Why just youth? I can't see how it would hurt to switch to this for everyone. You can get your free lawyer to explain in adult-speak later.
That is sadly not a typical viewpoint, particularly among conservatives.
I consider those people as more GOP enthusiasts than conservatives. An example of a true conservative would be someone like Tucker Carlson or Rand Paul. It's sort of like how antifa doesn't represent the majority of democrat voters I have encountered. They are a slim minority of loud voices that muddy the waters.
It would be fascinating if they represented even a minority of the democratic voters you've encountered. They don't seem like they'd be even a statistical blip on the radar.
That is rather an understatement. It's not just they don't represent the majority - many of them are, in fact, opposed to said majority. Google "liberals get the bullet too".
Using the term “conservative” to refer to a well-defined ideology rather than a self-identification isn't inherently No True Scotsman.
(In fact the “everyone who self identifies as a conservative is a conservative” approach is often used to make arguments about a defined ideology based on people who self-identify as “conservative” but don't adhere to the features of the ideology under discussion, which is he fallacy of equivocation [0].)
Correct it isn't inherently that when the topic is the ideology, but when the topic is x group of people it is. This thread isn't about conservative ideology, it's about how people who identify as conservatives feel about criminals and due process so pulling out the "actual" conservatives line is no true Scottsman here. It's a bullshit excuse to avoid facing the hypocrisy of what people who call themselves conservatives believe.
Conservatives support Joe Arpio, conservatives claim to support due process, these two things conflict; Joe Arpio doesn't support due process, he robs people of it. If you support Arpio, you do not support due process.
I'm sympathetic to the libertarian cause, even ran for office as a Libertarian, and at this point I can't conceive of voting Republican without taking a shower.
There are some differences, but the point I was making wasn't about the defense position itself as the position of defense relative to other government priorities.
> the neoconservative movement is much more vocal and would seem much more counterproductive
Neoconservatism can be viewed (at least in it's overt priorities; the concrete methods often seem to contradict this, at least in the short term) as aggressive exportation of the kind of government priorities on which right-libertarians and the broader right tend to agree.
Libertarians are, it seems to me, more united in the role of the state vis-a-vis it's own citizenry than it's role vis-a-vis other states, and there seem to be both nationalist (our government should provide us liberty, but maximize our collective position where dealing with outsiders) and internationalist (our government must as a matter of fundamental principle reflect our libertarian ideals, and so must all governments) strains of libertarianism that are compatible with the kind of aggressive foreign policy that neoconservatism embraces.
This is, of course, such an obvious softball to those ready to trot out "no true Scotsman" that even mentioning it seems trite. I've known plenty that would argue "if you got arrested, you're probably guilty of something" that I would consider to be conservative. But you're probably arguing the division between "cranky old people that wish it were 1954 again" (the kind I'm thinking of) and small government/low tax/personal responsibility kind of conservative.
Heck, look at Joe Arpaio, who recently got pardoned for unconstitutionally targeting Hispanic people who haven't been convicted of any crime. Which party was generally in favor of this, and which party was strongly against? Again, the same parties as the first case.
The conservative movement in America — even a lot of people in the "small government" basket of the movement — has a huge blind spot when it comes to the police.
Look at Obama and title nine where kangaroo courts violate due process on a national scale, violating the constitutional rights of american citizens no less. You can't simply point at the worst actors in a group of people and say they represent the whole, but I'd like to point out that Obama was elected via a national majority of democrats while Joe Arpaio was elected via the votes of a single district.
And while I agree with you about Title IX kangaroo courts, I think that's kind of a strained comparison both in terms of the specifics of that situation and in how broadly it seems to indicate support for "tough" law enforcement.
Arpaio was convicted on contempt of court specifically over unconstitutionally depriving people of their due process rights. Insofar as anyone can have any opinion about his case, and the associated pardon, that issue is at the front and center of it. Thus, anyone expressing support for Arpaio is necessarily expressing disdain for due process.
As Cyril Figgis said, "It's like comparing apples to Nazi oranges."
https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issues/criminal-justice...
Which doesn't mean a lot of "conservatives" aren't blind to the police. But there are a large number of them who do realize the vast overreach of law enforcement, while trying to understand the best way to ensure our streets remain safe.
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/05/state... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_Stat...
If the language got "friendlier", I think the same thing would happen over the span of years-- again, if it was said exactly the same way, every time.
Of course, if the cop mixes it up and uses different words and intonation, now they're opening themselves up to liability.
If someone is promoting something very obviously wrong, they're usually making money off of it. Jeff Sessions, of course, rescinded the order to phase out private prisons. Citizens, such as yourself, can have your own ideas on what it means to be tough on crime. For politicians, it just means they want to trade lives for money.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-w...
>But brain scientists say young people often lack the perspective and judgment, especially in the moment, to know what’s in their best interest.
This is why they made a version that goes into more detail.