your concern.

Is that some Jedi-mindtrick? Does it ever work? I think you've been watching too much star wars, my friend.

Doubtful, MD makes too many login mistakes and then deletes those posts. Haven't seen that with Prophs nonsense yet.

I'm not sure how relevant the hopelessness of the situation is when evaluating a normative question.

But regardless, history is littered with counterexamples to your "USA #1 we have submarines, there's no way to win" jingoism. If anything, the advent of drones is likely to tilt things in favor of underdogs.

Can we please stop trying to solve this with analogies? I'll even go first. The "fair share" that taxes pay for is not ice cream. It is things that you have to try very hard not to benefit from. You want to be part of this society you have responsibilities that go along with the benefits of society.

UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH this theft discussion bores me. Let's just end it shall we?

1. Theft (Dictionary.com): The act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

2. Stealing (Dictionary.com): To take property without permission or right.

3. Taxation (US Constitution; Article I Section 8): The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

4. DIB explains to Proph that taxation can't be theft because it is a protected right and is permissible per the US Constitution.

5. Proph explains how in his fantasy land there is no such a thing as a Consitution and that words have different meanings there.

6. More fingers point and the sound of laughter increases to near deafening levels.

I am not subjecting myself to the viewing of police brutality porn for you guys.

I know it happens all the time, I don't need to be reminded.

I dig up 1 link, citing 30 cases, and it was the 2nd link in my search, and you assume this is all?

No wonder you guys believe what you do.

See! Ask and repeat the accusation, again.

It's like a zealous authoritarian cult, replace indoctrinated with possessed by a demon, replace statists with sinners and insert a prophet who does nothing but repeat accusatory and often fallacious dogma over and over again. You're a thief, you're a sinner, you're a thief, you're a sinner.

Ready for this? Here it comes.

If you believe citizens with rifles are capable of protecting themselves from The Man if/when The Man chooses to flex his muscles, then you are shockingly ignorant when it comes to the weaponry which The Man has at his disposal.

There is nothing left to say. I chose drones arbitrarily as there are countless other examples of ways in which dudes with rifles would die just as quickly as dudes without rifles. These are just facts.

...Umm...how come you went straight from the dictionary, to the Constitution?

The Constitution is flawed. It attempts to legalize theft.

You have the right to life, liberty, and property, because they are inalienable.

The Constitution attempts to strip you of your right to property, with systematic theft via taxation. Not the best document to cite, IMO.

In this post, DIB admits that he believes he has the right to taxation -- that is, theft. "The Constitution said so."

LMAO you are fooling nobody...I repeat...NOBODY. Well, except perhaps yourself.

C'mon, this problem is rampant dude, RAMMMMPANT. There have to be endless studies showing the extent to which police are brutalizing the public. You showed us a link to 30 detailed cases. Leave the details aside and broaden your scope, just show us the data. DATA. DAAAAAAAAATAAAAAAAAAA.

Or perhaps don't. Perhaps you can just pretend the atrocities which SURELY MUST EXIST IN THE FORM OF DATA are too traumatizing for your delicate sensibilities, and you can opt to keep focusing on case studies which are ripe for magnification and confirming your biases. That seems like a much safer route for your psyche.

DIB I'd much rather keep cracking a bat on the tax is theft fallacy-ball than dabble much in religious-like doomsday combat fantasy.

Yet, if this were the case, it would easily be debunked.

Gotta misdirect somehow, though, right sophiwookie.

Gonna drop another Captain Obvious bomb ITT. Brace yourself, Proph...

1. Theft involves illegally taking someone's property. 2. Taxation is the legal taking of someone's property. 3. THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.

B**** and moan about the Constitution as loud as you want. It defines taxation as a legal action. Taxation is legal, hence it cannot be theft. There is no way to simplify this for you any further.

You can't redefine words in non-fantasy land. When discussing legalities IRL in the United States, the Constitution is THE document to cite. IDK what you cite when you pretend you live in Libtopia, but again, here in the actual US, where reality runs rampant and police brutality doesn't, the Constitution is a pretty kick a** source of legal information.

GET USED TO IT BROTHER.

I hear you, but I had some time to kill and figured I'd just start swinging at any Libtard balls that came my way for awhile.

How many police officers work in America, again, DIB?

You can't even look up data for a simple math problem.

You're pathetic. I'm tired of your argumentative attitude and negativity. Though, I guess it's better you take it out on me, than a "loved one".

I started to say girlfriend, wife, or children, but lol. You're too immature for that. (I hope! God forbid there be little you's running around!)

Everyone knows you aren't good at math.

I am pretty sure the people who are making the taxes=theft argument want to choose a different society.

Are you high? I gave you a rounded number to make the math easier; a number which I got from here. This was not pulled out of my a**, unlike much of the wonderful things you share ITT:

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=71

"In 2008, local police departments had about 593,000 full-time employees, including 461,000 sworn officers. About 60% of all state and local sworn personnel were local police officers."

___

YOU'RE tired of MY argumentative attitude?! Excuse me for coming into your "Yay Libertarianism" Politics Unchained party and not playing nicely. Must be tough to get your life view utterly ruined ITT by someone in like 5 pages worth of dialogue.

C'mon champ, it's simple...do a Google search. Show me how rampant this police brutality problem is. Show the class the evidence of your claim, really put me in my place and stave off the ensuing embarrassment. Keep the "debate" alive. Go ahead.

Better yet, keep telling me how the FU**ING CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES isn't a good source of legal information but that DICTIONARY-DOT-F***ING-COM is where we should stay. Yeah that's the ticket! Keep telling me how the legal procurement of property from people is the EXACT SAME THING as the ILLEGAL procurement of property, aka theft.

You, and the values/views you represent, are reprehensible and spectacularly flawed.