Majority Rule vs the Individual

[tompaine]

First** if this is in the wrong section I apologize and please move where appropriate.

The wording of the question will determine everyone's response. I'll try my best to say exactly what I mean. I'll start with an excerpt from the Decleration of Independence: "... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.."

What I want to point out is the "right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Basically, Jefferson is pointing out that human beings have the right, not the privilege, to live their life as they see fit as long as they recognize the same rights of others. We have a right to life and all of its derivatives: Mind, body, property...among other things.

Now, I know this may be hard for some because everyone has different perspectives on morality. So, here's my question:

How can law enforcement justify enforcing laws that contradict, and, in most cases, don't even recognize the right that, I think, every single human being champions most: the right to life ( and, of course, derivatives of life: mind, body, property )? The quickest example I can point to is drugs. We all have a right to our mind; to choose, and to our body; to treat it as you will. How can police officers lock someone up for possession then go home and smoke a cigarette and drink a beer? Local authorities are put in place to preserve our rights, not to obey orders from bureaucrats. Police officers are on the streets to protect the Individual from the Collective, from force, from anyone or any group that violates these rights. It seems that the police are no longer here to 'serve and protect' but to 'serve and protect those who agree with us.' On this particular subject, the argument that this a 'majority rule' society will not work because we were never given the choice. Majority rule and the democratic debate is not valid when discussing rights, only in politics.

Now, this is not an attack. This is where we are today, this is the truth. I'm here to invoke some thought (hopefully) and get into the minds of the ones who enforce these tyrannical laws. Its your job to enforce the law. But, the law isn't always right...

[MarineVet89]

troll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JDCOP]

Somebody must have gotten popped with his Tijuana lettuce.

[nuthead]

And you really should stop toking on a doobie before posting here. I know, you thought it sounded learned and scholarly, but it ain't.

[11Bto5-0]

I'm actually kind of into tyranny. Oppression is fun!!

Seriously...? You wouldn't happen to be related to the "How do you feel about protesters" guy, would you? I hear he makes great tin foil hats, you should look him up.

[hemicop]

It seems, in short, you're asking: "Why are the police restricting my Rights?"
In short, it's because your Rights are/were pre-determined (check the Constituition) and that your behavior is infringing on others (aka A CRIME!) so the police step in -------- SEE HOW SIMPLE THAT IS:D

[andy5746]

In short, the laws we have in place define the will of the people. I enforce those laws. I am not a tyrant, you are just a criminal (as defined by the law you broke).

Don't like the laws? We have a system in place to do something about it.

Next question....

[mdrdep]

The Decleration of Independence is just that a statement saying we were ****ed off at King George and didn't want to play in his pool anymore.

If you are looking for the law of the land start with the Constitution.

[tompaine]

"Somebody must have gotten popped with his Tijuana lettuce."
-- Actually no, I am a political science / philosophy student currently studying the role of government and law enforcement. Sorry.

"because while your being "free" and geting Fed up, your puting other peoples live at risk, while you drive or do anything. therefore , you are the monster, the evil force, we protect people from...."
-- Please point out where I said anything about driving while intoxicated, that's another issue.

"And you really should stop toking on a doobie before posting here. I know, you thought it sounded learned and scholarly, but it ain't."
-- Really? I'm guessing you didn't give yourself the name nuthead. I don't do drugs, and on that note, you don't have to take drugs to be offended by drug laws.

"In short, the laws we have in place define the will of the people. I enforce those laws. I am not a tyrant, you are just a criminal (as defined by the law you broke).

Don't like the laws? We have a system in place to do something about it.

Next question...."
-- Show me where the people voted 51-49 on this particular subject. More than 11 million americans smoked cannabis in 2007. Show me the will. Again, democracy is reserved for politics, not personal liberties. And yes, we have the system, but anyone who chooses to use it are dubbed 'kool aid drinkers' and 'tin foil' hat wearing dopes, right?

