I found this one:

Why police were called to a South Jersey third-grade class party (philly.com 6/29/2016)

Not just the school, why are police responding to stupid stuff like this?

Indeed, it sounds like an ipen and shut lawsuit and i only say lawsuit because criminal charges cant be pressed against pigs. But yeah since their was no law being broken , their was no law that needed enforcing, and law enforcement ment had no requirement nor right to be there.....

Ahhh Jersey.... what a stinking armpit.

The incident, which has sparked outrage among some parents, was one of several in the last month when Collingswood police have been called to look into school incidents that parents think hardly merit criminal investigation.

Superintendent Scott Oswald estimated that on some occasions over the last month, officers may have been called to as many as five incidents per day in the district of 1,875 students.

The increased police involvement follows a May 25 meeting among the Collingswood Police Department, school officials, and representatives from the Camden County Prosecutor's Office, where school officials and police both said they were told to report to police any incidents that could be considered criminal, including what Police Chief Kevin Carey called anything "as minor as a simple name-calling incident that the school would typically handle internally."

The police and schools were also advised that they should report "just about every incident" to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency, Carey said.

Apparently this is a directive from the County Prosecutor's Office and agreed to by the school.

Just when you think that schools can't get any more tyrannical, you see something like this.

And some folks still don't think we live in a police state.

And some folks still don't think we live in a police state.

This is why when I read an article, I do so with an open-mind in search for truth. I try to find out what is fair in order to form an opinion or before I pass judgment. I simply cannot determine what is accurate and reasonably complete from reading the opinion of one author who has a biased agenda … every author holds opinions that affect his or her presentation of an issue. I try to find out what is missing from their story, and usually something is … something important.

Therefore I confess to having demonstrated sufficient skepticism about what is told to me in a article, especially when the author uses unnamed source … I will continue in the mental mode.

Far too often I find the authors of articles do not let the evidence speak for itself and they almost never present evidence from BOTH sides. They use loaded words such as reckless, indiscriminate and so on to channel a person’s thought as he or she reads the article.

There are far too many articles where the author gets second hand information and then unilaterally decides the police use of force was wrong or someone in a position of power is lying. Or, that the methods used by a police department or officer were unwarranted.

There is insufficient information contained and unverified in this article for me to determine that the methods were unneeded or unwarranted. Therefore, I will not form an opinion as to what was done right or wrong or pass judgement on anyone.

Footnote: I personally believe that reason.com is agenda driven since it is operated by Reason Magazine … an American libertarian monthly magazine. Please, don’t anyone try to tell me that libertarians are not fiercely agenda driven fanatics.

Footnote: I personally believe that reason.com is agenda driven since it is operated by Reason Magazine … an American libertarian monthly magazine

Yeah - their agenda is called "freedom".

Perhaps you've heard of it.

I simply cannot determine what is accurate and reasonably complete from reading the opinion of one author who has a biased agenda …

You need to water-board the kid until he confesses to being a libertarian.

I simply cannot determine what is accurate and reasonably complete from reading the opinion of one author who has a biased agenda

So did you click the article's link to the Philadelphia Enquirer, o seeker of truth?

I simply cannot determine what is accurate and reasonably complete from reading the opinion of one author who has a biased agenda …

You need to water-board the kid until he confesses to being a libertarian.

Who said the kid was a libertarian?

I simply cannot determine what is accurate and reasonably complete from reading the opinion of one author who has a biased agenda

So did you click the article's link to the Philadelphia Enquirer, o seeker of truth?

This “Seeker of Truth” has a standard practice to chase all links and also search the Internet for allied articles covering the same subject.

This “Seeker of Truth” has a standard practice to chase all links and also search the Internet for allied articles covering the same subject.

Did you find anything to indicate that the posted article is inaccurate or incomplete?

This “Seeker of Truth” has a standard practice to chase all links and also search the Internet for allied articles covering the same subject.

Did you find anything to indicate that the posted article is inaccurate or incomplete?

Yes.

Footnote: I personally believe that reason.com is agenda driven since it is operated by Reason Magazine … an American libertarian monthly magazine

Yeah - their agenda is called "freedom"
Perhaps you've heard of it.

Yea, I have heard of freedom … then I have also heard you libertarians have your own version of freedom.

Perhaps you can help me by answering a question: What's the libertarian view of adults having sex with minors?

