Listen on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Podcasts, Podcast Addict, and RSS. In this episode, an authoritarian and some anarchist(s) have an unhinged conversation about policing. Participants: Yassine, Kulak, & Hoffmeister25 [Note: the latter’s voice has been modified to protect him from the progressive nanny state’s enforcement agents.]
Great discussion, gentlemen. Intellectually, philosophically, and instinctively I agree with Kulak that his vision is the most natural and agreeable state. In my opinion Hoffmeister acquitted himself very well and won the debate in terms of rhetorical argumentation, though.
Everyone in this conversation is ridiculous. All three of you.
But one point:
The marshal system is not policing but more complicated. That is a ridiculous statement. Patently false. The marshal system (while absurd!) is different in kind and the other two should be ashamed of themselves for such lazy argument.
The word "police" refers to the idea of going around and looking around. Seeking criminals. Eyes on the street empowered with violence and apprehension. That is the invention of Sir Robert Peeler that we continue to grapple with to this idea. Police identify miscreants and bearing witness to such.
The fact that they often apprehend people with warrants is just a byproduct of that duty of looking and wildly, wildly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the marshal system is genuinely different.
It is different! Settled! It's crazy, but it's different.
Goodness me.
While every person's position in this is sheer madness, let's at least set aside this very lazy piece of the discussion. The frontier libertarian who definitely doesn't want cities to reach anything like modern densities ( because no way would they under they under these absurd rules ) is in fact proposing something different than the status quo.
This was an entertaining convo but make no mistake, this episode is one relatively normal person talking to two (at best) white supremacist-adjacent RETVRN guys. I liked Hoffmeister a lot more, but I think both guests got a bit too comfortable in the end in their discourse into feminized societies, the glory of Northern Europe, and how Japanese police could never handle inner-city Baltimore. Ultimately, it seemed like their main point of disagreement was whether their desired campaign of mass murder against young black men should be extrajudicial or not.
Great discussion, gentlemen. Intellectually, philosophically, and instinctively I agree with Kulak that his vision is the most natural and agreeable state. In my opinion Hoffmeister acquitted himself very well and won the debate in terms of rhetorical argumentation, though.
Everyone in this conversation is ridiculous. All three of you.
But one point:
The marshal system is not policing but more complicated. That is a ridiculous statement. Patently false. The marshal system (while absurd!) is different in kind and the other two should be ashamed of themselves for such lazy argument.
The word "police" refers to the idea of going around and looking around. Seeking criminals. Eyes on the street empowered with violence and apprehension. That is the invention of Sir Robert Peeler that we continue to grapple with to this idea. Police identify miscreants and bearing witness to such.
The fact that they often apprehend people with warrants is just a byproduct of that duty of looking and wildly, wildly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the marshal system is genuinely different.
It is different! Settled! It's crazy, but it's different.
Goodness me.
While every person's position in this is sheer madness, let's at least set aside this very lazy piece of the discussion. The frontier libertarian who definitely doesn't want cities to reach anything like modern densities ( because no way would they under they under these absurd rules ) is in fact proposing something different than the status quo.
Come. On.
This was an entertaining convo but make no mistake, this episode is one relatively normal person talking to two (at best) white supremacist-adjacent RETVRN guys. I liked Hoffmeister a lot more, but I think both guests got a bit too comfortable in the end in their discourse into feminized societies, the glory of Northern Europe, and how Japanese police could never handle inner-city Baltimore. Ultimately, it seemed like their main point of disagreement was whether their desired campaign of mass murder against young black men should be extrajudicial or not.