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.
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.
Comment Removed: Calm it down a bit.