IOW: I’m not sure what the “age of consent” is in “libertarian freedom.”

What's the libertarian view of adults having sex with minors?

None have followed the lead of the last GOP presidential candidate, and encouraged youth to participate in queerness at their local schools. Only the GOP encourages that....

The GOP's preference seems to be young boys...

Please do tell.

I will be more than happy to.

I found the posted article did not furnish complete information.

The second paragraph:

It isn't cleared what he actually said—the school, William P. Tatem Elementary, has not returned my request for comment. But a local news story suggests that he did not use the word "brownies" to refer to persons of color. He was actually referring to the chocolate baked good, according to his parents. Given that he made the statement during a class party—it was the last day of school—this explanation makes sense. (His last name sounds Hispanic, if that matters.)

The opening phrase in the second paragraph reads: “It isn’t cleared [clear] what he actually said …“ is just fine and the statement that the school had not returned the author’s call to find out is in order. But then the author begins to lead and channel the reader’s thought process with a “suggestion.” Next, the author uses the kids parents for a verification testimonial when they were not even there and never heard what the kid said.

The author continues on to make a summary judgment by declaring the second-hand hearsay account “explanation makes sense.” But that was not enough. He next reaches out to play the “minority sympathy card” and says “if that matters.” Which of course in some cases may not, but in this day and time … it sends out a clarion call to all the bleeding heart liberals riding onboard the PC train. Finally, the picture of the little kid eating a brownie is baiting a sympathy conclusion.

I don’t know what the kid said, to whom he said it or under what circumstances. There are too many “it could have been” situations since there is absolutely no definitive clarity as to what happened. “It could have been” that the boy opened his picnic box and said to his friend as he pulled a small cake out: “They are serving brownies in here now.” “It could have also been” a black kid walked by to pick up his picnic box and the boy said to his friend: “They are serving brownies in here now.” There could have been many more “could have been” situations … we will never know what the true situation was because the "information presented was incomplete."

It was easy for some to jump on board the “sympathy and hate-cops bus” and immediately post a condemning comment … It is even easier for me to not form an opinion and withhold judgment because of the incomplete information.

Respectfully yours,
Seeker of Truth

I asked: "What's the libertarian view of adults having sex with minors?"

Can you answer the question?

Can you answer the question?

Yukon wuz hacked, and he's an "independent" NOT a Republican! /s

Yukon wuz hacked ...

Finally and ADMISSION.

Who else was in on the hacking?

So, for what it is worth, I have seen some bad threads through twenty years of Internet presence and methods of simple ASCII communications. And I have seen a few GREAT threads. But, this thread is just too good without making a sincere comment about how good it *IS.*

Just too good of a thread to pass up.

They really are the dumbest people in America, and most obnoxious, too. Here’s an example: police in Texas set up a DUI checkpoint, where cars were stopped and drivers quickly checked to make sure they weren’t driving with a blood alcohol over the legal limit. That’s a nuisance, I’m sure, but a minor inconvenience compared to sharing the road with drunk drivers.

Kory Watkins, a Texas libertarian and open carry proponent (so you already know he’s an idiot) objected to the police doing this job, so he was protesting at the check point, and apparently also somehow warning drivers approaching the check point so any drunkards could avoid it (a truly civic-minded fellow), when irony struck.

A drunk driver was going around 100 mph and smashed into the back of me, Watkins said on his Facebook page. I could not control the car, I went sideways, then flipped 3 times, hit a cement piller to stop my roll and put me in a ditch on The side of (Interstate) 287. I was 2 miles always from being home. I am incredible lucky to be breathing. I can’t tell you how lucky I am to be alive.

Wait, there’s more! He doesn’t believe drunk driving should be illegal — it should only be a crime to smash into people.

If someone goes out to eat and has a few drinks, drives home and is responsible in doing so. Nobody is hurt, no property was damaged, there is no crime.

So drink yourself into a half-blind stupor, get into your car, weave all over the road, and the police should just step back and watch until you run over a little old lady trying to cross the road…then they can arrest you. Not before.

Jesus. Libertarians.

But wait, there’s still more!

The police were right there, and came over to help. They discovered that he didn’t have a valid driver’s license. Why? Because he’s a fucking libertarian.

I don’t ask for permission to drive a car I paid for on a road I paid for, Watkins said.

So they gave him a $300 ticket.

