Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
poptart

Alabama to allow church to form their own police.

Recommended Posts

On 9/8/2019 at 4:59 AM, Jake Starkey said:

Can they?  They are secular, yes.  Religious entities never can be charged with police powers.

But they have been throughout history. Some did well and some were corrupt and most were somewhere in the middle. I agree that religious police powers are dangerous but you seem to categorically hold that secular forces are more trustworthy and I have seen nothing to support that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

They are not religious entities, so it is not a cross of religion and state.

Personally, I don't think any private police forces or private prisons should exist.

I am a little torn on private police but I wholeheartedly agree with you on prisons. Private prisons are a national scandal and should be strictly prohibited. Creating private economic forces that benefit from incarceration rates has influenced parole hearings, were a lobbying force behind mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, and have led to all kinds of shenanigans that lead politicians and corporations to want more people incarcerated and oversight of prisons always suffer. This is a terrible thing not worthy of a liberal (in the classic sense) society. I do not care if public prisons cost four times as much due to inefficiencies. It is not worth it.

Now ask me what a I think of elected judges. :( 

Share this post


Link to post

I do not "categorically hold that secular forces are more trustworthy" and any who say I do believe that mischaracterize and miscommunicate what I think.

My point is this ~ an institution that is supposedly responsible for the guidance and maintenance of another's immortal soul should never have power over the mortal body.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

I do not "categorically hold that secular forces are more trustworthy" and any who say I do believe that mischaracterize and miscommunicate what I think.

My point is this ~ an institution that is supposedly responsible for the guidance and maintenance of another's immortal soul should never have power over the mortal body.

By that logic God and his angels that make up an institution dedicated to the guidance and maintenance of all of us should not heal (or kill) anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Calm said:

My interpretation is government has its ability to enforce because it is the only one with that ability to enforce.  If I am correct, that is correct imo because without competing entities which might choose what to enforce differently and therefore block other enforcement, enforcement is possible.  But I may just be reading my logic into his words (as this is one reason why I think enforcement should be limited to government only....there is even confusion and competition between sections with that).

@Jake Starkey seems to be of the belief that "government" is a natural entity, which it is not.  It cannot have power in itself, because it is a wholly artificial societal construct whose existence is entirely due to the existence of the entities which call it into being -- namely, the people. And it can only have the power that "the governed" give to it.  And since "the governed" can only give to it power that they themselves possess, all governments are limited to the power that individuals naturally possess. "The governed" are perfectly capable of giving their power of government to a religious entity as well as to a secular entity.  It can be argued that it is not good for a religious entity to have government power, and I would surely agree with that, but it cannot be argued that this cannot happen.

It is true that some governments oppress, and in those cases there can be some argument that "consent of the governed" is farcical.  But even in those cases, if a large enough subset of "the governed" actively withdraw their consent, such governments will no longer be able to function.  In his seminal work, "The Gulag Archipelago", anti-Soviet writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn made it clear that had sufficient numbers of people withdrew their consent (by actively opposing the "night raids" by the security apparatus) the Terror would have fallen flat on its face. But too few (out of fear, no doubt) acted to oppose.  And so they continued to give their consent, unwillingly of course.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

My point is this ~ an institution that is supposedly responsible for the guidance and maintenance of another's immortal soul should never have power over the mortal body.

And that is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to, and which I may agree with in principle -- if fallible men are involved.  The time will come, however, when Christ will reign personally on the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

By that logic God and his angels that make up an institution dedicated to the guidance and maintenance of all of us should not heal (or kill) anyone.

The above is a fallacy of false equivalency.  We mortals on earth are not to be equated as the equals of the immortal powers of eternity.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

@Jake Starkey seems to be of the belief that "government" is a natural entity, which it is not.  It cannot have power in itself, because it is a wholly artificial societal construct whose existence is entirely due to the existence of the entities which call it into being -- namely, the people. And it can only have the power that "the governed" give to it.  And since "the governed" can only give to it power that they themselves possess, all governments are limited to the power that individuals naturally possess. "The governed" are perfectly capable of giving their power of government to a religious entity as well as to a secular entity.  It can be argued that it is not good for a religious entity to have government power, and I would surely agree with that, but it cannot be argued that this cannot happen.

It is true that some governments oppress, and in those cases there can be some argument that "consent of the governed" is farcical.  But even in those cases, if a large enough subset of "the governed" actively withdraw their consent, such governments will no longer be able to function.  In his seminal work, "The Gulag Archipelago", anti-Soviet writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn made it clear that had sufficient numbers of people withdrew their consent (by actively opposing the "night raids" by the security apparatus) the Terror would have fallen flat on its face. But too few (out of fear, no doubt) acted to oppose.  And so they continued to give their consent, unwillingly of course.

Jake Starkey knows a 'freeman argument' when he reads it.

We the People, of course, can give secular government powers beyond those that we have.  For instance, to eliminate feud and vigilantism as a power of the individual, We the People delegate the right to violence to government to maintain law and order.

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And that is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to, and which I may agree with in principle -- if fallible men are involved.  The time will come, however, when Christ will reign personally on the earth.

