If George Floyd Had Been White...
John McWhorter writes at Quillette about some of the realities of police violence perpetrated on citizens:
Tony Timpa was 32 years old when he died at the hands of the Dallas police in August 2016. He suffered from mental health difficulties and was unarmed. He wasn't resisting arrest. He had called the cops from a parking lot while intoxicated because he thought he might be a danger to himself. By the time law enforcement arrived, he had already been handcuffed by the security guards of a store nearby. Even so, the police officers made him lie face down on the grass, and one of them pressed a knee into his back. He remained in this position for 13 minutes until he suffocated. During the harrowing recording of his final moments, he can be heard pleading for his life. A grand jury indictment of the officers involved was overturned.Not many people have seen this video, however, and that may have something to do with the fact that Timpa was white. During the protests and agonizing discussions about police brutality that have followed the death of George Floyd under remarkably similar circumstances, it is too seldom acknowledged that white men are regularly killed by the cops as well, and that occasionally the cops responsible are black (as it happens, one of the Dallas police officers at the scene of Timpa's death was an African American). There seems to be a widespread assumption that, under similar circumstances, white cops kill black people but not white people, and that this disparity is either the product of naked racism or underlying racist bias that emerges under pressure. Plenty of evidence indicates, however, that racism is less important to understanding police behavior than is commonly supposed.
...[The] disparity in poverty rates means black people are ... disproportionately represented in rates of violent crime. Poverty can lead to dangerous survival choices that include lucrative criminal activity. Furthermore, outstanding warrants can cause suspects to flee law enforcement when stopped for other trivial infractions. This disparity cannot explain every fatal police shooting, including some of the most notorious examples, such as the shootings of Tamir Rice and Philando Castile. Nevertheless, the tragedy remains: Higher aggregate crime rates lead to more encounters with police officers overall which increases the likelihood that a proportion of those encounters will get out of hand. Entrenched socioeconomic disparities should concern us all, and are as intolerable as cop murders. But the idea that the police murder out of racist animus is much less clear than we are often led to suppose.
This is not to say that race has nothing to do with policing issues in America. Black people are disproportionately more likely to be pulled over for drug searches, a disparity that, interestingly, disappears after dusk when officers cannot easily identify the race of a driver. Black people are also more likely to be verbally abused by police during interactions. Contrary to his expectations, Harvard economist Roland Fryer has found that while white men are actually more likely to be killed by cops, black people are more likely to be handcuffed, pushed against the wall, and treated with weapons drawn. Blacks are still somewhat more likely than whites to suffer physical and verbal abuse from the cops even when the behavior of the suspect is taken into account. Findings like these contribute to a general sense that cops treat black people as an enemy.
Racist bias may well play a role in these statistical discrepancies in treatment. Certainly, this perception was as central to the protests in Ferguson, Missouri as the shooting of Michael Brown. If, upon close examination, that turns out to be the case, then this must obviously be addressed. The acrid relationship with police is among the main reasons that so many black people feel like aliens in their own nation. If a new generation of black people could grow up without the sense that the cops are their enemy, America would turn a corner on race and finally break its holding pattern.
Police officers are too often overarmed, undertrained, and low on empathy. Some police officers are surely racist and act like it. But it does not follow that white cops routinely kill black people in tense situations out of racist animus. This scenario may seem plausible--I believed it until only a few years ago. But there are times when facts are counterintuitive, and it is important to get the facts right and to analyze them with clear eyes and a clear mind (the enlightening work of criminologist and ex-cop Peter Moskos is helpful in this regard). Rhetoric has a way of straying from reality, and to get where we all want to go, it is reality that we must address.
Very early on, friend of mine, who will remain nameless, floated the thought that maybe Chauvin, the cop with his knee on Floyd's neck, was generally a bully.
It came out that he and Chauvin knew each other and worked at the same club, and it sounds like Chauvin might have had some issues with black clientele.
I guess we'll hear more at trial, but it is possible that the knee on George Floyd's neck had something to do with race but also something to do with a guy who used his position of power to do violence because he was that kind of guy. Or maybe more of the latter.
It's possible and that's something to consider, too.
Cynical outlook time: Black Lives Matter started during the Obama administration because black activists recognized that if America is capable of electing a black President, blacks were out of excuses for a poor performance.