The Decleration of Independence is just that a statement saying we were ****ed off at King George and didn't want to play in his pool anymore.

If you are looking for the law of the land start with the Constitution.
-- Study history. The DoI was the first constitution. The Elite Federalists didn't trust the people so the Constitution was drafted. After that came the Bill of Rights, to restrict the Constitution.



Look, this doesn't have to be a battle of who knows more. I was just wanting to know where YOU, COPS, draw the line between law enforcement and liberty. If you can't handle that, If it makes you think too much, close the thread and end the conversation.

[Nightshift va]

First** if this is in the wrong section I apologize and please move where appropriate.

The wording of the question will determine everyone's response. I'll try my best to say exactly what I mean. I'll start with an excerpt from the Decleration of Independence: "... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.."

What I want to point out is the "right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Basically, Jefferson is pointing out that human beings have the right, not the privilege, to live their life as they see fit as long as they recognize the same rights of others. We have a right to life and all of its derivatives: Mind, body, property...among other things.

Now, I know this may be hard for some because everyone has different perspectives on morality. So, here's my question:

How can law enforcement justify enforcing laws that contradict, and, in most cases, don't even recognize the right that, I think, every single human being champions most: the right to life ( and, of course, derivatives of life: mind, body, property )? The quickest example I can point to is drugs. We all have a right to our mind; to choose, and to our body; to treat it as you will. How can police officers lock someone up for possession then go home and smoke a cigarette and drink a beer? Local authorities are put in place to preserve our rights, not to obey orders from bureaucrats. Police officers are on the streets to protect the Individual from the Collective, from force, from anyone or any group that violates these rights. It seems that the police are no longer here to 'serve and protect' but to 'serve and protect those who agree with us.' On this particular subject, the argument that this a 'majority rule' society will not work because we were never given the choice. Majority rule and the democratic debate is not valid when discussing rights, only in politics.

Now, this is not an attack. This is where we are today, this is the truth. I'm here to invoke some thought (hopefully) and get into the minds of the ones who enforce these tyrannical laws. Its your job to enforce the law. But, the law isn't always right...

Police uphold the laws that are made under a democracy. If you want to smoke weed then vote to make it legal. Until then if I pull you over you will be arrested for it.:cool:

[Dinosaur32]

Tompaine.....I hope you are just starting school.......you a have a long educational road in front of you......and if you were my student you would have a lot of work to do to remove the "F" from your transcript.

[tompaine]

Tompaine.....I hope you are just starting school.......you a have a long educational road in front of you......and if you were my student you would have a lot of work to do to remove the "F" from your transcript.

--Good one...mind explaining this?

Why the hostility? I have no ill feelings towards LEOs. Afterall, I call you when someone forces their will upon me. It seems that most of you are offended by this post...Is it because you don't have a pro-reason, rational explanation?

[Smurfette_76]

I don't enforce the DoI as there is nothing to enforce. It is a statement of Independance and WHY we as a Nation were no longer going to be under England's rule.

I pledged to uphold the Constitution and the laws of my State.

As for your statement, I didn't read where you asked a question. I read where you gave an opinion. What was the question?

In addition, the reaction you're getting is because you came to a pro-LE website and began immediately to spout anti-LE sentiments. Do you honestly think you are the first to b*tch, whine and moan about legalization of marijuana? Lesson number one. WE do not make the laws, we enforce the laws. Lesson two. If you don't like the laws, you have the right in this country to try and change them. Or you can move if it become unbearable for you.

