You're the one that needs to defend the status quo of legal over-reach, not the other way around.
Not particularly. When you propose that police officers start disregarding some of the laws, the least you can do is specify by what standard they should do that. Or do you expect to be on call 24/7 for them to ask you if they should enforce this or that law?
Oh, and before you bring up "but that's the Feds" for literally any of it,
Don't you worry, I'm European.
Police corruption absolutely exists
No doubt it does, but it is not 'corruption' to enforce laws that you do not like.
And I didn't deny that there are. I just pointed out that you need some standard, as opposed to just repeating 'UNJUST' as an incantation. By what standard are they to determine what laws are 'unjust'?
Because let's be real, all I said is that cops enforce unjust laws, including an example that is pretty undeniable
If you're getting mad that cops enforce the law, which you call unjust, then the least you can do is specify a standard for laws that they should not enforce. Otherwise it's just "laws that Ricwulf doesn't like".
you're so eager to oppose The Other Side™ that you're actually willing to defend the status quo regarding unjust laws.
Blah blah blah, what I opposed was your anarchistic ideas.
Oh, and you being European is irrelevant
The point is that I'm not going to say that "it's just the feds", but apparently you missed that.
Figures, because you addressed absolutely nothing. You just repeat whining about 'enforcement of unjust laws' without setting any sort of standards for laws that they should ignore. And that's because you can't.
Actually, you got all snarky and sarcastic by implying I want anarchy (although the cartoon propaganda kind of anarchy that has little basis in modern thought on the topic).
Whether you want it or not, what you are advocating for is anarchy.
This must be frustrating when someone doesn't jump through an arbitrary un-necessary hoop. YOU defended the laws by suggesting anything less was anarchy.
It's always a sign when someone does not have the ability or the courage to defend his claims, and tries to put the burden of proof on you for disproving him. Doesn't work like that. But it's easy to see why you are unable to provide any standard, because you realize any standard would be completely absurd.
Well no, it's because I have zero obligation to. I am not a lawyer. I am not a legal representative.
Like you said when you misinterpreted my Europe comment, you made the claim, so I'm going to hold you to it all the same.
Also, this has nothing to do with being a laywer.
But I am a person with enough of a moral compass to explicitly
I recommend that you remove what comes after. It's glowie stuff of the highest caliber and is sure to be removed from this place.
I'm identifying a problem, not suggest I personally hold the path to salvation
Are you identifying a problem? It doesn't seem like it. You're unable to provide any standard, so so far it's nothing beyond "laws that you don't like".
because anything less will result in no response
I don't respond to ultimata.
However, that doesn't address the reality of the current situation, the one simple fact that got you to think I want a Mad Max style world: cops enforce unjust laws, and that's bad.
Considering that you did not even define one of the terms in your claim, namely "unjust", that seems a distinct possibility. I don't think there is any way in which you can define it without leading to anarchy.
Because Them™ are against the cops, so Us™ have to be for the cops, because that's all you'll ever measure up to be: some two-bit hack of a contrarian.
No, it's that I realize how dangerous it is to give arbitrary powers to random officials to enforce and ignore laws based on whether they like them or not.
Not particularly. When you propose that police officers start disregarding some of the laws, the least you can do is specify by what standard they should do that. Or do you expect to be on call 24/7 for them to ask you if they should enforce this or that law?
Don't you worry, I'm European.
No doubt it does, but it is not 'corruption' to enforce laws that you do not like.
And I didn't deny that there are. I just pointed out that you need some standard, as opposed to just repeating 'UNJUST' as an incantation. By what standard are they to determine what laws are 'unjust'?
If you're getting mad that cops enforce the law, which you call unjust, then the least you can do is specify a standard for laws that they should not enforce. Otherwise it's just "laws that Ricwulf doesn't like".
Blah blah blah, what I opposed was your anarchistic ideas.
The point is that I'm not going to say that "it's just the feds", but apparently you missed that.
Figures, because you addressed absolutely nothing. You just repeat whining about 'enforcement of unjust laws' without setting any sort of standards for laws that they should ignore. And that's because you can't.
Whether you want it or not, what you are advocating for is anarchy.
It's always a sign when someone does not have the ability or the courage to defend his claims, and tries to put the burden of proof on you for disproving him. Doesn't work like that. But it's easy to see why you are unable to provide any standard, because you realize any standard would be completely absurd.
Like you said when you misinterpreted my Europe comment, you made the claim, so I'm going to hold you to it all the same.
Also, this has nothing to do with being a laywer.
I recommend that you remove what comes after. It's glowie stuff of the highest caliber and is sure to be removed from this place.
Are you identifying a problem? It doesn't seem like it. You're unable to provide any standard, so so far it's nothing beyond "laws that you don't like".
I don't respond to ultimata.
Considering that you did not even define one of the terms in your claim, namely "unjust", that seems a distinct possibility. I don't think there is any way in which you can define it without leading to anarchy.
No, it's that I realize how dangerous it is to give arbitrary powers to random officials to enforce and ignore laws based on whether they like them or not.