Consequently, they invented fake issues and cited these as evidence of their oppression. For instance, cultural appropriation, which basically means telling white people what they aren't allowed to use because it was supposedly invented by other cultures. However, anything invented by whites is fair game for use by non-whites.
Interestingly enough, he left out the most egregious example of police brutality against a black man: the shooting of Walter Scott. A more clear-cut case of police brutality you will not find.
You could also argue that Derek Chauvin simply hated George Floyd based on their history and saw an opportunity for a gratuitous display of dominance. Yes, racism could have had something to do with it, I'm sure, but unless Chauvin has a history of killing black suspects, that's not the only factor operating.
One thing I've never been clear on. We keep hearing about this systemic (they love that word) oppression of black people, but so far, no one's ever been able to name a single law or social contract that discriminates against non-whites.
On the other hand, I have a few laws and social contracts that do discriminate against whites.
Black privilege is to say "white lives don't matter" and not lose your job. (Refer to Priyamvada Gopal.)
Black privilege is the right to say vile, racist, hateful things against white people, and never be held accountable.
Black privilege is the ability to set up black student governments in college, but a white student government would immediately be deemed as racist.
Black privilege is the ability to openly discriminate against white people, and never be accused of racism.
Black privilege are laws that demand a certain number of black people be employed by any corporation.
Black privilege is the right to demand safe spaces and segregated dorms just for you, but whites making similar demands would be called racist.
Black privilege is the ability to have literature removed from our libraries that use terminology you deem offensive, regardless of the context.
Black privilege is the ability to fabricate hate crimes that never happened, and any white person who so much as questions the actual hate crime is immediately deemed racist.
Black privilege is the assumption that if you don't succeed in life, it is the fault of an oppressive system, never your own bad decisions.
Black privilege is the expectation to be coddled and placated over the tiniest offense, real or imagined, yet still insist that white people are "fragile."
Black privilege is 260 points added to your SAT scores.
Black privilege is to have your claims of systemic oppression be uncritically accepted, and not have to provide a single example of laws or social contracts that keep them down.
Patrick at July 6, 2020 12:13 AM
A couple of months ago they had a great white shark off the coast of Marin. The people were going: "Thank God. At least it was white!" ~ Robin Williams
Conan the Grammarian at July 6, 2020 8:14 AM
The problem isn't racism, it's police.
Kent McManigal at July 6, 2020 8:55 AM
I enjoy listening to Glen and John, on the Glen show. Especially John McWhorter slow progression toward the right, because he does listen to comments. It wasn't that long ago that people pointed out that white people were killed by police too. Then that it happens a lot. Then that it is more than to blacks. each time with his previous biases showing with phrases like " Contrary to his expectations" or "when facts are counter-intuitive" But it is progress.
Joe J at July 6, 2020 9:10 AM
Read or listen to Thomas Sowell, Bob Woodson, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, et al. and your eyes (and mind) may be opened to the truth.
Jay R at July 6, 2020 2:38 PM
With what do you propose replacing the police?
Conan the Grammarian at July 6, 2020 3:22 PM
Conan,
You are not asking a good faith question here because it presumes that Kent wants to "replace" the police before you have asked him a more legitimate question regarding how he would improve things.
It is like someone saying "The problem isn't government, it's the politicians."... and someone else responding with "with what do you propose replacing the politicians?"
One could in principle be completely fine with the overall concept of the police while being very critical in the manner in which they operate, are trained, their level of accountability, etc...
It would be better for you to approach Kent by asking a more general question than committing the complex question fallacy (i.e., when did you stop beating your wife?)
Artemis at July 6, 2020 4:02 PM
You are not asking a good faith question here because it presumes.... ~ Artemis at July 6, 2020 4:02 PM
Stay out of things you don't understand, Artie. I presume nothing.
From Kent McManigal on Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog at June 22, 2020:
Conan the Grammarian at July 6, 2020 4:39 PM
Conan,
If you weren't presuming anything and basing your opinion on information available on Kent's blog then you would know your question was completely unnecessary.
Kent already answers your question on Tuesday, June 09, 2020:
"Dismantle the whole institution until not one stone remains stacked on another. And don't replace it with anything."
So why even ask him what he proposes to replace it with when you are now claiming to have read his blog which unambiguously states his position is not to replace it at all?