[PhilipCal]

I'm no doubt wasting my time, but I have plenty of it. As has been noted, your post expresses an opinion much more than it asks a question. That being the case, I'll run a few thoughts past you. The"rights" you have enumerated, are not absolute. In short, they can be regulated, they are, in effect, conditional. Duly elected legislative bodies are empowered to enact laws. Many of these laws restrict, abridge, alter, or regulate rights. For example, you have a right to travel, but you don't have the right to drive a car. Odd, you say. Not at all. While "travel " is a right, the courts have long held that driving is a privilege. Travel can also be accomplished by air, rail, highway,or on foot. Still that right is often , quite properly, abridged or regulated. Should your chosen mode of travel be by rail, doing so on a freight train is quote likely to get you tossed, or possibly arrested.. The same is true with flying. Show up at the airport with some prohibited item in your luggage, you can be almost certain, the plane is going leave without you. Even where you to land in the utopian world you seem to crave, you would soon find that it too, has rules. No doubt, many of them would also restrict the rights you feel so strongly about. It's also very likely that in your new world of unrestricted rights, rules would be made in a much more arbitrary fashion than they are in this world. And here's the kicker. The one thing so few people want to talk about these days. Responsibility. That dirty word comes with every right you have. Nothing new there, that's the way it's always been.

[andy5746]

Look, this doesn't have to be a battle of who knows more. I was just wanting to know where YOU, COPS, draw the line between law enforcement and liberty. If you can't handle that, If it makes you think too much, close the thread and end the conversation.

I gave you my answer, was it not good enough for you, or was it not what you were fishing for??? Lets try again...

To make it simple, in a Sociey such as ours, in order for us to function, we all give up some personal liberties for the Greater Good. If the Greater Good doesn't suit the lifestyle you chose, then you are in the minority. I, as a Sworn Officer of the Law, do not make the laws. I do have a wide latitude of discression while enforcing the laws. I, along with most of my Brothers and Sisters in Law Enforcement, am not a mindles, group-think puppet of the government. I do not necessarily agree with everything on the books, but I do my best day in and day out to apply Reason and Fairness to all I do when Keeping the Peace.

I strive to make life safe for all. Part of that involves regulating behavior. When folks use dope, they tend to make poor choices and manytimes, someone ends up getting hurt. Do I cite or arrst everyone I find with a bit of pot? None of your business. Same with other laws. Drive without a license? Most likey you will be cited. I may impound the car you are driving, depending on the circumstances. Or maybe not.

"Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip on my nose."

[hemicop]

-- Show me where the people voted 51-49 on this particular subject. More than 11 million americans smoked cannabis in 2007. Show me the will. Again, democracy is reserved for politics, not personal liberties. And yes, we have the system, but anyone who chooses to use it are dubbed 'kool aid drinkers' and 'tin foil' hat wearing dopes, right?


Even assuming they ALL voted, 11 million people are not majority in a population of 22mil., so that defense doesn't hold water.
But beside that, I fail to see where this thread is going.
If you're asking at what point does a LEO favor morale over law, the two are intertwined which is EXACTLY why discretion is built into "THE SYSTEM". You seem to be asking a big, general "Why?" type of question and without being more situational than "why can't I smoke dope?" you're only going to get philisphocical responses.
Even if you were more specific, the answers are going to be varied as laws, officers experiences, and perception of the given situation will vary. While interesting (?) for a philosophy class, the real world doesn't allow for such niceties as spending 8,12, 14 weeks in class wondering whether it's "fair" to enforce a law. We're given a duty, sworn an Oath, get paid to uphold the laws, and we,as a group, do it as best we can. To uphold nothing or to strictly work by the "letter of the law" would produce chaos which does neither the law-enforcement types or "free thinkers" any good.

[Fuzz]

Now, this is not an attack. This is where we are today, this is the truth. I'm here to invoke some thought (hopefully) and get into the minds of the ones who enforce these tyrannical laws. Its your job to enforce the law. But, the law isn't always right...

And you wonder why you were called a troll:rolleyes:

[mdrdep]

The Decleration of Independence is just that a statement saying we were ****ed off at King George and didn't want to play in his pool anymore.

If you are looking for the law of the land start with the Constitution.
-- Study history. The DoI was the first constitution. The Elite Federalists didn't trust the people so the Constitution was drafted. After that came the Bill of Rights, to restrict the Constitution.



