Young Americans for Liberty VS. D.C. Police & SWAT- with subtitles

[torchbearer]

They needed an army truck to deal with citizens?

The federal government is militarizing our police force and sending them propaganda that we are terrorist. add all the info up and come up with the answer.

 

[torchbearer]

28 votes

 

[NEPA_Revolution]

I was there too but not actually in front of the Smithsonian. I was standing on a street corner a block away with two other people and we saw the SWAT truck rolling down the street. Its scary what this country is becoming anymore.

 

[tremendoustie]

this makes my blood boil.

No kidding.

Screwing this country up so bad would not have been possible without screwing up the educational system. This would never have been possible even a century ago.

Thugs brainlessly following orders, like this "sergeant", is what the public schools produce.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

August 20th, 2009 in Annapolis,MD there is a constitution rally. Would any members of the YAL like to attend? I can speak to the organizer and ask for you guys to be given a chance to speak and you can talk about what you do, why you do it and I am sure they would love to hear about this encounter. This is also my first major campaign speech and would love to see some friendly faces out there.

 

[tremendoustie]

the monopoly was granted at first, to protect your property from forces too big for you the defend against.
just because that isn't what its used for today doesn't mean it can't work.

Your alternative if a fairy tale land. So save it for another thread in the off topic section.

So, who protects against the government, which is itself a force too big to defend against -- especially when it's been granted a monopoly, assuring that there exists no organization which could assist in such defense? Right now, I'd really like to stop paying taxes, and switch to a competitor to the government. The monopoly that was "granted" prevents me from doing so, and so inhibits the defense of freedom, rather than assisting it.

It takes a vigilant and informed populace to maintain a civil society under a constitutional republic.
Think of what kind of education it would require to get 6 billion people to agree not to rule over other people.
One idea is a bit more utopian than the other.
I let you think about that for a bit.

Yes, one is more Utopian -- and it's the first. If enough vigilant, informed people exist to maintain rights under a constitutional republic, who are willing to fight to defend their freedoms even against a monopolistic, monolithic, inescapable power, they will be easily able to do so when they are able to freely choose alternatives -- and vote with their feet and wallets. It would also help in that defense for the concept of extortion and aggressive force to not have been made acceptable to the public by said constitutional republic. That is, a constitutional republic softens the defense against incremental tyranny by creating the seeds for it. For example, it is much easier to defend against taxation in the first place, than to defend against each rate hike of 1 to 2%.

 

[tremendoustie]

ok, I went with what I got from this thread: [url]http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/276062-trevor-leach[/URL]

Now, who wants to be in charge of promoting it on the intertubes?

Gave it 3 more. Let's get 'er done.

Who can put this up at daily paul?

 

[torchbearer]

bump

 

[torchbearer]

S

Yes, one is more Utopian -- and it's the first.

This officer proves the second to be false, you will always have these kinds of people. They will form into collective groups and bully people.
You will never see a world of Stephans.
Any system that has a chance to survive must take in account people like this officer.

 

[RCA]

3 votes

 

[Scofield]

I voted (3).

 

[tremendoustie]

This officer proves the second to be false, you will always have these kinds of people. They will form into collective groups and bully people.
You will never see a world of Stephans.
Any system that has a chance to survive must take in account people like this officer.

I agree 100%. The question is, what is the best way to deal with men like this? I would argue that creating a powerful, monopolistic organization which systematically uses aggressive force is likely to lead to less freedom, not more.

People who support the state always seem to imagine that it's populated by angels who only care about protecting people's freedom from people like this officer. What they don't seem to fully appreciate is that all the men like this officer will flock to the state itself. The federal government is Christmas morning for people wishing to forcefully rule over their neighbors.

The state attracts and enables the power hungry people in the country, by providing them a power structure with the ability to use aggressive force. It also turns many otherwise peaceful people into tyrants because of its perceived legitimacy. Many who would never join a gang, or go steal their neighbor's TV themselves, will vote for socialism, because government has been excepted from moral laws against theft, in their mind.

The best defense against men like this officer is to make no such exception in the first place, so that people are more able to recognize evil for what it is. Freedom loving individuals should oppose the concept of "legitimate" aggressive force from the get-go -- this is where tyranny gets its foothold. Once extortion for one purpose is ok, why not for the next purpose? Once 5% is ok, why not 6, or 7, or 50%? Furthermore, a monopoly should be opposed, so that any wannabe "government" or gang can be held accountable by market forces. As I say, neither you or I would be enabling the government now with our taxes if it were not a monopoly.

This officer would have a far harder time oppressing his neighbors starting from scratch, against people freely selecting their own protection agencies and perhaps defending themselves. Now he just has to get a job with the government. One big gang to stop all the wannabe gangsters doesn't work -- because all those gangsters just join the big one. The people running the government meant to protect residents from power hungry people will be the power hungry people themselves -- they are attracted to power.

And once they have control of the one organization we have foolishly ensured is the only game in town, the organization we have foolishly convinced people is exempt from moral laws against agression, God help us all.

 

[AuH20]

this officer Dillon should have been decked but on the other hand, I have a feeling he knew that the YAL folks would relent.

 

[Todd]

voted 3.

 

[bc2208]

''

 

[Scofield]

Decked? Assaulting a police officer is hardly peaceful assembly.

This whole thing is an overreaction. From what I can tell, the cop was simply doing his job. If you have a problem with the ordinance, take it up with the legislators that enacted it. This guy may have been wrong about the size of a group requiring a permit, but that's deserving of a formal written complaint, not an uprising.

"You have a problem with the Concentration Camp, take it up with Hitler."

Just doing your job is not an excuse.

 

[AuH20]

Decked? Assaulting a police officer is hardly peaceful assembly.

Before or after he sends 50,000 volts coursing through your body?

 

[bc2208]

""

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I bet you cite the Nuremberg excuse when your bank won't remove an overdraft fee too. This cop didn't touch anybody.

No, but the moment he reached for his Taser, HE escalated the situation to Deadly Force. By all rights, the YAL members could have defended themselves by retaliating with deadly force. That SWAT douchebag is going to get someone killed one day (possibly himself) with his jackbooted attitude.

 

[JamesButabi]

I bet you cite the Nuremberg excuse when your bank won't remove an overdraft fee too.

Thats pretty funny, but this new trend of needing to exercise permits nearly everywhere in order to protest or assemble needs to be pushed against.