As I said... your question was not in good faith.
Either you already knew the answer from his blog... or you didn't know the answer and are just trying to cover yourself after the fact.
In any event, you now have the answer to your question.
Artemis at July 6, 2020 5:40 PM
Artie, you were not part of the conversations that preceded this, but chose to insert yourself when you thought you could "correct" me, possibly to win back some of the ground you lost on the grammar argument. However, you let your emotions get ahead of you and stepped in it on this one.
Earlier on this blog, well after his "don't replace them with anything," blog post, I and a few others on another thread responded to Kent's comment about the police being anti-civilization with a discussion that policing would still be necessary, with or without police. Kent did not follow up on that one, so I ask here, after his comment on this thread, if no police, what replaces them?
If you have no police, with what mechanism do you police society? Mere social opprobrium rarely stops violence; and not everyone is equipped to deal violence to those who would do themselves or others harm; nor to accept that violence being done by others on their behalf. "Vigilante justice" is rarely justice.
You, yourself Artie, argued in favor of trained air marshals over vigilante policing and detainment of threats to passenger safety.
The problem, I would argue with Kent, is not one of too much police, it's one of too many broadly-written laws. It is the systematic abuse of the citizenry by lawmakers who treat taxpayers as an ATM.
See Three Felonies A Day by Harvey Silvergate. It's a little over-the-top, but still a worthwhile read.
Conan the Grammarian at July 6, 2020 7:07 PM
I aver that the claim that the police are somehow broken needs to be challenged.
Nationwide, we must have tens of thousands of police encounters every day.
In the seven years since Black Lives Matter was founded, they could come up with only a relatively tiny number of questionable conduct by the police. And in many of these cases, the claim that the officers did anything wrong is debatable, such as Michael Brown. Even the Obama Administration admitted that Darren Wilson was in the right.
Although the Black Lives Matter website has since taken down this claim, one of the more ludicrous grievances they once brought up is that Michael Brown "was not tasered or wrestled to the ground."
Patrick at July 6, 2020 9:49 PM
Conan,
My involvement here is purely from the perspective of logical and fair discourse.
The reality is that if you are familiar with Kent's blog as you seem to be insisting you are by quoting it as a reference, then you already know the answer to your question.
His position isn't confusing or ambiguous.
I will quote it for you again:
"Dismantle the whole institution until not one stone remains stacked on another. And don't replace it with anything."
If he didn't answer your question before why would you suspect that his position changed?
Shouldn't you have acknowledged his position here to open a fair and reasonable dialogue?... you could then ask if his position has changed.
I don't agree with Kent's position here... but I also don't agree with your rhetorical tactics.
Just hold a fair and honest conversation.
You know what his position is, stop pretending you weren't aware and needed him to answer this question:
"With what do you propose replacing the police?"
His answer was nothing... you can disagree with that position until you are blue in the face. You can argue against that position with a list of valid arguments and I would likely agree with you on a good many of those arguments.
Let's not pretend you didn't know that his answer was "nothing" though.
Artemis at July 6, 2020 11:35 PM
“With what do you propose replacing the police?"
His answer was nothing... you can disagree with that position until you are blue in the face. You can argue against that position with a list of valid arguments and I would likely agree with you on a good many of those arguments.”
Not a serious argument. Question: What do you intend to replace nuclear power with? Answer Unicorn farts.
No one is that fatuous. And if they are, they deserve to be ridiculed for their six year old level of discourse.
Personally I think Kent both deserves and needs, for his edification, a six month vacation in Mogadishu. He must be very young.
Isab at July 7, 2020 3:38 AM
There is no fool like an old food Isab. I'm actually betting Kent is older.
Patrick, that is actually a hard question to answer. Once you get honest and remove perfection as the only acceptable goal setting up a real scale to measure things is difficult. But I agree with you that I don't think the police are particularly broken. I mostly would like to see some conflict of interest issues dealt with. They are small changes but can have a big impact.
Ben at July 7, 2020 6:39 AM
Sure, Artie, sure.
I knew his answer was private security and personal weapons as he stated in his blog. That's always the thinking of utopian libertarians (anarchists) on the subject of abolishing the police.
Read L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach to get an inkling of how utopian libertarians think anarchy will play out over time with a large population. It's pure fantasy, predicated on the insertion of the word "unanimous" into the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, so it reads that governments "derive their just power from the unanimous consent of the governed."