Look, this doesn't have to be a battle of who knows more. I was just wanting to know where YOU, COPS, draw the line between law enforcement and liberty. If you can't handle that, If it makes you think too much, close the thread and end the conversation.

Dino gave you an "F" for statements like this. The DOI was never the first constitution, that would be the Articles of Confederation which by the way became null and void upon acceptance of the Constitution. The DOI was just that a Declaration made before a formal federal govt. was established. Also the Bill of Rigths did not restrict the Constitution they became a part of it when passed just as all ammendments do. The Bill of Rights in fact didn't so much restrict the federal govt as defined the rights of the people, the states, and the federal govt. For your general edification also the Bill of Rights in regards to the general population only effected the relationship between the Feds and the people. When originally apporved the states could have passed laws in violation of the Bill of Rights. They did not become binding on the states until the passing of the 14th ammendment.

Back to class young man.

In regards to your statement of drawing the line between enforcement and liberty understand that we serve soceity as a whole not the individual. Most often this means doing so one individual at a time, but when looking at the big picture as your statement seems to want, we are serving soceity as a whole. If you want the laws changed write your local legislator not a cop.
Also in regards to the Federal Govt. it is not a democracy as so many people misunderstand. It is a republic. We only directly elect Congress. When you vote for the President you are actually voting for his electors who you hope will vote the way you want when they get to the electoral college. Also under how the Constitution was originally written we didn't vote directly for senators either. They were selected by the state legislatures.

[TexasAggieOfc]

I've never seen anything about a pursuit of happiness, or liberty, or any of that other jazz in the Texas Constitution...

[1042 Trooper]

Stay in school. Don't take drugs. Be in by the time the streetlamps go on.

AND STUDY THE FRIGGIN' constitution - not the D of I. As mrdep pointed out, that isn't the law - it's the official "up yours" to a king.

[Dinosaur32]

Tompaine........I understand that you are still a student. Please read all the other posters' comments..........I do not know each one's levelof education but they are all far ahead of you. You do know, I hope, that our form of government is a representive democracy. Do you understand what that implies?

[Taylor1430]

I enforce the laws as I'm sworn to do, whether I agree or disagree with them...its the pledge that I took.

In my state, smoking pot is illegal...I'm sworn to uphold the law.

Let me give you another scenario that shows how your process is flawed.
In my state, it is illegal for a man to discipline his wife using physical violence. Yet, in some cultures, this is an 'acceptable' practice. An officer on in my platoon is from a country in South America where it is common for a man to physically discipline his wife. How should this officer handle a domestic violence call? He gets a call where the man has beaten the wife. Should this officer follow the culture he was raised in and allow the man to walk free, or should he enforce the laws of this state that he is sworn to uphold. Is it immoral of us to uphold laws even if we don't agree with them? I say no its not...there is a process that took place to get those laws on the books. If a bad law should make it through, it is challenged in court and then tossed.

Just because something seems to be OK with you, does not make it OK for society or the melting pot of cultures that we have here.

As others have said, if you want pot to be legal, then do your part to have the laws changed in your state. Remember, at one time many things that are now legal were at one time illegal. Abortion and Prohibition come to mind. The other night I did an informal survey. I handled 23 calls for service during my shift. 18 of them involved alcohol...yet alcohol is legal.

[bigcitypolice06]

I've never stolen anything so that I can have a beer or a smoke....

[kc12]

It seems that most of you are offended by this post...Is it because you don't have a pro-reason, rational explanation?

The "pro-reason, rational explanation" has been given to you. The Declaration of Independence is just what the title says, a declaration to the King of England that we are an independent country. It does not set up a government or set out any rights or laws. That was left at first to the Articles of Confederation and later to the Constitution. There is no more "pro-reason, rational explanation" than that. Either you understand and accept it or you don't (kind of like accepting the sky is blue).