I've told you once, and I'll tell you this again. We disagree on a massively fundamental level. Nothing I say will ever be enough for you because your ideology demands that it isn't.
sigh But if you insist to keep bringing this up, you've caught me on one of my more neutral days, so here goes.
The first time you abandoned/forgot about the conversation, where as now you claim prophetic vision for your "ending the conversation", making you a liar as you either forgotten, or you ended it because of your prophetic vision.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I can remember knowing exactly where the conversation was going to lead, as it did. Whether I ended it in on purpose then forgot, or simply just forgot, who can know at this point.
And fuck, most of the time I have to find motivation to even read anyone's reply, but that's a whole different bag of nuts.
...so then to insist by implying yet again that one system has nothing to do with the other because one has passed and the other is in place is disingenuous and farthest from the truth, one system has passed and out of it's very foundations and members it morphed into the current system.
The principle of the matter is parallel, I've never disputed that from the get go because it is that any set of power to enforce it's laws requires a body to do so. It's the context that is completely different.
You can take instances of "police" from different era's, different countries and see that same principle of the powers that be requiring bodies to enforce the laws.
However it becomes disingenuous when you compare the contextual basis such as the slave catcher's reasons to current police institutes reasons. There is no doubt that they came "before", because it is evidently so through linearity. But the current police institute coming "after" is not the same as coming "from" whatever came before it in time.
That is why and how you resorted to saying I have no moral integrity, because I wouldn't drop the issue.
I went back and read through it, and this is definitely a fiction of your mind. I called out your integrity because you compared something that is disingenuous to the current structures. You're comparing x and y as the same thing. It would be like comparing previous iterations of England to Britain; while parallel, they are quite different in action and outcome.
To tie it into the "social contract", I didn't agree to their actions, and don't respect their actions,
Good, good. I wouldn't have it any other way. Just because I agree to the police as a whole, doesn't mean I agree to the certain actions and outcomes we've seen. Every person within a given society has a duty to uphold scrutiny to every governing body. It is that that degree that we don't give into a "police state" like the ones you mentioned and the outcome you so verily been implying towards.
On the whole premise that the police were created to maintain law and liberty. You're only objecting to the liberty part and disregard the law part. In your words you've omitted that for your own position, but in my perspective liberty is the means for the people to live and maintain themselves under the law. This is what was intended by the founding fathers as the means to "liberty" as well, so there HAS to be a body that will enact what happens to someone who disregards the law and liberty.
And further, it is what I consider "equality" to be; the law applied to every and all peoples equally.
But you disagree with this whole notion entirely, which I'm guess is why, in your words,
you abandoned it
And perhaps I did. But whether I ended or abandoned it, the outcome is still the same regardless.
This just confirmed my suspicions about why you're so vehement about this topic. Good day.