Now, for the most part, I agree with Smith and other libertarians on personal liberty and responsibility; as well as limiting government power. Where I diverge from them is thinking pure anarchy is a viable governing philosophy for large populations.
__________________________________________________
On his blog, Kent proposes replacing the police with paid private security and arming oneself. Private security, he argues, will be directly answerable to the people paying it.
Utopian libertarianism (anarchy) is rarely grounded in practical reality. It's a useful philosophy for reminding us to stand up for ourselves and that our government is becoming too powerful and even trivial, but not a useful philosophy for governing a large population.
So, what rule does Kent's paid private security uphold? Not rule of law, but rule of owners. It enforces the commands of the people paying it. The rules, and the stringency of their enforcement, will change with each property ownership change.
Keep in mind that not everyone has the mental, physical, or emotional ability to be able to deal violence to someone trying to do them or others harm. Not everyone has the means with which to afford weaponry that will give them an advantage over attackers.
The primary benefit of having a police force is that it is controlled by a government answerable to the population at large. Bands of armed civilians practicing vigilante justice are not. Those bands can only be countered by other bands of better-armed civilians.
Trouble begins when the government no longer acknowledges it is directly answerable to the population at large and begins to use the police as a means of controlling specific segments of the population; when there are so many laws that one cannot help but commit a crime in the course of one's normal daily activities; and when the laws are so broadly written that a prosecutor can make a major case from the most minor infraction.
At the national level, we have too many career politicians who have been in office for upwards of thirty years or more; people who do not acknowledge that the job, and the powers that come with it, are not theirs (or their family's) by divine right, but by popular consent. Power does indeed corrupt, and they've been corrupted for far too long.
Our political class, at all levels, has been seeing itself for far too long as a New World peerage of aristocrats, and not as the public servants they were intended by our Founders to be.
When a politician says he intends to "transform" society, watch out. It means, he does not respect the wishes of the population at large, but is doing the bidding of a specific group seeking power and subsidy.
Conan the Grammarian at July 7, 2020 8:05 AM
Private security forces are directly answerable to the people who pay them. They are not answerable at all to the people they kill who did not pay them. That is the problem with only using private groups to enforce order. ... not to mention the wars you get when two groups come into conflict.
Ben at July 7, 2020 9:38 AM
Conan Says:
"I knew his answer was private security and personal weapons as he stated in his blog."
Right... so I go back to my original statement that your question was in bad faith.
If you already know his answer then just deal with his answer.
It lacks integrity to ask what he intends to replace the police with when you already know what his answer is.
That is a dishonest way to communicate with others.
Artemis at July 7, 2020 10:11 AM
Isab Says:
"No one is that fatuous. And if they are, they deserve to be ridiculed for their six year old level of discourse."
Or... you could always just be honest, highlight that you believe their argument lacks merit, explain why it lacks merit... and then move on.
Their argument may be lacking in logical grounding, but the six year old level of discourse is coming from the folks playing games.
Artemis at July 7, 2020 10:19 AM
Conan Says:
"Our political class, at all levels, has been seeing itself for far too long as a New World peerage of aristocrats, and not as the public servants they were intended by our Founders to be.
When a politician says he intends to "transform" society, watch out. It means, he does not respect the wishes of the population at large, but is doing the bidding of a specific group seeking power and subsidy."
Let's be careful not to deify our founding fathers in this context.
They were also politicians who intended to "transform" society and saw themselves as a New World peerage of aristocrats.
The only difference here is that you have placed that particular set of politicians on a pedestal.
It should be a cause for concern if we judge the value of a persons actions on how far back in history they happen to be. There is an unfortunate tendency to be more critical of our contemporaries than our ancestors (this statement can be interpreted in multiple ways, but my meaning here is simply that we should use the same standard whatever that standard happens to be).
If we are going to let the founding fathers off the hook for intending to "transform" society then we are in no position to be hypercritical of modern day politicians who seek to do the same.
We would be better off to have a more sophisticated conversation about the kinds of social transformation that are laudable and the kinds that are not.
Artemis at July 7, 2020 10:27 AM
Artie, you really are tiresome.
