[RickD]

The Bad One, in a "drug dog" thread in CopTalk linked below brought up the concept that those who started the "drug dog inaccuracy" threads (to include Jsandi's thread in "Civil Liberties"), countered a theory proposed by another poster suggesting that those that would post such a thought were druggies.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1324988

TBO countered with:

Some of them aren't dopers, just anti-authority, and LE just happens to be the most visible branch of it to target.

I have heard this before, and recall the recent rant of a federal agent claiming that someone was "anti-authority" or words to that effect. So I'm guessing it could be a concept more common in squad rooms than one might suspect.

So, my question is, what is "anti-authority" as it relates to an American Citizen under the Constitution?

Rick

[TBO]

Rick,

You've defined that quite well yourself (posting history).

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Originally Posted by RickD

So, my question is, what is "anti-authority" as it relates to an American Citizen under the Constitution?

It is somewhat ironic that the law-abiding have been labeled such when they object to general law enforcement sweeps. The real "anti" is often law enforcement that no longer bothers to distinguish between lawbreakers and the law-abiding.

The video below is just one example of the abuse of drug sniffing dogs. The video was made by Terry Bressi, the Arizona man who currently has a pending case.

The border patrol officers in the video are conducting a checkpoint well inside the US border. Terry's case has been pending for several years, so the BP is well aware of his identity. The BP, nevertheless, insists on harassing this man. The BP not only has blatant disregard for the Supreme Court decision that prohibits drug checkpoints, they shamelessly attempt to harass a man who won't bow to their baloney.

The video shows the drug dog circling the car. The dog's claws on the car are just another example of the unprofessional and vindictive behavior of the BP. Skip to 6:45 to view this portion.

This is only one example of the BP blurring the line between drug searches and checking immigration status. The recent court decision in favor of motorist Steven Anderson revealed the nonsense of drug sniffing dogs that miraculoulsy detect the immigration status of motorists and passengers.

It is, in fact, no longer blurring the line. We know who the antis are in this case.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdDEBT-UoJ0

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Here is another incident. Dogs are not employed this time, but listen to the border patrol agent as he says, "What do we usually, just *uck with him?"

Skip to about 4:30 to view anti-citizen behavior.

The entire 6 minute video does a good job summarizing what this case is about.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd3eBXwBSfU

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by RickD

I have heard this before, and recall the recent rant of a federal agent claiming that someone was "anti-authority" or words to that effect. So I'm guessing it could be a concept more common in squad rooms than one might suspect.

So, my question is, what is "anti-authority" as it relates to an American Citizen under the Constitution?

Rick

Kinda a complicated question; lots of facets to the same issue, not all of which connect to each other.

In very, very broad terms, authority is what imposes order in a community. That can be parental authority in a family or legal authority in society. A segment of the community chafes under that, wholly happy to cause friction--loss of order--for others as long as they get their way. You might remember the recent WI thread: when the protesters were told, "go ahead and stay" some left. They didn't want to stay in the Capitol as much as they wanted to disrupt order and tranquility. Yet the balance between order and freedom is vital to the health of a society. (Read that last again; the whole "balance" thing is key to my views and this discussion.)

Cops see this every day. They are the visible manifestation of the state's authority and they bear the brunt of the juvenile "what about meeeee" rants. We're the ones telling you to turn down the music, the street is closed, those guys have a right to protest, you've had too much to drink---tons of stuff where you don't get it your way because society has a voice, too.

Remember our thread "Reason on consent searches"? The people, including you, who wanted to curtail LE authority (ability is a better word) to ask permission to search people's stuff? Classic example of what we're discussing here. Another example is the myriad of the "Don't ever talk to the police" threads: obstruction for the sake of obstruction, rationalized as exercising rights. Same thing with the dozens of posters in CI who won't respect a property owner's authority to ban guns because the sign wasn't just so, or they weren't told or concealed means concealed: pure rationalization of their disregard for authority in favor of their personal desires.

