• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Now I'm Definitely Never Talking to the Cops

Henrin said:
I wouldn't want someone that thinks we don't have a right to privacy to teach me anyway.
Click to expand...

Look it up if you don't believe me. And while you're at it take a few minutes to read Murray Rothbard if you don't understand that all rights are ultimately derived from bodily sovereignty.

Or just spark up a fattie and forget about it. Whatever.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Look it up if you don't believe me. And while you're at it take a few minutes to read Murray Rothbard if you don't understand that all rights are ultimately derived from bodily sovereignty.

Or just spark up a fattie and forget about it. Whatever.
Click to expand...

Why in the hell would I read Murry Rothbard to learn about rights? :roll:
 
Henrin said:
Why in the hell would I read Murry Rothbard to learn about rights? :roll:
Click to expand...

You need not listen to an ignoramus who's never heard of Griswold v. Connecticut when it comes to privacy, or on any other rights for that matter.

Especially one who cannot discuss an issue without engaging in insults, which is always a clear indication of a lack of substance to offer.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Because you claim to be a libertarian.
Click to expand...

Facepalm. Murray Rothbard said many things towards rights that is correct, but to assume for a minute he is the person to look towards when talking about rights shows absolutely no understanding of libertarian philosophy.
 
Henrin and Lachean clearly represent the school of thought among self-professed "libertarians" that anything the cops do is always bad and libertarians must always oppose it. It is a plague in libertarianism, the penchant to use backdoor methods to get around unjust laws like drug prohibition. You see it with the libertarians advocating "jury nullification" and you see it here with the libertarians advocating anything to hamstring police.

I despise this line of thinking, because it puts the cart before the horse. The reason cops are viewed as a problem is because of the unjust laws they must enforce, not because they sometimes don't have to read Miranda rights to people who voluntarily talk to them. If cops only enforced just laws, laws against initiation of violence, then it would be very different.

I challenge any libertarian who opposes this case to explain why they do, clearly and without platitudes, by tying it back to the non-coercion principle. It is the non-coercion principle, after all, that is the foundation of all libertarian political philosophy. If it cannot be traced back to the idea that one cannot justifiable initiate coercion, then the opposition is not correct.
 
Henrin said:
Facepalm. Murray Rothbard said many things towards rights that is correct, but to assume for a minute he is the person to look towards when talking about rights shows absolutely no understanding of libertarian philosophy.
Click to expand...

You could not possibly be more wrong. Truly, you are rejecting one of the towering figures of libertarianism, without whom there would be no libertarianism. It just exposes your profound ignorance. I am embarrassed for you, really, and you have my pity. Please educate yourself, if you want to continue to claim the libertarian lean:
Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard
http://mises.org/daily/2993

Otherwise, just be honest and switch over to Republican.
 
Lachean said:
You need not listen to an ignoramus who's never heard of Griswold v. Connecticut when it comes to privacy, or on any other rights for that matter.

Especially one who cannot discuss an issue without engaging in insults, which is always a clear indication of a lack of substance to offer.
Click to expand...

Well, there is that tension between the idealists and the pragmatists. The old if you are in handcuffs or stuffed into the backseat of a police car you may not be under arrest and entitled to Miranda but if you are in handcuffs and in the backseat of the cruiser, then you are right to assume you are under arrest line of cases are more interesting than this one. That they were trying to get the Court to create new law and failed suggests to me that the lawyers were more interested in creating law than their client. It was a pretty hail mary argument given the state of criminal law jurisprudence these days. Even if it had come down, I would still say that it was harmless error.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You could not possibly be more wrong. Truly, you are rejecting one of the towering figures of libertarianism, without whom there would be no libertarianism. It just exposes your profound ignorance. I am embarrassed for you, really, and you have my pity. Please educate yourself, if you want to continue to claim the libertarian lean:
Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard
Why Be Libertarian? - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Otherwise, just be honest and switch over to Republican.
Click to expand...

Stop playing this true libertarian crap on me and listen to what I'm telling you. Rothbard is NOT the person you should towards when talking about natural law or natural rights and if you knew just about anything about libertarian philosophy you would not be arguing otherwise. I have no problem with his works and I'm well aware of them, but I'm not ignorant enough of the philosophy to assume he is somehow majorly important in this avenue.

I am in no way discrediting his work however, but you assumption of his importance is ignorant and even more you assumption anything he said would lead to people not having a right to privacy is erroneous.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Stop playing this true libertarian crap on me and listen to what I'm telling you. Rothbard is NOT the person you should towards when talking about natural law or natural rights and if you knew just about anything about libertarian philosophy you would not be arguing otherwise. I have no problem with his works and I'm well aware of them, but I'm not ignorant enough of the philosophy to assume he is somehow majorly important in this avenue.
Click to expand...