You'll remember that I commented, "That's always the thinking of utopian libertarians (anarchists) on the subject of abolishing the police." I was hoping to get beyond the stock answer and have a discussion on what a police-less and government-less society really looks like.
Isab's Mogadishu is a pretty good example, however limited. Somalia does not have the history of democracy and jurisprudence that underpin the US, so an interesting discussion could be had on the subject.
Conan the Grammarian at July 7, 2020 11:43 AM
No one's letting them off the hook or putting them on a pedestal.
And, Artie, they weren't "transforming" society, they were separating it from its colonial masters. The confederated America they created looked remarkably like the colonial America prior to the Revolution; as did the republican America they created when the earlier confederacy proved unwieldy.
However flawed the Founders may have been, they created a country in which the government was responsible to the governed - in an age of monarchy, the divine right of kings, and a birth-right aristocracy. They refused to set themselves up as an aristocracy of earls and barons and instead founded a country dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal" - albeit with a few horrible exceptions to be remedied later at great cost.
Name just one politician today who could create a country that lasts 244 years and serves as a "shining city on a hill" for the rest of the world. All this with a document no more than a few pages long. The constitution of the state of California is longer than the owner's manual of a Toyota Corolla. It was written by modern politicians.
Name one politician today who would voluntarily give up the presidency after 2 terms.
Name one politician today who would invest political power in the electorate and not in themselves.
So, yeah, the Founders deserve some respect - in spite of their flaws and shortcomings.
You are not the type with whom one can have a "sophisticated discussion." Nuance is not your strong suit.
Conan the Grammarian at July 7, 2020 12:25 PM
"Not a serious argument. Question: What do you intend to replace nuclear power with? Answer Unicorn farts."
Isn't it odd how a recent invention can be so quickly assumed to be essential to society?
"Private security forces are directly answerable to the people who pay them."
If your private security attacks someone, the victim can shoot them in self-defense. No "laws" forbidding this would be imagined to be legitimate. If the private security violates the life, liberty, or property of someone and survives, they are personally, individually accountable. And those who hired them could be held accountable, too. Try that with government's socialist police forces.
Mogadishu is a prime example of too much/too many government/s and too much policing, not "too little".
Kent McManigal at July 8, 2020 2:21 PM
And if he's outnumbered and outgunned?
Your premise is faulty and will lead to Hatfield-McCoy style social interaction.
You presume a civil case and some form of enforcement of a court's order for recompense. Without disinterested police to enforce that court order, it becomes a case of one security force vs. another.
Someone with enough resources to hire a larger security force can keep any other force from carrying out the court's order.
Which is exactly what you get when every power bloc hires its own policing force. You don't get peaceful interaction, you get internecine warfare.
Government may be the biggest bully on the block, but as long as it serves at the pleasure of the governed, it's still the best option. The trick is to keep it answerable to the governed.
Conan the Grammarian at July 8, 2020 2:57 PM
Conan Says:
"I was hoping to get beyond the stock answer and have a discussion on what a police-less and government-less society really looks like."
No Conan... if you are looking to get beyond "stock answers" you approach someone with the respect to acknowledge what their stated position happens to be and then ask for further clarification.
Even Isab had your motivations pegged here:
"No one is that fatuous. And if they are, they deserve to be ridiculed for their six year old level of discourse."
You weren't engaging in honest intellectual discourse... you were engaging in bad faith argumentation to try and win cheap points against a weak argument you were already aware of.
You know he didn't intend to replace the police with anything robust. Yet instead of engaging honestly you resorted to stupid and childish games.
Talk about tiresome.
Artemis at July 8, 2020 3:55 PM
"And if he's outnumbered and outgunned?"
What happens now? Because that's the exact situation we are in. You just happen to be OK with the bad guys outnumbering and outgunning the population because you've accepted them as your saviors. No matter how much they steal, kidnap, and murder. As long as you can imagine they do more damage to people you're scared of than to people you know and like, you're fine with it.
"...Without disinterested police to enforce that court order,
Those don't exist. That's why the Blue Line Gang has become such a problem. You really can't imagine how society can work without institutionalized theft and aggressive gangs running the streets?
"Which is exactly what you get when every power bloc hires its own policing force..."
It's also essential for the people to have been brainwashed to tolerate thugs among them. Like those who accept police as "good" or "necessary".