Of course it is my opinion, just as your opinion belongs to you.  And if I get enough of the We the People to agree with me, then instead of opinion it becomes law.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

The above is a fallacy of false equivalency.  We mortals on earth are not to be equated as the equals of the immortal powers of eternity.

No, that fallacy does not apply. I think you may want to look up examples of it before using it again.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Jake Starkey knows a 'freeman argument' when he reads it.

So, Jake Starkey, what is this 'freeman argument' of which you speak?  From your tone, it appears that you disapprove of such an argument, whatever it is.

Quote

We the People, of course, can give secular government powers beyond those that we have.  For instance, to eliminate feud and vigilantism as a power of the individual, We the People delegate the right to violence to government to maintain law and order.

In a state of nature, I have the power to execute violence to maintain my existence, at my own discretion, which naturally means that I even have the power to execute deadly force upon another.  I cannot grant secular government any more power than this.  And it cannot have any more power than this.

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Of course it is my opinion, just as your opinion belongs to you.  And if I get enough of the We the People to agree with me, then instead of opinion it becomes law.

Of course.  No argument there.  But does "might" make "right"?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, that fallacy does not apply. I think you may want to look up examples of it before using it again.

The fallacy applies fully.  You don't understand is the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So, Jake Starkey, what is this 'freeman argument' of which you speak?  From your tone, it appears that you disapprove of such an argument, whatever it is.

In a state of nature, I have the power to execute violence to maintain my existence, at my own discretion, which naturally means that I even have the power to execute deadly force upon another.  I cannot grant secular government any more power than this.  And it cannot have any more power than this.

Thank you for showing that we cannot have vigilantism in society.  You have the right to protect yourself nothing more.  We the People do, have, and will grant such power far beyond the individual's limited right to protect oneself to the government of the state on behalf of the We the People.

 

Edited by Jake Starkey

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Of course.  No argument there.  But does "might" make "right"?

Good point.  Hopefully, enough of us were awake in school and at church and in ethics symposiums to elect representatives who understand the difference between the two.

Share this post


Link to post

Private police force for a silly Alabama church, pth. We used to have the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition. Now THAT was a religious police force worthy of the name...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

The fallacy applies fully.  You don't understand is the issue.

No, it does not. False equivalence is taking two opposing arguments or two objects and arguing they are the same generally based on one shared trait. I did not do this. You generalized (seems to be a habit of yours) and I pointed out an exception. Don’t get huffy and condescending over it.

If you want to continue to throw out general statements as if they are infallible make sure they are infallible.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, you pretty much generalized your argument.  

And let's argue the subject and not each other.

 

Edited by Jake Starkey

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

Yeah, you pretty much generalized your argument.  

What argument?

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

And let's argue the subject and not each other.

?????

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Private police force for a silly Alabama church, pth. We used to have the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition. Now THAT was a religious police force worthy of the name...

Luckily we keep the Dantes hidden very well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Luckily we keep the Dantes hidden very well.

Freudian perhaps??

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Freudian perhaps??

Possibly, also possible I just want a pizza from Dantes but I have dropped 15 pounds and only have 10 to go to be back at High School weight. Think I will push through.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Thank you for showing that we cannot have vigilantism in society. 

I stand all confused, having said nothing about vigilantism -- and I thought you were the one claiming that the collective had more power than the individual. 

21 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

You have the right to protect yourself nothing more.  We the People do, have, and will grant such power far beyond the individual's limited right to protect oneself to the government of the state on behalf of the We the People.

So, what you're saying is that I, as a single person, have limited power, but if I combine with another person, we together have power far beyond that I myself possess?  An interesting synergy or the power of the collective, then?

I admit that it might look like that from a utilitarian point of view -- I have limited ability to oppress my neighbor, but if I combine with another neighbor against him, we together have greater ability to oppress him, simply from an increase of opportunity, since when I grow tired of oppressing, my other neighbor can take up the slack.

But I am talking about natural "rights" not natural oppression.  I can surely combine with another to oppress more effectively (and sometimes it seems that is exactly what government does), but the idea of "human rights" is that my right to project power has moral limits -- in other words, simply because I have power to oppress, I do not possess moral authority to do so.  And though I can combine with another to do that which is not right, i.e. oppress my neighbor, I do not have the moral right to do so.  For example, under a system of moral rights I do not possess the moral authority to take my neighbor's property, even if I possess the power to do so.  And even if I combine with any number of other neighbors I still do not possess the moral authority take my neighbor's property, even if we have collective power to do so.

Ultimately, what you seem to be arguing is that the Demos, the People, have all authority.  That the collective has not only the practical, but also the moral authority to do whatever it wills.  So Socrates can be condemned to death merely because a majority of the citizens of Athens have voted to kill him.  

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Possibly, also possible I just want a pizza from Dantes but I have dropped 15 pounds and only have 10 to go to be back at High School weight. Think I will push through.

Did you stop eating or something like that?  If I were to go back to my high school weight I would be literally half a man!

Share this post


Link to post

Americans can argue all they want, but power rests in the hands of the governed, We the People.  The individual magnified by the power of We the People will find the sources for our American Republic.

It this the best way?  It really does not matter, because this is the way we have done it from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...