There is simply no better exponent of libertarian rights theory than Rothbard. Disputing this fact demonstrates your ignorance.

If you have some other contender, feel free to specify, but Rothbard is in my view ahead of Mises and Hayek, certainly in their league as an economist and head and shoulders above them as a philosopher. You can't really say Nozick has as foundational a place as Rothbard. Honestly, at this point I am giving you too much credit assuming you're using anything other than deflection tactics to hide the fact that you are ignorant of libertarian philosophy.
 
Guy Incognito said:
There is simply no better exponent of libertarian rights theory than Rothbard. Disputing this fact demonstrates your ignorance.

If you have some other contender, feel free to specify, but Rothbard is in my view ahead of Mises and Hayek, certainly in their league as an economist and head and shoulders above them as a philosopher. You can't really say Nozick has as foundational a place as Rothbard. Honestly, at this point I am giving you too much credit assuming you're using anything other than deflection tactics to hide the fact that you are ignorant of libertarian philosophy.
Click to expand...

Mises was perhaps the worst of the bunch in this regard anyway. He even went so far as to say property is creation of the state and Marx and Engels were right. He was also a sexist pig that made it very clear women are meant to serve men. Mises flies in the face of natural rights with his views on rights of property and women and deserves no credence in this regard. I have no idea why you would even mention Hayek though.
 
Henrin said:
Mises was perhaps the worst of the bunch in this regard anyway. He even went so far as to say property is creation of the state and Marx and Engels were right. He was also a sexist pig that made it very clear women are meant to serve men. Mises flies in the face of natural rights with his views on rights of property and women and deserves no credence in this regard. I have no idea why you would even mention Hayek though.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure you have no idea why I mention Hayek, because you are ignorant of libertarian philosophy. You could also not be more wrong about Mises, who never endorsed Marx and quite the contrary, was the polar opposite in most respects. As for his personal sexism, I can't really say, but if that allegation is true it did not have any impact of libertarian thought, clearly.

These luminaries, Hayek and Mises, are founders of libertarianism. You know, that thing you use as your lean. (I am sure this is news to you. I don't know what you are, a Randian, maybe? Or just a Republican-in-libertarian-clothing, as I have suspected?)

Rothbard, however, is the greatest of them all. Mises and Hayek were excellent economists but they did not have the breadth and gravitas of Rothbard as a philosopher. The only other libertarian philosopher to have his intellectual heft was Nozick who came along much later.

Anyway, you call yourself a libertarian, but like so many self-described libertarians you know nothing of any of this.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yes, I am sure you have no idea why I mention Hayek, because you are ignorant of libertarian philosophy. You could also not be more wrong about Mises, who never endorsed Marx and quite the contrary, was the polar opposite in most respects. As for his personal sexism, I can't really say, but if that allegation is true it did not have any impact of libertarian thought, clearly.
Click to expand...

You really think I'm not aware he was the polar opposite of Marx? In the book Socialism:An Economic and Sociological Analysis he made that very clear. You can find his sexist views on women whenever he talks of marriage if you're really interested to know more about it and his view on property is found in the book I referenced.

Rothbard, however, is the greatest of them all. Mises and Hayek were excellent economists but they did not have the breadth and gravitas of Rothbard as a philosopher. The only other libertarian philosopher to have his intellectual heft was Nozick who came along much later.
Click to expand...

You do realize there is no reason to mention Mises or Hayek, right? Why would you even bring them up right now?
 
Reason is normally very good, but they're (purposely?) leaving out an important piece of information. According to this source there's more to the scenario, and it's not as much of a blanket ruling as many are getting all upset about here.

The Supreme Court Decided Your Silence Can Be Used Against You

Salinas was brought in for police questioning in January 1993. According to the dissenting opinion of Justice Breyer, he was called in to "to take photographs and to clear him as [a]suspect" and Salinas was questioned without being read his Miranda rights:

Because he was "free to leave at that time," [App.14], they did not give him Miranda warnings. The police then asked Salinas questions. The police then asked Salinas questions. And Salinas answered until the police asked him whether the shotgun from his home "would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder [Id., at 17.] At that point Salinas fell silent.

That silence was then used against Salinas in court, and he was eventually convicted. But the bigger question in revisiting this 20-year-old murder case was whether or not prosecutors were allowed to point to that silence, and win a case using Salinas' own silence against him.
Click to expand...
He was talking freely, then clammed up when asked a specific question. That does paint a somewhat different scenario... though I'm not sure I'd still agree with the opinion. Picture this...