"as long as it serves at the pleasure of the governed, it's still the best option. The trick is to keep it answerable to the governed.
I can't be governed. I can be bullied, but I don't accept bullies as legitimate and they don't bully anyone (not me or you) at my "pleasure". They are scum.
It's not the best option. It's the "best" option you are willing to accept, because you don't have to do any work to get something better that way.
Political government is never answerable to its victims; but it is really good at fooling them into believing it's on their side. This is classic Stockholm Syndrome.
Kent McManigal at July 8, 2020 4:07 PM
Conan Says:
"And, Artie, they weren't "transforming" society, they were separating it from its colonial masters."
And:
"However flawed the Founders may have been, they created a country in which the government was responsible to the governed - in an age of monarchy, the divine right of kings, and a birth-right aristocracy."
The entire second quote is evidence of societal transformation.
The founding fathers not only intended to transform society... they did transform society.
We can discuss whether or not we like certain transformations, but to argue that the founding fathers didn't intend to transform society away from the established status quo of monarchy is something that should be plainly obvious.
The fact that folks in society were given a vote was in and of itself transformative. The entire bill of rights was transformative as it was intended to establish that many of the items highlighted within the Declaration of Independence would no longer be tolerated.
The 3rd amendment itself is a complete rebuke of what the crown had imposed on society... quartering soldiers in the homes of private citizens without the consent of the owner.
All of these things were transformative.
Not to mention things like the founding of the public library system.
What you seem to be confusing here is that many of the elements of society that you now see as common place were in fact transformative results of the American revolution.
Your very right to vote was a dramatic societal change.
Artemis at July 8, 2020 4:07 PM
Oh, and I don't get notifications about comments posted here, so it depends on whether I remember to check for responses or not. The busier I get, the longer it takes for me to check back. Not trying to snub anyone.
Kent McManigal at July 8, 2020 4:12 PM
Conan,
I'll also note your very interesting choice of words here:
"The confederated America they created looked remarkably like the colonial America prior to the Revolution; as did the republican America they created when the earlier confederacy proved unwieldy."
I note the words "confederated", "confederacy", and "republican"... and yet no where do you even use the word democracy.
The government created is most completely described as a representative democratic republic... and yet here you are using what appears to be a bizarre conservative checklist of terms.
Along the same lines you feel the need to criticize the length of California's constitution here:
"The constitution of the state of California is longer than the owner's manual of a Toyota Corolla. It was written by modern politicians."
Yet the constitution of Alabama is nearly 5 times longer.
Why not highlight the longest constitution?... why selectively pick the first blue state in the list?
The constitution of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Louisiana are all longer than California's... all conservative states and all ignored as examples by you.
Once again you are engaging in bad faith discussion.
If you are looking for an example of long constitutions Alabama should have been your go to choice.
Artemis at July 8, 2020 4:43 PM
Nuance is lost on you.
It's Bill of Rights - capitalized.
And you're wrong. The English had the vote and a Parliament with powers nearly equal to those of the king, especially in matters of taxation and war. Although considered the "lower house," the House of Commons had gained the sole right to initiate taxation measures by the 17th century. The House of Lords retained its veto power over bills passed by the Commons, however.
The Bill of Rights of 1689 required Parliament to consent to the Crown's maintenance of a peacetime standing army. Today, Parliament debates, and usually passes, an Armed Forces Act every 5 years.
George III may have claimed the divine right of kings, but he had to go through Parliament to exercise it.
American colonial legislatures often challenged the royal governors of the colonies. Massachusetts Bay Colony even demanded and got a new governor a few times when dissatisfied with the ones sent to them.
As for the 3rd Amendment, the Crown did impose quartering of soldiers on its American colonies, but not on English citizens back in England. The 3rd Amendment was a result of Parliament's 1765 Quartering Act, that required the American colonies to feed and house the soldiers stationed there to defend those colonies; and help defray the costs of maintaining them in a faraway colony.
The post-revolutionary confederacy of American states and later federal republic was not as "transformative" of the existing governance of the colonies as you want to believe.
And equating what BLM, Open Society, et al would impose on the US to what the Founding Fathers created is socialist propaganda and naive.
As I said, nuance is lost on you.
Conan the Grammarian at July 8, 2020 4:57 PM
Not so much saviors as a necessary evil. Any police force needs to be regulated. I'm in favor of citizen review boards and a methods to police the police. Internal Affairs should be separate from the police department, as should crime labs.