Now Watkins is angry because everybody is smirking at the irony and laughing at him. Sorry, guy. FREE SPEECH. You get to be a slapstick dumbass, we get to point and laugh. It’s the libertarian way!

Texas libertarian and open carry proponent (so you already know he’s an idiot)

Got it - open-carry proponents are idiots.

Glad you made that clear to all of us.

If someone goes out to eat and has a few drinks, drives home and is responsible in doing so. Nobody is hurt, no property was damaged, there is no crime.

That's how it used to be before MADD coerced the gooberment into making even drinking one beer and then driving a crime.

It's all about the revenue, not safety.

Texas libertarian and open carry proponent (so you already know he’s an idiot)

Got it - open-carry proponents are idiots.

I got it even better and more clearly - libertarians are idiots.

I got it even better and more clearly - libertarians are idiots.

Did a libertarian steal your girlfriend in high school?

Any one with this much hatred of a political belief that he doesn't even understand must have some underlying emotional issues driving his animosity against those who simply want to be left alone.

Did a libertarian steal your girlfriend in high school?

Nah, libertarians can't even progress to up to enter high school.

Nah, libertarians can't even progress to up to enter high school.

Any one with this much hatred of a political belief that he doesn't even understand must have some underlying emotional issues driving his animosity against those who simply want to be left alone.

Any one with this much hatred of a political belief that he doesn't even understand must have some underlying emotional issues driving his animosity against those who simply want to be left alone.

Why Does Everyone Hate Libertarians?

The gist seems to be (gender role trigger warning!) that conservatives want government to be like your daddy telling you how to behave, liberals want government to be like your mommy clothing and feeding you and taking care of you, and libertarians are just saying "you do you".

Tyler Cowen and Bryan Caplan and Chris Dillow have some thoughts.

The libertarian ideal of as much economic and personal freedom as possible, consistent with the equal liberty of others, is part of the bedrock on which the USA was founded.

But the purists who believe in the stronger forms of libertarianism or objectivism as a comprehensive, workable political ideology are a bit wacko.

The strong-form libertarian strain goes something like, "Government interventions always make everything worse, therefore there should be no government intervention, except for defense, enforcement of property rights, and policing violent crime. All taxes are violent taking of private property, all other laws are infringing on natural rights and freedom, no one can be required to do anything, and all economic coordination must be based on voluntary cooperation. Free market solutions will spontaneously arise where there is a need for activities traditionally performed by governments."

Communists made the unfortunate claim that the individual doesn't matter, everything is the collective. Individual property is illegitimate, every speech or action is good or bad according to its impact on the collective. It was a terrible corruption of an ideal of equality to say individuals don't matter, only the group matters.

Libertarians make the opposite claim, that individual rights and liberty are all that matters. This reaction to a profound error leads to another profound error.

There's a part of The Fountainhead where the genius architect Roark makes a deal that he'll design housing for the masses, if it will be built exactly as he designs it. The guy he makes the deal with can't deliver the goods, and through the political process lots of changes get made. Roark blows up the building, and in his trial says that he had the complete right to dynamite it because it would not have existed without him and it had already been destroyed by the additions made by losers, and he's acquitted.

What about the people who paid for the building? What about the other professionals who worked on the building, engineers and electricians and plumbers? It couldn't have been built without them, did they have an equal claim to destroy it? Isn't it distinctly possible that Roark's great design was an evolution of works by other great masters he learned from? Perhaps they might have marveled at his brilliance, but might some of them have also felt a desire to blow it up as a bastardization of their own work? What about the people who might have been sheltered happily in it? Was Roark trampling on their right to realize themselves by destroying the group's creation?

No, you don't have the moral right to dynamite that. Isn't that a violent taking of someone property? And the sum of all the worst stereotypes of a tortured, narcissistic artist?

And as someone said, you didn't build that (by yourself, anyway).

There is no such thing as a purely private good, or purely public good. Even a sandwich, which is rival and excludable, has public dimensions, as demonstrated by the often-heard question "are you going to finish that?" Never mind Bloomberg and the public-health aspects of second-hand smoke or a large fizzy drink - once you're in a relationship with other people, every choice you make has externalities. The best things in life may not be free, but most of them are public goods.

Communism fails because we humans like to own stuff, express ourselves creatively and realize ourselves as individuals.