I now await the accusations of statism, sure to come from those who don't understand the two-sided nature of any contract, including social contracts. Or maybe they skipped over the part where I said how important balance is.

[RickD]

I wondered if TBO would punt thusly.

Off to a soccer game.

[TBO]

Originally Posted by RickD

I wondered if TBO would punt thusly.

Off to a soccer game.

Rick,

Take a look at the post above yours.
Secondly, do you have a counter to what I posted, or just a quip?

[DWARREN123]

ME!
I am anti everything! Grow up, be responsible and do the right thng, I need no one to tell me what to do or believe.

[RickD]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Kinda a complicated question;

That's why I started the thread. It seems an obtuse accusation.

Classic example of what we're discussing here. Another example is the myriad of the "Don't ever talk to the police" threads:

"Don't ever talk to police" is standard defense attorney fare (three in my family and every defense attorney I have ever known would adhere to this utterly commonplace piece of advice). So, in this case, it is a positive thing, correct? You wouldn't chastise an attorney who's professional standards require him to take that tack -- and the laymen who practice it on their own?

obstruction for the sake of obstruction,

The defense attorney would say that this is a commonplace exercise of basic rights. Your (or is it a common LEO assumption) position (opinion) that it is "obstruction for the sake of obstruction" isn't well supported.

pure rationalization of their disregard for authority in favor of their personal desires.

Perhaps, (I won't argue the point at this time because sometimes those in authority are arguably evil --Jim Crow, 'Death Panels,'), but what does that have to do with linking a charge of "anti-authority" with the mere posting of a thread topic? You described and overt act (disobeying the intent of a sign) vs expressing an opinion (posting thoughts or linking a contrarian study on a forum). The acts seems to lack equivalency, and I question the over-wrought reaction to the latter.

[RickD]

Originally Posted by TheeBadOne

Rick, Secondly, do you have a counter to what I posted, or just a quip?

I'm not about to go chasing links to threads. If you have something to say, say it here.

[TBO]

Originally Posted by RickD

That's why I started the thread. It seems an obtuse accusation.



"Don't ever talk to police" is standard defense attorney fare (three in my family and every defense attorney I have ever known would adhere to this utterly commonplace piece of advice). So, in this case, it is a positive thing, correct? You wouldn't chastise an attorney who's professional standards require him to take that tack -- and the laymen who practice it on their own?



The defense attorney would say that this is a commonplace exercise of basic rights. Your (or is it a common LEO assumption) position (opinion) that it is "obstruction for the sake of obstruction" isn't well supported.



Perhaps, (I won't argue the point at this time because sometimes those in authority are arguably evil --Jim Crow, 'Death Panels,'), but what does that have to do with linking a charge of "anti-authority" with the mere posting of a thread topic? You described and overt act (disobeying the intent of a sign) vs expressing an opinion (posting thoughts or linking a contrarian study on a forum). The acts seems to lack equivalency, and I question the over-wrought reaction to the latter.

Everything, when the context has been well established by the posters long consistent history.

I believe even the most genuinely obtuse poster understands that concept.

[Sam Spade]

Rick, you need to look at the bigger picture. While some people filed ethics complaints out of honest concern, there's no doubt whatsoever that other filed on Palin purely as an attack. Pointing to people who're concerned doesn't negate the attacks.

Likewise, just because not talking to cops is often wise exercise of one's rights the instances of obstruction based on dislike of authority can't be wished away.

And many posters bring up stuff that is troubling, looking to exchange ideas or learn something. Others are simply anti-authority, playing "gotchya" even as they play with the truth.

Nowhere did TBO lump all posters into the anti-authority mememe crowd. That doesn't mean that those who fall there need to be given a pass on their bias.

[RickD]

I have no problem with "bias," if they can back it up. Chris Matthews is biased one way -- if he can back it up, fine. Hannity the other, same applies.

[Sam Spade]

So is it your assertion that there isn't a streak of anti-authoritarianism to be found on these boards? Or are you just asking what constitutes that streak?

[RickD]

Wrong on both.

I want to know that "anti-authoriatism" is.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by RickD

Wrong on both.

