Rand is supporting gun control, I'm done supporting him

[Origanalist]

FBI gets tip that Bob Loblaw is talking about shooting up a church.

So, FBI sends agent to sit in a van outside Bob's house and observe his comings and going.

Other agents interview his associates, check public records for suspicious activity, etc.

If they find enough evidence to show probable cause, they get a wire tap warrant from a judge.

If and when this investigation turns up proof of Bob's guilt, he's arrested and a prosecution begins.

Now, explain to me how Bob's rights were violated?

Are you fucking kidding me? 3.0's neighbor has a thing against him, tells the glorious FBI he thinks he's plotting to commit a crime. FBI sit outside his house and monitors his every move, interviews his associates and maybe costs him his job, make up some bullshit and get a wiretap warrant from a judge. Indicts 3.0 on made up bullshit to pad their record for getting the bad guy. See something say something, amirite?

 

[Origanalist]

Honestly: for fuck's sake I'm stunned to even be having this argument.

Nothing stuns me here anymore.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You guys are acting like the government isn't going to abuse the heck out of such a list, which is NOT true/

 

[Origanalist]

A person who appears to be plotting a crime

I commit multiple crimes every day, what do you think about that comrade?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Are you fucking kidding me? 3.0's neighbor has a thing against him, tells the glorious FBI he thinks he's plotting to commit a crime. FBI sit outside his house and monitors his every move, interviews his associates and maybe costs him his job, make up some bullshit and get a wiretap warrant from a judge. Indicts 3.0 on made up bullshit to pad their record for getting the bad guy. See something say something, amirite?

So, what are you proposing exactly?

Police should never investigate anyone?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I commit multiple crimes every day, what do you think about that comrade?

Assuming your "crimes" aren't crimes in the libertarian sense, I could care less.

 

[Origanalist]

So, what are you proposing exactly?

Police should never investigate anyone?

On a "pre crime" basis? Hell no. The abuse that policy entails far outweighs whatever dubious benefit it provides. Think man, look at what we already have here. What good is it? The police state can't stop shit, just violate anyone's rights at any time.

 

[Danke]

I commit multiple crimes every day, what do you think about that comrade?

Yes that is a known fact, I can verify that.

 

[Origanalist]

Yes that is a known fact, I can verify that.

Thank you.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

On a "pre crime" basis? Hell no. The abuse that policy entails far outweighs whatever dubious benefit it provides. Think man, look at what we already have here. What good is it? The police state can't stop shit, just violate anyone's rights at any time.

You haven't explained whose rights an investigation of someone suspected of planning a crime would violate?

...except to point out that investigations can be corrupt, people can be framed, etc.

But that applies to all investigations, "pre-crime" or "post-crime."

So, why are you so up in arms about the former, if you're okay with the latter?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Assuming your "crimes" aren't crimes in the libertarian sense, I could care less.

Great, but the FBI does. Which is another problem.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Great, but the FBI does. Which is another problem.

Well, yea, that would be kind of whole problem, wouldn't it?

The government doesn't have the same ethics as we do.

 

[oyarde]

Not that any of this would have stopped the Orlando shooter, who was fully licensed and vetted by the government and on his way to becoming a cop.

Nor would it have reduced the body count, since I maintain, if the truth ever comes out, it will be determined that many of the people who died, did so at the hands of cops storming the building.

The first sentence is absolutely correct and cannot be denied .

 

[Origanalist]

You haven't explained whose rights an investigation of someone suspected of planning a crime would violate?

...except to point out that investigations can be corrupt, people can be framed, etc.

But that applies to all investigations, "pre-crime" or "post-crime."

So, why are you so up in arms about the former, if you're okay with the latter?

Because, no crime has been committed. This isn't rocket science. You are opening the door for literally every one in the country to be investigated for anything. I guess you're ok with that, I however am 100% not. I'm not going to waste the time it would take looking up all the cases where the FBI instigated people for their "stings" or where cops set up Johns with hookers or people with drug busts with the drugs provided by the State. All I can say is WTF are you thinking?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Because, no crime has been committed. This isn't rocket science. You are opening the door for literally every one in the country to be investigated for anything. I guess you're ok with that, I however am 100% not. I'm not going to waste the time it would take looking up all the cases where the FBI instigated people for their "stings" or where cops set up Johns with hookers or people with drug busts with the drugs provided by the State. All I can say is WTF are you thinking?

And they also arrest people who have sold drugs or have hired hookers, which is also wrong.

In other words, the problem is not that the government investigates people suspected of planning crimes.

The problem is how the government has defined "crime."

These are separate issues.

So, suppose for the sake of argument that we were living in a minarchist society, with a government that only prosecuted real crimes.

Would you be opposed to this govenrment investigating people who they had reason to believe were plotting a (real) crime?

 

[Origanalist]

And they also arrest people who have sold drugs or have hired hookers, which is also wrong.

In other words, the problem is not that the government investigates people suspected of planning crimes.

The problem is how the government has defined "crime."

These are separate issues.

So, suppose for the sake of argument that we were living in a minarchist society, with a government that only prosecuted real crimes.

Would you be opposed to this govenrment investigating people who they had reason to believe were plotting a (real) crime?

This a hypothetical question, we do not have such a government. Also, I'm not aware of any in existence.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

This a hypothetical question, we do not have such a government. Also, I'm not aware of any in existence.

I'm asking you about the principle.

Apart from how "crime" is defined, is investigation of a person on suspicion that he is planning (not already committed) a crime justifiable?

To my mind, this is a no-brainer; of course it is.

It in no way violates anyone's rights, and it can help prevent (real) crimes.

So why not?

 

[Origanalist]

I'm asking you about the principle.

Apart from how "crime" is defined, is investigation of a person on suspicion that he is planning (not already committed) a crime justifiable?

To my mind, this is a no-brainer; of course it is.

It in no way violates anyone's rights, and it can help prevent (real) crimes.

So why not?

In my mind it is also a no-brainer. Period. Yes it violates rights, you're being spied on and it gives more power to a already out of control police state. Do you not believe in the right to privacy from government agents absent of any crime committed? What is this madness?

And please cite where such policies have prevented real crime.

 

[Jesse James]

there's no way i'm reading all this. sorry guys. can somebody please reply to me and tell me what exactly randal did?

 

[Origanalist]

Don't be lazy.