Libertarianism is equally misguided, because we do almost everything worth doing as groups. We don't act as purely self-interested individuals. We're genetically hardwired for group identity. If you've been to a football game, you know we're tribal. We seek group identity and status within the group. The fashion industry and advertising and organized religion have lucrative business models based on the desire, not just to distinguish ourselves individually, but also to express affiliations and status, and seek meaning in our lives as part of a larger group. And we do so in ways that are, to an economist, quite irrational. (Yeah, signaling, yada yada yada.)

These are complementary aspects of ourselves. We're individuals, and we're interdependent. Any practical 'ism' has to balance them.

Keynes said that every government action is a tradeoff between liberty, efficiency and fairness. I would say that if you think fairness or equality is all that matters, you're a communist. If you think that all that matters is efficiency in the pursuit of economic growth (or any other goal like the supremacy of your race, or the word of your God as you infallibly know it), then you're a fascist. And if you think liberty is all that matters, you're a libertarian, and as misguided as the first two.

"That government is best that governs least" is just common sense. "The maximum liberty consistent with the equal liberty of others," I'm with you up to there.

But when you take the human value of freedom to an illogical extreme, and say the group has no right to impose norms, values, duties and responsibilities on anyone and restrict their liberty, that all coordination must be based on voluntary cooperation, and all taxation and regulation are illegitimate taking by force, you start to go off the deep end.

The idea that a modern society could function at a high level without a strong and sometimes intrusive state is simply incorrect as a matter of fact. There are laws against things we all agree are immoral, like violence and theft. There are also laws like traffic rules and property zoning, that solve important coordination problems. Then there are government activities around public goods like roads, subways, defense. And there is a strong case that public health (pollution, food safety, transportation safety, medical care) and education fall into those categories as well. Universal education and vaccination programs don't spontaneously emerge without strong governments.

And then, if you create property rights around public goods, and let people form cartels to set up an air traffic control system for airspace or allocate broadcast spectrum, you end up with it somehow being OK for concentrated private power to do things that libertarians find immoral if an elected democratic government does them. Essentially, strong-form libertarianism rejects the legitimacy of democratic government in favor of their notion of natural human rights.

It is all too true that government can often stray over a fine line into paternalism, ignoring market incentives, overreaching beyond activities where government can be effective, and favoring politically privileged groups.

But to be against government mandated vaccination, or airline safety regulations and inspections, or collective action by common agreement against other threats is madness.

To think unfettered freedom can solve all problems through voluntary cooperation is magical thinking. It seems more likely to give rise to lack of coordination, antisocial behavior, and ultimately feudalism and mafia rule, as the strongest abuse private power, and people are forced to accept rules that entrench powerful interests. The most libertarian states in the world, the ones with no functioning government, are not utopian paradises.

So, that's why I don't identify as a libertarian.

Why do libertarians have a bad rap? Crazy purist libertarians and hypocrites. Crazy purist libertarians, who say parents should be free to starve their kids. Hypocritical Patriot Act libertarians for the death penalty, who make libertarian arguments against social security but think the monopoly on violence is part of the natural order and doesn't need to be reined in. Fake corporate libertarians who are fine with concentrated power, as long as tyranny is by private interests and not democratically elected governments. Selfish libertarians who use ideology to rationalize not having empathy for other people. Entitled libertarian oligarchs who think liberty just means they get to make all the rules.

We need libertarians to defend freedom. They should be constructive in their skepticism of anything that threatens liberty, whether it's government or private interests, and mindful of the tradeoffs. There aren't enough libertarians like that.

Don't you ever wonder why you seem to have so much in common with leftists?

Huffington Post - yeah, you really have to crawl through the sewer to find your bilious screeds.

Truth is where you find it, "grasshopper."

A person with a closed mind that rejects a true message solely because he dislikes the messenger can best be categorized as a "person with a libertarian mind."

Truth is where you find it, "grasshopper."

Why is it when someone else posts an article from an "agenda-driven" site you wet your pants, yet when you do it, it's all good?

Fucking hypocritical asswipe.

There are too many “it could have been” situations since there is absolutely no definitive clarity as to what happened.

And to determine this you had to "chase all links and also search the Internet for allied articles covering the same subject"? Or was your reference to chasing and searching just a red herring?

There are too many “it could have been” situations since there is absolutely no definitive clarity as to what happened.

And to determine this you had to "chase all links and also search the Internet for allied articles covering the same subject"? Or was your reference to chasing and searching just a red herring?

No.

No.