I can imagine it; I just don't think it would work. There's too much greed and lust for power in human nature.
No problem. We can keep up the discussion on your schedule.
Conan the Grammarian at July 8, 2020 5:00 PM
Conan,
Like always you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth.
On the one hand you are trying to argue that the founding fathers didn't transform society at all:
"The confederated America they created looked remarkably like the colonial America prior to the Revolution; as did the republican America they created when the earlier confederacy proved unwieldy."
According to this line of thinking the founders didn't actually do very much.
And yet... you then argue that they created a "a country that lasts 244 years and serves as a "shining city on a hill" for the rest of the world.".
What did they create exactly Conan?... according to you society was exactly the same after the revolution as it was before.
That "shining city on a hill" was already present so far as your original argument goes.
You are literally arguing both for and against massive societal improvement created by the founders depending on what the opposing argument happens to be.
Your arguments are logically incompatible with one another... but what's new.
You just keep on trucking with your "republican confederacy" fantasies.
Artemis at July 8, 2020 5:06 PM
Conan Says:
"And equating what BLM, Open Society, et al would impose on the US to what the Founding Fathers created is socialist propaganda and naive."
I don't recall ever mentioning the BLM or any other such group.
This is another example of dishonest rhetoric on your part.
Go back and read for comprehension this time.
Your rhetorical tactics are dishonest to the core as usual.
Artemis at July 8, 2020 5:10 PM
Not ignored. The cite had nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal politicians.
I was trying to riff off a PJ O'Rourke quip: "The U.S. Constitution is less than a quarter the length of the owner's manual for a 1998 Toyota Camry, and yet it has managed to keep 300 million of the world's most unruly, passionate and energetic people safe, prosperous and free."
The reason I used California's is that I've read parts of California's constitution; and even voted on amendments to it when I lived there. I haven't read any part of the other state constitutions, nor have I voted in those states; so I didn't cite their constitutions as examples of modern politicians' tendency toward excess wordiness.
And not "bad faith." It was cited as an example of what modern politicians produce versus the economy of words practiced by our Founding Fathers. Your definition of "bad faith argument seem to be anything with which you disagree but can't refute.
Conan the Grammarian at July 8, 2020 5:21 PM
Good night, Artie. Go home. Kent and I will have a nice discussion on the merits and drawbacks of a government-less and police-less society - the original debate before you butted in and hijacked it with your nonsense.
You have demonstrated that you know nothing of colonial American history and care nothing about learning anything of it.
Do you really think that Enlightenment thinking was created by the Founding Fathers; that no one espoused individual liberty or the separation of church and state until Thomas Jefferson and James Madison put pen to paper? Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and few others would disagree with that.
Read a book once in a while, Artie.
Conan the Grammarian at July 8, 2020 5:41 PM
Conan,
I'm going to explain to you in very simple terms why state constitutions are almost universally longer than the federal constitution.
It really isn't a product of your thesis here:
"I didn't cite their constitutions as examples of modern politicians' tendency toward excess wordiness."
It is actually related to the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
When the federal constitution was written it was envisioned as a limited form of government that only had powers specifically delineated within the founding document itself.
The states on the other hand are general governments that have all of the rest of the so-called "reserved" powers.
As a result state constitutions are a laundry list of dos and don'ts. They are longer than the federal constitution specifically because one was envisioned as a limited form of government and the other as a general form of government.
It isn't because all of the state politicians throughout history had a tendency toward excess. In fact most of the provisions within state constitutions are limitations on state power.
Artemis at July 8, 2020 5:56 PM
Conan Says:
"It was cited as an example of what modern politicians produce versus the economy of words practiced by our Founding Fathers. Your definition of "bad faith argument seem to be anything with which you disagree but can't refute."
No... a bad faith argument is one where you aren't acting honestly.
If you really believe that state constitutions are longer than the federal constitution simply because the people who founded this nation had an "economy of words" you would do well to read the state constitutions that were originally established by their contemporaries.
They were longer from the get go because the states were envisioned as the general form of government.
In their construction the federal government needed powers given to it... the states by contrast held all reserved powers and specifically needed limitations imposed.
