"Police" is not a "race", it's a gang
Recently there have been more and more attempts to make awareness of the scumwad nature of cops somehow comparable to racism, or automatic hatred of people with tattoos. Yes, really.
The story goes that you can't judge a person by the color of their skin, the tattoos they wear, or the uniform they put on. It's a lie. And, it seems very racist and insulting, too.
No one wakes up one morning and decides what color skin they'll have. And even if they did, skin color means nothing about the content of the person's character.
Sure, tattoos are chosen, not inborn, but again, they mean nothing about how the person wearing them will act. Aggressors could have tattoos of bunnies and unicorns, and the best person you know could have a tattoo of a gang symbol, wormy skulls, or Bernie Sanders' face.
Police, though, wake up each and every day and make the choice to enforce harmful and arbitrary "laws" against people in exchange for money stolen from their victims. It's not about the cop as a person, it is about the aggression and theft they commit as a condition of keeping the "job". But, the fact a person would choose to do that shows something very important about their character.
Yes, sometimes cops do good things. So do other gangsters. It doesn't excuse the existence of the "job" in either case.
Cops are not a "race" or an expression of personal taste- they are an aggressive gang. The worst and most dangerous aggressive gang in America. Being aware of this fact doesn't make you a bad person, so don't feel guilty.
I understand some people are afraid and believe cops will protect them... you can't fix cowardice or stupidity.
Not a race; a gang
.
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
Spot on, you cannot fix Cowardice or Stupid.
I'm really curious, because I'm learning Enlish.. But didn't you mean stupidity?'
I verily disagree with this whole stance. Not in the sense that the police are a "race", as that just doesn't make sense, and to extend that notion I don't think that your moral judgment makes much sense either.
I've had many long arguments with an-caps and libertarians to the extent of frustration, as most of them parrot the same talking point over and over without any justifiable and qualitative means.
I'll start with the function of the statement "you can't judge a person by the color of their skin, the tattoos they wear, or the uniform they put on." This has nothing to do with specific parts of the statement, as it is conveying the idea that prejudice against a person because of any aspect; whether controllable or not, is something each individual or group should not do. So by trying to compare each parts of the statement against themselves, you've effectively stripped the function of the statement and your argument against it.
I'm not going to go into the whole "taxation is theft", because it doesn't play a part in this discussion. I do however think this part does "It's not about the cop as a person, it is about the aggression and theft they commit as a condition of keeping the 'job'. But, the fact a person would choose to do that shows something very important about their character." You've just demonstrated a set of double-think that the aforementioned statement had a built in warning about. Your statement is equivalent "It's not about the person, but their motives. It's also about the persons character if choosing this thing I disagree with." This, coupled with the fallacy of composition/division that your stance is based on makes for shaky ground to take this as anything other than an ad hoc against the state.
So, you believe there can be good rapists? Because that is also not about the person, but about the choice he makes. If you believe there can be "good cops", in spite of what they do as a condition of keeping the "job" which earns them the label "police officer", then you must also believe there can be "good rapists" in spite of what they do to qualify for the label "rapists".