I want to know that "anti-authoriatism" is.

What holds society together, Rick?

[RickD]

That's an interesting question... should I start a new thread for you?

I'd just like an answer to my original question, though.

[RickD]

Here ya go, Russ.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthre...5#post16997415

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by RickD

Wrong on both.

I want to know that "anti-authoriatism" is.

Post 5.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I look at the definition of anti-authority in a larger historical context. I believe that it once stood for a liberalism (totally different from today’s liberalism) grounded in valued qualities like individualism. It almost disappeared as quickly as we wrested it from Britain, as some of the founding fathers had to fight for basics like the Bill of Rights. Leaders like Jefferson and Jackson could even be described as anti-authority, even while serving as president.

This liberalism slowly degenerated into an insidious statism that enveloped the country with each passing decade. It became so entrenched that people’s criticisms are now often described as fringe. Anyone who describes the complexities of the Civil War beyond the popular slavery explanation must be a moon shining rebel. Those who criticize social security retirement benefits must be uncaring towards our seniors. Anyone who ever invokes the fourth amendment must be a criminal loving hippy from the 1960s.

It is unfortunate that some view anti-authority as people who question the actions, or even existence, of organizations like the TSA. If someone questions the existence of checkpoints, then they must be for drunks and illegals. Questioning zero tolerance, of course, must mean that you’re a rule breaker with something to hide.

It’s also too bad that things like TV and pop culture notions of balance have become the benchmark for evaluating the health of a society. Today’s world means that the person questioning anything might have an attitude and is probably due for some re-educating. Certainly the CSI watching audience on GlockTalk has accurately pegged the sociopathic GT members.

Time will tell if the U.S. has reached its peak and is on its way out. If that happens, it won’t be because of popular explanations regarding crime and antisocial behavior. Crime rises and falls over time, and its overall impact on contemporary society is insignificant. The OP mentioned the US Constitution. If we continue to ignore amendments like the 4^th, 8^th, and 10^th, then we’ll certainly be on our way out.

[Brucev]

"Anti-authority" = The grieved whining of those who long for black uniforms, whips and appell.

[RickD]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Post 5.

I have a problem with this sentence (fer starters):

In very, very broad terms, authority is what imposes order in a community.

I could argue that Authority could also impose disorder (or dystopia) on a community. The easy ones would be alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s, The War on Drugs, Jim Crow... Since you mentioned "parental authority," what if "school authority (in loco parentis) undermines parental authority, thus creating disorderly children? What if the authority of the income tax (and other taxes loads) and the Welfare System, create a situation where the former has both parents working (less time nurturing children) while the latter causes single parents (same result)?

So, no sale, just yet.

[Sam Spade]

Order is a manifestation of discipline. That can come about internally or externally. I submit that anyone who relies wholly on individual self-discipline in any society is an idiot. So we're left with an external component. Mom & Dad, teacher, tribal council, courts and officers---doesn't matter, it's there.

All your "what if something goes wrong with authority" and "what if the individual is justified in bucking the authority" are non-topical. At best, they're a sign of a lack of balance that I referenced in my first post. The fact remains that there are plenty of people introducing friction to the society out of egotistical reasons; besides the examples I've listed, a pile of threads got courtesy bumps showing some of those personalities in action.

"What is anti-authoritarianism?" I think you've gotten that answered. Really, what's unclear?

[Sam Spade]

Or let's flip it. You tell me, Rick. Is it ever wise and preferable to submit to authority when your personal desires say not to? Might peace in the house or among your neighbors be worth biting your tongue here or there?

I say, "yes". The guy who refuses to do so might be the Enlightened One about to lead us to a higher plane. But the odds are that he's just a jerk.

[RickD]

Was Rosa Parks enlightened? Patrick Henry? Socrates? (oops, bad example).

I still haven't gotten a suitable answer to what anti-authoriatism is.

Sounds like defense lawyers are anti-authoritism if we go by what's already been written.

Perhaps TBO will respond and clear the air...