No need to take my word for it though. Look at the New Hampshire State Constitution here:
https://www.nh.gov/glance/constitution.htm
There are 101 separate sections, almost all of which were part of the one established in 1784. The different sections are dated so you can see just how much was part of their state constitutional convention.
Artemis at July 8, 2020 6:07 PM
Conan,
You can also read more about this here:
https://www.paralegaledu.org/2013/01/state-constitutions-vs-the-united-states-constitution/
"Often, state constitutions are much longer and more detailed than the federal Constitution. State constitutions focus more on limiting rather than granting power since its general authority has already been established. As a result, the constitution of Alabama is six hundred pages long whereas the federal Constitution can be easily read in one sitting front to back."
Put simply... your entire argument that the federal constitution is shorter than state constitutions because the founders had a particular economy of words is just wrong.
That isn't the fundamental reason. It has to do with the assumed general authority of state government.
Artemis at July 8, 2020 6:11 PM
" It's pure fantasy, predicated on the insertion of the word "unanimous" into the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, so it reads that governments "derive their just power from the unanimous consent of the governed.""
In the book itself, the difference in the Second Amendment is cited as the major difference in society. The word "duty" replaced "right", so it read, "...the duty of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This seemed reasonable. A great deal of mileage in fearmongering is obtained from those ignorant of what guns really do, and establishing a public duty would dispel the mythology that guns are somehow magical.
Radwaste at July 9, 2020 6:39 AM
So, defeated on your Enlightenment tack, you change tacks and throw more nonsense into the mix. For someone who accuses others of Gish Galloping (copying Patrick's earlier-than-yours reference to it), you gallop pretty well yourself.
The nature of my comment on constitutions was not that state constitutions should be as word-economical as the US Constitution, but that they are too wordy, often including verbiage and specifics not necessary in a framework document.
Simply put, the point is that the US founders were smart enough to leave their framework brief and let the body of laws, court decisions, and political compromises determine the specifics of governing the body politic in accordance with the mood of the times.
The specific example I used was the California Constitution (because it was the one with which I'm familiar). The California Constitution has been amended more than 500 times - since 1911 with plebiscite proposals submitted by special interest groups. At 110 pages, it's the eighth-longest of the extant constitutions in the world.
Constitutions, state or national, do not need to specify what kinds of nets can be used when rock fishing, as California's has since a 1990 ballot initiative. Nor do they need to protect specific private universities from taxation - as California's specifically protects Stanford.
Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles), former chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the California Assembly, put it aptly, "A constitution should be a hallowed document that lays out fundamental governing principles and rights. It should be amended only to protect and preserve those rights and principles on which a broad consensus can agree."
According to ballotopedia.com, "The average length of a state constitution is about 39,000 words (compared to 7,591 words for the U.S. Constitution including its amendments). The longest state governing document is that of Alabama, which has approximately 389,000 words. That document is also the most amended state constitution in the Union, with nearly 950 amendments.... The average state constitution has been amended about 115 times."
So, yes Artie, I think state constitutions generally are too long, no matter when, or by whom, they were written. A great deal of the word vomit inflating the length of state constitutions is the result of more recent amendments and interest-group-influenced tinkering.
And I stand by my stated opinion that there is not an American politician alive today whom I'd trust to write an updated constitution for the US.
You equated the Founding Fathers with my hypothetical politician who "says he intends to 'transform' society." BLM and other such groups were the inspiration for that hypothetical politician, having stated publicly that they want to transform the country; and having been endorsed in that effort by many politicians and corporations.
Conan the Grammarian at July 9, 2020 12:15 PM
Maybe. The Swiss and the Israelis seem to have gained some security from arming the populace. Britain, on the other hand, has an mostly unarmed police force and a lower violent crime rate than the US. None of those countries, however, have the diversity of culture, nor the territorial expanse, of the US.
US high schools used to have shooting clubs. Perhaps we need to bring those back. Give students lessons in safe gun-handling.
I've watched a few movies during the lockdown and Hollywood's portrayal of gun-handling is pathetic. People firing randomly with no regard for where bullets go if not into the target, no trigger discipline, and careless pointing of guns at non-targets - and that's just the good guys. No wonder the populace is clueless about guns.
We've over-romanticized the gunfighter - both modern and Western.
Conan the Grammarian at July 10, 2020 7:47 AM
Leave a comment