Scenario A
Police: Would the shells retrieved at the scene of the murder match your shotgun?
Salinas: <silence>

Scenario B
Police: Would the shells retrieved at the scene of the murder match your shotgun?
Salinas: I'm invoking my 5th Amendment right to be silent.

The SC says Scenario A can be used against him. Are they then saying that Scenario B cannot? In a practical reality sense, I see no real difference between the two, but it does seem that the SC says Scenario B cannot be used against you.
 
Any person who has an ounce of self-preservation, whether guilty or innocent, should always be cautious and suspicious of the motives of the person sitting on the other side of the table in a police interrogation room. Even when you technically haven't been arrested... yet.
 
I don't think this is new. The court ruled a while ago that merely keeping silent is not sufficient to invoke the right to silence. You actually have to speak in order to keep silent. It's nuts.
 
MaggieD said:
I also don't understand what the big deal is. I'm not surprised at all by the ruling. Officer testifying on stand: "We asked him a number of questions which he answered; when we asked him if ballistic tests would match his weapon, he fell silent." What is so shocking that the prosecution would be able to say that??

As to the onus being on the individual? That's why it's called invoking your right to counsel.
Click to expand...
Part of me is leaning toward this (part of me still has reservations). "He answered questions then clammed up." It doesn't accuse of anything, but it does raise reasonable suspicions.

Now, if a person clams up from the very beginning, and never says anything, it doesn't necessarily any suspicions at all. There's nothing preceding it to tie it to.
 
radcen said:
Reason is normally very good, but they're (purposely?) leaving out an important piece of information. According to this source there's more to the scenario, and it's not as much of a blanket ruling as many are getting all upset about here.


He was talking freely, then clammed up when asked a specific question. That does paint a somewhat different scenario... though I'm not sure I'd still agree with the opinion. Picture this...

Scenario A
Police: Would the shells retrieved at the scene of the murder match your shotgun?
Salinas: <silence>

Scenario B
Police: Would the shells retrieved at the scene of the murder match your shotgun?
Salinas: I'm invoking my 5th Amendment right to be silent.

The SC says Scenario A can be used against him. Are they then saying that Scenario B cannot? In a practical reality sense, I see no real difference between the two, but it does seem that the SC says Scenario B cannot be used against you.
Click to expand...


The most reasonable interpretation of silence is that the person does not want to speak because of self-incrimination. I think it is ridiculous that the person should have to specifically state that intent.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yes, I am sure you have no idea why I mention Hayek, because you are ignorant of libertarian philosophy. You could also not be more wrong about Mises, who never endorsed Marx and quite the contrary, was the polar opposite in most respects. As for his personal sexism, I can't really say, but if that allegation is true it did not have any impact of libertarian thought, clearly.

These luminaries, Hayek and Mises, are founders of libertarianism. You know, that thing you use as your lean. (I am sure this is news to you. I don't know what you are, a Randian, maybe? Or just a Republican-in-libertarian-clothing, as I have suspected?)

Rothbard, however, is the greatest of them all. Mises and Hayek were excellent economists but they did not have the breadth and gravitas of Rothbard as a philosopher. The only other libertarian philosopher to have his intellectual heft was Nozick who came along much later.

Anyway, you call yourself a libertarian, but like so many self-described libertarians you know nothing of any of this.
Click to expand...

So, is your position that the natural law with regard to self-incrimination is that natural law demands that you state that you have the right to remain silent? Or does the natural law against self incrimination just cover the fact that when you decide to be silent to avoid self incrimination, that is all that you have to do: be silent? Why should you be coerced into stating this is what you are doing? Actually invoking the fifth makes the person seem more guilty to me, why shouldn't a person have the self determination as to exactly what they wish to verbalize, or not verbalize?
 
Dezaad said:
So, is your position that the natural law with regard to self-incrimination is that natural law demands that you state that you have the right to remain silent? Or does the natural law against self incrimination just cover the fact that when you decide to be silent to avoid self incrimination, that is all that you have to do: be silent? Why should you be coerced into stating this is what you are doing? Actually invoking the fifth makes the person seem more guilty to me, why shouldn't a person have the self determination as to exactly what they wish to verbalize, or not verbalize?
Click to expand...
Do you understand the difference between being held involuntarily in police custody and voluntarily talking with police?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Do you understand the difference between being held involuntarily in police custody and voluntarily talking with police?
Click to expand...

Did you get that I don't think that is relevant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom