# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Are you in favor of abolishing the police?

## Brett85

I'm just posting this poll because I've had a lot of debates with people here who support abolishing the police, and those debates are always fun and interesting.  I just thought it would be interesting to see what percentage of people here think we should do away with the police.  If anyone hasn't noticed, I like polls.    If people don't like this thread and hate these kind of polls, I apologize.  Like I said, I just like polls.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I don't see a poll.

----------


## Brett85

I'm guessing the results will be about 60% in favor of abolishing the police and 40% opposed.  We'll see how accurate that prediction ends up being.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't see a poll.


It should be there now.

----------


## dinosaur

> I'm guessing the results will be about 60% in favor of abolishing the police and 40% opposed.  We'll see how accurate that prediction ends up being.


National or local?  There is a big difference between national or state police and a small town force who needs to be polite to the residents in order to secure funding via millage.  Many small town departments are hesitant to even give out speeding tickets to locals for that reason.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It should be there now.


Indeed, 'tis, thanks.  ~hugs~

----------


## Brett85

> National or local?  There is a big difference between national or state police and a small town force who needs to be polite to the residents in order to secure funding via millage.  Many small town departments are hesitant to even give out speeding tickets to locals for that reason.


Both.  My question is asking whether you support abolishing all government police.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I assume by "Police" you mean a state-run monopoly organization, and are not necessarily referring to competing police agencies like Rothbard supported, voluntarily hired peace officers/neighborhood watchmen, or other free market solutions like that.  In that case, I'd answer "Yes."

I personally don't find the anarchy/minarchy debate to be the most useful though.  I'd take one Ron Paul or George Washington over a thousand Stephan Molineuxes.  I think its much more important that you view Leviathan States as being fundamentally evil (rather than merely misguided) than it is that you necessarily embrace every single jot an tittle of anarcho-capitalism.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Both.  My question is asking whether you support abolishing all government police.


I'd still say yes, with the caveat that the National Government should not be abolishing the local police.

----------


## dinosaur

> I assume by "Police" you mean a state-run monopoly organization, and are not necessarily referring to competing police agencies like Rothbard supported, voluntarily hired peace officers/neighborhood watchmen, or other free market solutions like that.  In that case, I'd answer "Yes."
> 
> I personally don't find the anarchy/minarchy debate to be the most useful though.  I'd take one Ron Paul or George Washington over a thousand Stephan Molineuxes.  I think its much more important that you view Leviathan States as being fundamentally evil (rather than merely misguided) than it is that you necessarily embrace every single jot an tittle of anarcho-capitalism.


No, he clarified.  Apparently a yes vote means any type of police force.

----------


## Brett85

> I'd still say yes, with the caveat that the National Government should not be abolishing the local police.


Of course.  I'm just asking whether you think that government police should exist at any level.

----------


## erowe1

Does abolishing just mean voluntarizing?

----------


## Brett85

> Does abolishing just mean voluntarizing?


I'm not sure what you mean.  It just means that the government police shouldn't exist at any level, that there should be no funding for any government police force at any level.

----------


## dinosaur

> Does abolishing just mean voluntarizing?


I think he is just trying to prove that RPF is full of crazy anarchists.

----------


## donnay

I am all for abolishing the standing army our founders warned us about.

----------


## surf

I voted no based on the assumption that the _sole_ role for government is to protect liberties (and this includes the court system)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Of course.  I'm just asking whether you think that _government_ police should exist at any level.


No, they shouldn't

----------


## dinosaur

> I am all for abolishing the standing army our founders warned us about.


I am as well, but local forces can be controlled if they are accountable to a small number of people.  When federal or state funds start flowing their way, though, we are all in trouble.  I'd like to abolish all forces that receive federal or state funds.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not sure what you mean.  It just means that the government police shouldn't exist at any level, that there should be no funding for any government police force at any level.


So in order to make sure that there are no police the state would have to ban them. But then how would they enforce the ban on police if people tried to hire police anyway?

ETA: If abolish means "ban," then no I don't support it. If abolish just means voluntarize, then yes I do support it.

----------


## Theocrat

I really can't answer your question because I am both for and against abolishing police. It just depends on what level of government that police has jurisdiction over. For national police, yes, I am for abolishing it. For local/state police, I am against abolishing it. Police are useful because I can't guard my home and possessions all day while I am away at work. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with deputizing law enforcement, on a local or state level, with the task of maintaining order and upholding laws that protect life and property. The police should not have a "monopoly" on protection services, but still, they can serve and protect in the public's trust.

----------


## Brett85

> I think he is just trying to prove that RPF is full of crazy anarchists.


Well, it's just one way of trying to see what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums.  Although there are some people who support abolishing the police who say they aren't anarchists, such as Pcosmar.  I'm not trying to bash anarchists in this thread, but just get a better idea of what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums.  It's just for fun.

----------


## Brett85

> I really can't answer your question because I am both for and against abolishing police. It just depends on what level of government that police has jurisdiction over. For national police, yes, I am for abolishing it. For local/state police, I am against abolishing it. Police are useful because I can't guard my home and possessions all day while I am away at work. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with deputizing law enforcement, on a local or state level, with the task of maintaining order and upholding laws that protect life and property. The police should not have a "monopoly" on protection services, but still, they can serve and protect in the public's trust.


Then you should answer "no," because I clarified that I was referring to government police at all levels; federal, state, and local.  If you think the government police should exist at the state and local levels, then you should answer "no."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, it's just one way of trying to see what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums.  Although there are some people who support abolishing the police who say they aren't anarchists, such as Pcosmar.  I'm not trying to bash anarchists in this thread, but just get a better idea of what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums.  It's just for fun.


There are also some people who are ancaps but just refuse to use the term for some reason, like erowe1

There are also some people here who aren't anarchists or minarchists.

----------


## Brett85

> So in order to make sure that there are no police the state would have to ban them. But then how would they enforce the ban on police if people tried to hire police anyway?


Then change the wording of my question to, "should there be any government funding of the government police at any level of government?"

----------


## erowe1

> Then change the wording of my question to, "should there be any government funding of the government police at any level of government?"


I'd still say yes there should, as long as it's only voluntary.

----------


## Brett85

Having no government funding of police at any level would be how the police would be "abolished."

----------


## Brett85

> I'd still say yes there should, as long as it's only voluntary.


You mean there should be government police as long as people donate their own money to the government to fund it, rather than forcing them to fund it through taxes?

----------


## erowe1

> Having no government funding of police at any level would be how the police would be "abolished."


I would say that if anybody is funding any police by any means whatsoever, that would count as "government funding."

But how would you abolish it without banning people from funding police? And how would you enforce a ban like that if you did ban it?

----------


## donnay

> I am as well, but local forces can be controlled if they are accountable to a small number of people.  When federal or state funds start flowing their way, though, we are all in trouble.  I'd like to abolish all forces that receive federal or state funds.


Then allow the Constitutional Sheriff and deputies in each state.  No Federal funds for militarizing police to circumvent the1878 Posse Comitatus Act.

----------


## erowe1

> You mean there should be government police as long as people donate their own money to the government to fund it, rather than forcing them to fund it through taxes?


The term "government police" seems redundant to me. But yes, whatever police there are should never be funded with any kind of involuntary tax.

----------


## donnay

> Well, it's just one way of trying to see what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums.  Although there are some people who support abolishing the police who say they aren't anarchists, such as Pcosmar.  I'm not trying to bash anarchists in this thread, but just get a better idea of what the anarchist/minarchist divide is here on these forums.  It's just for fun.


I am not an anarchist.  I want the militarized police abolished.

----------


## dinosaur

> Then allow the Constitutional Sheriff and deputies in each state.  No Federal funds for militarizing police to circumvent the1878 Posse Comitatus Act.


Agree

----------


## Brett85

> I am not an anarchist.  I want the militarized police abolished.


My question didn't refer to "militarized police," just police.  From what you're saying it sounds like you're more in favor of reforming the police than abolishing them.

----------


## Brett85

> I would say that if anybody is funding any police by any means whatsoever, that would count as "government funding."
> 
> But how would you abolish it without banning people from funding police? And how would you enforce a ban like that if you did ban it?


I'm not exactly sure how to answer that.  I thought I was asking a simple question.  I guess nothing is ever simple here.

----------


## donnay

> My question didn't refer to "militarized police," just police.  From what you're saying it sounds like you're more in favor of reforming the police than abolishing them.



But our police across the county are militarized.  Or have you not been paying attention.  Bear Cats and other military armored vehicles ordered in small towns across the country.  Fusions Centers in each state.  Police using combat gear everyday.  Ammunition stockpiles being ordered. Circumventing the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was easy enough, while everyone was sleeping.

----------


## Brett85

But that does kind of raise an interesting question.  How would you enforce a ban on all government in a society with no government?  What would stop a group of people from getting together and starting a new government?

----------


## Brett85

> But our police across the county are militarized.  Or have you not been paying attention.  Bear Cats and other military armored vehicles ordered in small towns across the country.  Fusions Centers in each state.  Police using combat gear everyday.  Ammunition stockpiles being ordered. Circumventing the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was easy enough, while everyone was sleeping.


Then why not just do away with the militarized police and just have regular police?  Your answer to the poll question implies that you oppose having any kind of government police, "militarized" or not.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> I assume by "Police" you mean a state-run monopoly organization, and are not necessarily referring to competing police agencies like Rothbard supported, voluntarily hired peace officers/neighborhood watchmen, or other free market solutions like that.  In that case, I'd answer "Yes."
> 
> I personally don't find the anarchy/minarchy debate ......


Please don't equate "no standing armies" to "anarchism".

Even though a permanently armed government was opposed in America for centuries and government police were unknown in America until the mid-19th century, this was not anarcho-anything--it was _traditional conservative_ constitutional government.  This point seems to be hard for a lot of people to understand:  George Mason, Patrick Henry, and the best of the founders weren't anarchists (not that there's anything wrong with that) just because they were against militarization of the government and reserved the right of bearing arms on a permanent basis to the people.

The question really should be:  Do you support upholding the ancient traditional conservative principle of a non-militarized government or are you a radical liberal who thinks that that's too old fashioned and times have changed and nowadays your local sheriff needs tanks and shock troops?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But that does kind of raise an interesting question.  How would you enforce a ban on all government in a society with no government?  What would stop a group of people from getting together and starting a new government?


This isn't really a simple question either.

"government" means a lot of different things, and is sometimes voluntary.  My church has a government, for instance.  By this definition, anarchists wouldn't want to ban government.  Why can't people voluntarily band together in a mutually beneficial fashion?

I think what you really want to know is how anarchists would stop the creation of the STATE.  

There's still no real answer to that.  If enough people wanted a State, and were motivated to create one, they would do so.  If enough people want tyranny they'll get it, no matter what you start with.  Neither Constitutionalism nor Anarchism can "work" without a critical mass of people who support them.  Not necessarily a majority, but at least a sufficiently active minority.

This is why I really think education is more important than politics.  




> The term "government police" seems redundant to me. But yes, whatever police there are should never be funded with any kind of involuntary tax.


I'd define "government police" as a group of police with a legally protected monopoly on policing.  So I'd say Ayn Rand did support "government police" despite the fact that she wanted to have them paid for by user fees, because she still wanted a ban on competing police forces.  I would not say Rothbard supports "government police."  The funding being voluntary is important, but much, much more important is the legality of competition.

----------


## Brett85

> Please don't equate "no standing armies" to "anarchism".
> 
> Even though a permanently armed government was opposed in America for centuries and government police were unknown in America until the mid-19th century, this was not anarcho-anything--it was _traditional conservative_ constitutional government.  This point seems to be hard for a lot of people to understand:  George Mason, Patrick Henry, and the best of the founders weren't anarchists (not that there's anything wrong with that) just because they were against militarization of the government and reserved the right of bearing arms on a permanent basis to the people.
> 
> The question really should be:  Do you support upholding the ancient traditional conservative principle of a non-militarized government or are you a radical liberal who thinks that that's too old fashioned and times have changed and nowadays your local sheriff needs tanks and shock troops?


We may not have had a police when our founders were around, but that doesn't mean that they were opposed to the concept of having a police.  It just wasn't necessary back then when the population of the U.S was so small.  It's absolutely necessary in a country of 300 million people.  But there's no evidence that our founders actually opposed the concept of a police force; it simply wasn't needed at the time.  But if the founding fathers were so opposed to having a government police force, you would think they would've included a prohibition on that as part of the Bill of Rights, but they didn't.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But that does kind of raise an interesting question.  How would you enforce a ban on all government in a society with no government?  What would stop a group of people from getting together and starting a new government?





> Having no government funding of police at any level would be how the police would be "abolished."





> You mean there should be government police as long as people donate their own money to the government to fund it, rather than forcing them to fund it through taxes?





> Please don't equate "no standing armies" to "anarchism".
> 
> Even though a permanently armed government was opposed in America for centuries and government police were unknown in America until the mid-19th century, this was not anarcho-anything--it was _traditional conservative_ constitutional government.  This point seems to be hard for a lot of people to understand:  George Mason, Patrick Henry, and the best of the founders weren't anarchists (not that there's anything wrong with that) just because they were against militarization of the government and reserved the right of bearing arms on a permanent basis to the people.
> 
> The question really should be:  Do you support upholding the ancient traditional conservative principle of a non-militarized government or are you a radical liberal who thinks that that's too old fashioned and times have changed and nowadays your local sheriff needs tanks and shock troops?


I'm not sure where I equated the two.  I agree that you can oppose standing armies without being an anarchist.

----------


## Tod

I think there are way too many of them, with way too much funding.  They could be cut back so that there are just enough to handle tasks like arresting real criminals.

----------


## donnay

> Then why not just do away with the militarized police and just have regular police?  Your answer to the poll question implies that you oppose having any kind of government police, "militarized" or not.



Correct.  Sheriffs and deputies are constitutional--not police.  Anyone can be deputized--meaning citizens.

----------


## Brett85

> This isn't really a simple question either.


If you asked this question to the average American, they would think that it was a very simple question.  It just isn't as simple here.

----------


## Brett85

> Correct.  Sheriffs and deputies are constitutional--not police.  Anyone can be deputized--meaning citizens.


Ok, so you are in favor of abolishing the police.  You're saying that the only kinds of law enforcement officials we should have are those who are elected by the voters.  You're just saying that all police forces are "militarized?"

----------


## 69360

No but I want Andy Taylor, not seal team 6.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> We may not have had a police when our founders were around, but that doesn't mean that they were opposed to the concept of having a police


They did have government police back then--maybe not as thick and thuggish as nowadays--but they kicked them off the streets of Boston in 1775 and wrote prohibitions against them in their state constitutions in 1776.  Radical liberals must rely on tricks such as inventing new terminology such as "public policy" and "police" to try to make us forget our traditional principles.

----------


## Brett85

> There's still no real answer to that.  If enough people wanted a State, and were motivated to create one, they would do so.  If enough people want tyranny they'll get it, no matter what you start with.  Neither Constitutionalism nor Anarchism can "work" without a critical mass of people who support them.  Not necessarily a majority, but at least a sufficiently active minority.


Then couldn't anarchism ultimately cause us to have a Communist state, and cause us all to live under the rule of Communists?  If the state were abolished, you might have the majority of Americans decide that they want to set up a Communist state, and they decide to do so despite your objections.  Some of these Communists may have wanted to abolish the state in the first place in order to put in place a Communist system of government.  Have you ever thought about the fact that abolishing the current state could simply mean that we would end up living under a far worse government?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> We may not have had a police when our founders were around, but that doesn't mean that they were opposed to the concept of having a police.  It just wasn't necessary back then when the population of the U.S was so small.  It's absolutely necessary in a country of 300 million people.  But there's no evidence that our founders actually opposed the concept of a police force; it simply wasn't needed at the time.  But if the founding fathers were so opposed to having a government police force, you would think they would've included a prohibition on that as part of the Bill of Rights, but they didn't.


Whether its necessary or not could be debated.

But I don't see why the Founders would have included any such prohibition.

First of all, virtually any law you can think of is constititutional at the state level, and that's by design.  Lincoln kind of destroyed this, but the states are supposed to be sovereign.  We're not supposed to have an omnipotent Federal government constantly keeping the states in line.

Second of all, why would they have considered the idea of police at all?  I'm pretty sure modern police would not have even been conceptualized at the time, so I don't see why they would have considered a ban on them.  I seriously, seriously doubt Washington or Jefferson would be a big fan.

Third of all, many people here think that the opposition to standing armies (Which admittedly, wasn't clearly codified in the Constitution, but the Founder's opinions are not really unclear in this regard) applies to the police as well.  I tend to agree, at least the way we have them now.




> If you asked this question to the average American, they would think that it was a very simple question.  It just isn't as simple here.


The average American thinks almost every question is simple.  So what?

The average American would find even your ideas to be "radical anarchism."  Heck, the media  has convinced many "average Americans" that Cruz and Lee are anarchists.  Why do you take them seriously at all?

Would the average American even *consider* the ethical issues involved behind taxation?  Of course not, they simply presuppose its necessity without even thinking about it.  Now, you may have considered it and decided that you believe its necessary, but how many Americans do you think have ever considered it?  Not many.  Regardless of whether you support taxes or not, would you claim that this is a simple question that should be ignored simply because most Americans ignore it?

Or how about the whole concept behind "collateral damage"?  Do you think the average American has ever considered the ethical implications behind carpet bombing cities, or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki?  Of course not.  USA#1 and "support our troops" is essentially their logic, they don't even think about it beyond that.  Is this a simple question that should be ignored?

Or how about police enforcement of unjust laws.  Most Americans say that cops are "just doing their jobs" when they break into someone's home to arrest them for doing drugs.  Or TSA groping children and old grandmothers.  Or CPS taking children away from parents who use medical marijuana or have truant children.  Do you really think boobus would even think about the moral implications, the horrifying moral implications, behind this kind of stuff?

Of course not, they are conditioned sheep.  Don't let them do any of your thinking for you.  

As I said, anarchy is not really the main issue at hand.  Radicalism is the main issue at hand.  Deep-seated, passionate opposition to the status quo, a willingness to call it evil, is the main issue at hand.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then couldn't anarchism ultimately cause us to have a Communist state, and cause us all to live under the rule of Communists?  If the state were abolished, you might have the majority of Americans decide that they want to set up a Communist state, and they decide to do so despite your objections.  Some of these Communists may have wanted to abolish the state in the first place in order to put in place a Communist system of government.  Have you ever thought about the fact that abolishing the current state could simply mean that we would end up living under a far worse government?


Its possible, which, as I said, is why education is so important.  But ultimately, yes its possible.  I'd like to think its unlikely, and that people would enjoy actually living in a prosperous society, but it is possible.

I don't honestly see any point in considering it though, since we're already in borderline fascism already, and we'll likely be in full blown fascism before I'm dead.

----------


## Brett85

> They did have government police back then--maybe not as thick and thuggish as nowadays--but they kicked them off the streets of Boston in 1775 and wrote prohibitions against them in their state constitutions in 1776.


Source please.

----------


## donnay

> Ok, so you are in favor of abolishing the police.  You're saying that the only kinds of law enforcement officials we should have are those who are elected by the voters.  You're just saying that all police forces are "militarized?"



That's what I am saying.  I am in favor of abolishing the federal militarized standing army--AKA: Police

----------


## RickyJ

I can't say I am for abolishing the police if they actually do what they are suppose to do, serve and protect. But if they are doing nothing but being first class a-holes and serving and protecting the elite only, and defending unconstitutional laws, then we could definitely do without them. Also the police should not try to recruit idiots like they obviously do by not accepting those that score above a certain level on their tests.

----------


## donnay

> No but I want Andy Taylor, not seal team 6.


Andy Taylor was the sheriff.

----------


## Brett85

> Would the average American even *consider* the ethical issues involved behind taxation?  Of course not, they simply presuppose its necessity without even thinking about it.  Now, you may have considered it and decided that you believe its necessary, but how many Americans do you think have ever considered it?  Not many.  Regardless of whether you support taxes or not, would you claim that this is a simple question that should be ignored simply because most Americans ignore it?


Well I think that the question I asked is a simple question, although the answer to the question can be complex.

----------


## donnay

> I can't say I am for abolishing the police if they actually do what they are suppose to do, serve and protect. But if they are doing nothing but being first class a-holes and serving and protecting the elite only, and defending unconstitutional laws, then we could definitely do without them. Also the police should not try to recruit idiots like they obviously do by not accepting those that score above a certain level on their tests.


My signature speaks volumes:
*"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector"* ~ Frank Serpico

----------


## Brett85

> That's what I am saying.  I am in favor of abolishing the federal militarized standing army--AKA: Police


Well, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of federal funding of state and local police forces.  Matters of crime and matters of law enforcement are generally state and local issues under our Constitution.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> But that does kind of raise an interesting question.  How would you enforce a ban on all government in a society with no government?  What would stop a group of people from getting together and starting a new government?


They'll have to set up a system that forces free people to be compliant with their demands. That's costly, and in a society that would reject coercion, unlikely to go smoothly.

----------


## osan

Abolish?  Sure.

Hell, I'd burn them if I could.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> Source please.


I'll give you a hint, google: troops patrol streets of Boston 1775

----------


## AdamL

Voted yes. Not sure what we need all these police gangs for. Replace them with elected local sheriffs so they can be held accountable.

----------


## donnay

> Well, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of federal funding of state and local police forces.  Matters of crime and matters of law enforcement are generally state and local issues under our Constitution.


Yes and the Sheriff's are constitutional.  The police force is not.  It is the standing army our founders warned us about.  Not to mention, all across the nation they have dropped the entrance levels for people to become police.  In some areas they are hiring guys with IQ's of 80.  They are supped-up on roids and a detriment to society.

SHERIFFS ARE AMERICA'S LAST PEACEFUL LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST TYRANNY.
http://www.constitutionalsheriffs.com/

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> They'll have to set up a system that forces free people to be compliant with their demands. That's costly, and in a society that would reject coercion, unlikely to go smoothly.


To quote myself, look at how poorly our efforts in Afghanistan have been. Or Somalia. Or any number of places. And we're not talking about populaces steeped in voluntarist philosophy.

----------


## Brett85

> I'll give you a hint, google: troops patrol streets of Boston 1775


Ok, police officers are not "troops," and that didn't even involve U.S troops, but British troops.  Of course that would cause people to revolt, as it should've.

----------


## Cabal



----------


## Brett85

> Yes and the Sheriff's are constitutional.  The police force is not.  It is the standing army our founders warned us about.


The 10th amendment of the Constitution at least reserves the power to state and local governments to create police forces.  They definitely aren't unconstitutional.

----------


## donnay

> Ok, police officers are not "troops," and that didn't even involve U.S troops, but British troops.  Of course that would cause people to revolt, as it should've.


Police officers around the country are the new standing army!  Again, have you not been paying attention?

----------


## Brett85

> Voted yes. Not sure what we need all these police gangs for. Replace them with elected local sheriffs so they can be held accountable.


How could a county sheriff possibly control a massive city of millions of people like Chicago and New York?

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> Ok, police officers are not "troops," and that didn't even involve U.S troops, but British troops.  Of course that would cause people to revolt, as it should've.


really...




> Radical liberals must rely on tricks such as inventing new terminology such as "public policy" and "police" to try to make us forget our traditional principles

----------


## Brett85

> I'm guessing the results will be about 60% in favor of abolishing the police and 40% opposed.  We'll see how accurate that prediction ends up being.


Well, I'd say I was pretty close.

----------


## donnay

> The 10th amendment of the Constitution at least reserves the power to state and local governments to create police forces.  They definitely aren't unconstitutional.


Huh?  Where does it say that?  I think the 10th amendment is pretty clear:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


And the 9th is before the 10th:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

----------


## Brett85

> really...


Sigh, whatever.  So anyone who doesn't support abolishing the police is a "liberal," which would also make Ron Paul a "liberal" and at least 40% of the people who post on this forum.

----------


## TaftFan

LOL @ those who want competing police services. One is hard enough to keep accountable.

----------


## Brett85

> Huh?  Where does it say that?  I think the 10th amendment is pretty clear:
> 
> Amendment X
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> 
> 
> And the 9th is before the 10th:
> 
> ...


Right, the 10th amendment reserves the power of law enforcement, police forces to be handled at the state and local level.  There is not a prohibition on police forces in the federal Constitution.

----------


## donnay

> How could a county sheriff possibly control a massive city of millions of people like Chicago and New York?


Police were not set up to control the people.  That is where your thinking is flawed.  They were set up to uphold the law and protect and serve the people--public servants.  That being said Sheriffs and Sheriff's deputies could do the job.

Did you know that the Sheriff has more power than the Executive Branch of Government?

----------


## Brett85

> That being said Sheriffs and Sheriff's deputies could do the job.


How could a Sheriff and a few deputies possibly enforce laws against crime in a massive American city?  How could they be at 1,000 places at once?

----------


## AdamL

> How could a county sheriff possibly control a massive city of millions of people like Chicago and New York?


What's the problem? Is it really that hard to divide the cities up into small districts with their own sheriffs like they already do for city council elections?

----------


## donnay

> Right, the 10th amendment reserves the power of law enforcement, police forces to be handled at the state and local level.  There is not a prohibition on police forces in the federal Constitution.



It does nothing of the sort.  You keep on putting your indoctrinated interpretations in there.  

Next thing you'll tell me is the national guard is the militia.

----------


## Brett85

> What's the problem? Is it really that hard to divide the cities up into small districts with their own sheriffs like they already do for city council elections?


I guess, if you want to divide the city of Chicago up into 10,000 districts.

----------


## donnay

> How could a Sheriff and a few deputies possibly enforce laws against crime in a massive American city?  How could they be at 1,000 places at once?



By deputizing citizens.  Allow the states to set up militias as per the second amendment.

----------


## Brett85

> It does nothing of the sort.  You keep on putting your indoctrinated interpretations in there.  
> 
> Next thing you'll tell me is the national guard is the militia.


There is no restriction on what state and local governments can do under the Federal Constitution, except for the Bill of Rights, and there is no prohibition on government police forces in the Bill of Rights.

----------


## Brett85

> By deputizing citizens.  Allow the states to set up militias as per the second amendment.


Wouldn't that be a voluntary job?  If it was, how could people afford to do that while still working 40 hours per week for pay?

----------


## donnay

> There is no restriction on what state and local governments can do under the Federal Constitution, except for the Bill of Rights, and there is no prohibition on government police forces in the Bill of Rights.


James Madison said, “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.” 

Elbridge Gerry (Vice President under James Madison) called standing armies “the bane of liberty.”





> America's freedom and liberty was established by anti-big government gun owners  with "unregistered assault rifles," the individual men of the local militias of the several states.
> 
>  The Greek philosopher Aristotle proclaimed 2,300 years ago that the prevalence of privately owned weapons was the best indicator of whether a nation was free. It is still a true measure of freedom today.  Free men own guns, slaves do not.
> 
>  The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, "The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that when called into action the militia was to show up "bearing arms supplied by themselves..." Black's Law Dictionary defines militia as, "The body of citizens in a state" and not the "regular troops of a standing army." The militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the US military forces.     
> 
>  Our Founding Fathers warned that the militia must never be replaced by a standing army.  Today, our nation has the world's most powerful military; 57 government agencies carry guns and most have their own SWAT teams; and local police are trained in para-military operations.
> 
>  As our Founding Fathers warned - the demise of the militia and rise of a standing army would spell the end of freedom and liberty.


http://www.foundingfathers.com/militia.htm

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> LOL @ those who want competing grocery stores. One is hard enough to keep accountable.


Hopefully this helps you realize how ridiculous that argument is.

----------


## donnay

> Wouldn't that be a voluntary job?  If it was, how could people afford to do that while still working 40 hours per week for pay?



How do volunteer firemen do it?  You are making mighty big ASSumptions there.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> LOL @ those who want competing police services. One is hard enough to keep accountable.


LOL @ those who want government monopolies.

----------


## TaftFan

> Hopefully this helps you realize how ridiculous that argument is.


Grocery stores are allowed to use force? Not where I'm at.

If competing police were like "Bro, if you don't mind we'd like to arrest you" there would be no issue.

----------


## Brett85

> James Madison said, “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.” 
> 
> Elbridge Gerry (Vice President under James Madison) called standing armies “the bane of liberty.”


1)  I don't agree that police forces are the same as "standing armies."
2)  I don't even think that Ron Paul was ever against the concept of having a standing army.  He always advocated bringing our troops home from around the world with absolutely no mention of abolishing the army after we bring them home.  He said in a Republican debate that he supported having more military bases here in the United States.  People here accuse me of being some kind of "statist" for holding positions like not wanting to abolish the police and not wanting to abolish the army, which is just extremely ironic since Ron Paul never receives any criticism for those positions.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> Sigh, whatever.  So anyone who doesn't support abolishing the police is a "liberal," which would also make Ron Paul a "liberal" and at least 40% of the people who post on this forum.


No, I said you've been tricked by liberals.  And if you have a citation of Ron Paul making a distinction between the government officers that patrolled Boston in 1775 and the thugs we have today please provide it.  Ron's pretty smart.  I'll bet he's thought about this issue deeper than you and would not argue that there's any meaningful constitutional difference between the government officers that patrolled in Boston in 1775 and the thugs we have today.  The only difference is the degree of submissiveness of the population.

But I'm pretty sure you've been through this all before.  I imagine people have already linked you to the "Are cops constitutional" piece by Professor Roots.  

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Maybe you can link me to your thoughtful point by point refutation.

----------


## Brett85

> How do volunteer firemen do it?  You are making mighty big ASSumptions there.


There aren't very many of those, and obviously they can't respond to fires in every situation, since they are still working at a paid job 40 hours a week.

----------


## TaftFan

> LOL @ those who want government monopolies.


I prefer monopolies to oligopolies any day of the week.

I'm glad I don't have to obey the laws of every country. Life would get crazy quick.

----------


## donnay

> 1)  I don't agree that police forces are the same as "standing armies."
> 2)  I don't even think that Ron Paul was ever against the concept of having a standing army.  He always advocated bringing our troops home from around the world with absolutely no mention of abolishing the army after we bring them home.  He said in a Republican debate that he supported having more military bases here in the United States.  People here accuse me of being some kind of "statist" for holding positions like not wanting to abolish the police and not wanting to abolish the army, which is just extremely ironic since Ron Paul never receives any criticism for those positions.

----------


## Brett85

> No, I said you've been tricked by liberals.  And if you have a citation of Ron Paul making a distinction between the government officers that patrolled Boston in 1775 and the thugs we have today please provide it.


Please provide me with a statement by Ron where he said he was in favor of abolishing the police, or even against a standing army for that matter.

----------


## Brett85

> 


He never said anything about abolishing police forces at the state and local level.  He was just referring to unconstitutional federal agencies.

----------


## fisharmor

I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard someone wax nostalgic about when they were kids, during a time not that long ago when it was assumed that parents kicked their kids out of the house at 8am and not only weren't concerned about seeing them until 6 or 7pm, but most times _actively didn't want to see them_ until later in the evening.

Oh, how people who remember a former age flagellate themselves in public about bygone times when children roamed free, took risks, and grew!  The time before children were shackled to their seats, when they weren't even necessarily in a seat.  When they wrestled in the way-back of the van or fought over who would get the rear-facing seat in the station wagon or busted out the cardboard in the Beetle so they could crawl in that secret back spot or _even rode in the back of a pickup!_

The time when children would go to a park and simply disappear, sometimes with other children they didn't even know, and nobody seemed to care.  When they would come back muddy and bruised and sometimes bloody, and parents would clean them up and do it all again the next day.

The time when it was expected that gangs of 6 to 8-year-olds would be able to navigate busy roads by themselves and transact with local stores by themselves.  When junkpiles were playgrounds.  When they got into places they shouldn't be and did things they shouldn't be doing and in the process learned fear and bravery, learned how to hit and get hit, how to fend off dogs, when to stand their ground and when to run away.


We grew up without the benefit of "police" who were tasked explicitly with making sure we were ok.
We mourn and moan and bitch about how this isn't the case anymore.  About how parents wait with their children at the bus stop every single morning, how nobody at the park is allowed out of earshot, and how kids are instantly consoled about the tiniest scrapes instead of told to cut out the noise and buck up.


We all made it just fine without "police" as children.

What in green hell is it that makes us think we need them so much more as adults?

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> 1) ...since Ron Paul never receives any criticism for those positions.


I've criticized him for it, but I think most strict constitutionalists cut him a politician's break because they realize that the people are too tricked after 150 years of programming via tyranny of language and the like.  But I'll tell you this:  I'll bet you that if he was forced to answer directly on the issue of the state and federal constitutional prohibitions of standing armies that he would concede that we traditional conservatives are correct.

----------


## tod evans

Abolish the hell out of 'em!

The system we have isn't working and it needs ripped out by its corrupt roots.

There's major differences between a justice system and a "Just-Us" system.

The moment federal money becomes involved corruption blossoms.

----------


## donnay

*Are Police in America Now a Military, Occupying Force?*

Despite the steady hue and cry by government agencies about the need for more police, more sophisticated weaponry, and the difficulties of preserving the peace and maintaining security in our modern age, the reality is far different. Indeed, violent crime in America has been on a steady decline, and if current trends continue, Americans will finish the year 2013 experiencing the lowest murder rate in over a century.

 Despite this clear referendum on the fact that communities would be better served by smaller, demilitarized police forces, police agencies throughout the country are dramatically increasing in size and scope. Some of the nation’s larger cities boast police forces the size of small armies. (New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg actually likes to brag that the NYPD is his personal army.) For example, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has reached a total of 10,000 officers. It takes its place alongside other cities boasting increasingly large police forces, including New York (36,000 officers) and Chicago (13,400 officers). When considered in terms of cops per square mile, Los Angeles assigns a whopping 469 officers per square mile, followed by New York with 303 officers per square mile, and Chicago with 227 cops per square mile.

 Of course, such heavy police presence comes at a price. Los Angeles spends over $2 billion per year on the police force, a 36% increase within the last eight years. The LAPD currently consumes over 55% of Los Angeles’ discretionary budget, a 9% increase over the past nine years. Meanwhile, street repair and maintenance spending has declined by 36%, and in 2011, one-fifth of the city’s fire stations lost units, increasing response times for 911 medical emergencies.

 For those who want to credit hefty police forces for declining crime rates, the data just doesn’t show a direct correlation. In fact, many cities across the country actually saw decreases in crime rates during the 1990s in the wake of increasing prison sentences and the waning crack-cocaine epidemic. Cities such as Seattle and Dallas actually cut their police forces during this time and still saw crime rates drop.

 As I point out in my new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, there was a time in our nation’s history when Americans would have revolted against the prospect of city police forces the size of small armies, or rampaging SWAT teams tearing through doors and terrorizing families. Today, the SWAT team is largely sold to the American public by way of the media, through reality TV shows such as Cops, Armed and Famous, and Police Women of Broward County, and by politicians well-versed in promising greater security in exchange for the government being given greater freedom to operate as it sees fit outside the framework of the Constitution.

 Having watered down the Fourth Amendment’s strong prohibitions intended to keep police in check and functioning as peacekeepers, we now find ourselves in the unenviable position of having militarized standing armies enforcing the law. Likewise, whereas the police once operated as public servants (i.e., in service to the public), today that master-servant relationship has been turned on its head to such an extent that if we fail to obey anyone who wears a badge, we risk dire consequences.

 Consider that in 1980, there were roughly 3,000 SWAT team-style raids in the US. By 2001, that number had grown to 45,000 and has since swelled to more than 80,000 SWAT team raids per year. On an average day in America, over 100 Americans have their homes raided by SWAT teams. In fact, there are few communities without a SWAT team on their police force today. In 1984, 25.6 percent of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 people had a SWAT team. That number rose to 80 percent by 2005.

 The problem, of course, is that as SWAT teams and SWAT-style tactics are used more frequently to carry out routine law enforcement activities, Americans find themselves in increasingly dangerous and absurd situations. For example, in late July 2013, a no-kill animal shelter in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was raided by nine Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agents and four deputy sheriffs. The raid was prompted by tips that the shelter was home to a baby deer that had been separated from its mother. The shelter officials had planned to send the deer to a wildlife rehabilitation facility in Illinois, but the agents, who stormed the property unannounced, demanded that the deer be handed over because citizens are not allowed to possess wildlife. When the 13 LEOs entered the property “armed to the teeth,” they corralled the employees around a picnic table while they searched for the deer. When they returned, one agent had the deer slung over his shoulder in a body bag, ready to be euthanized.

 When asked why they didn’t simply ask shelter personnel to hand the deer over instead of conducting an unannounced raid, DNR Supervisor Jennifer Niemeyer compared their actions to drug raids, saying “If a sheriff’s department is going in to do a search warrant on a drug bust, they don’t call them and ask them to voluntarily surrender their marijuana or whatever drug that they have before they show up.”

If these raids are becoming increasingly common and widespread, you can chalk it up to the “make-work” philosophy, in which you assign at-times unnecessary jobs to individuals to keep them busy or employed. In this case, however, the make-work principle is being used to justify the use of sophisticated military equipment and, in the process, qualify for federal funding.

 It all started back in the 1980s, when Congress launched the 1033 Program to allow the Department of Defense to transfer surplus military goods to state and local police agencies. The 1033 program has grown dramatically, with some 13,000 police agencies in all 50 states and four US territories currently participating. In 2012, the federal government transferred $546 million worth of property to state and local police agencies. This 1033 program allows small towns like Rising Star, Texas, with a population of 835 and only one full-time police officer, to acquire $3.2 million worth of goods and military gear from the federal government over the course of fourteen months.

 Military equipment sent to small towns has included high-powered weapons, assault vehicles and tactical gear. However, after it was discovered that local police agencies were failing to keep inventories of their acquired firearms and in some cases, selling the equipment for a profit, the transfer of firearms was temporarily suspended until October 2013. In the meantime, police agencies can still receive a variety of other toys and gizmos, including “aircraft, boats, Humvees, body armor, weapon scopes, infrared imaging systems and night-vision goggles,” not to mention more general items such as “bookcases, hedge trimmers, telescopes, brassieres, golf carts, coffee makers and television sets.”

In addition to equipping police with militarized weapons and equipment, the government has also instituted an incentive program of sorts, the Byrne Formula Grant Program, which awards federal grants based upon “the number of overall arrests, the number of warrants served or the number of drug seizures.” A sizable chunk of taxpayer money has kept the program in full swing over the years. Through the Clinton administration, the program was funded with about $500 million. By 2008, the Bush administration had reduced the budget to about $170 million, less out of concern for the militarization of police forces and more to reduce federal influence on law enforcement matters. However, Barack Obama boosted the program again at the beginning of his term, using the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to inject $2 billion into the program.

 When it comes to SWAT-style tactics being used in routine policing, the federal government is one of the largest offenders, with multiple agencies touting their own SWAT teams, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Consumer Product Safety Commission, NASA, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the US National Park Service, and the FDA.

 Clearly, the government has all but asphyxiated the Fourth Amendment, but what about the Third Amendment, which has been interpreted to not only prohibit the quartering of soldiers in one’s home and martial law but standing armies? While most Americans—and the courts—largely overlook this amendment, which at a minimum bars the government from stationing soldiers in civilian homes during times of peace, it is far from irrelevant to our age. Indeed, with some police units equivalent in size, weaponry and tactics to military forces, a case could well be made that the Third Amendment is routinely being violated every time a SWAT team crashes through a door.

 A vivid example of this took place on July 10, 2011, in Henderson, Nevada, when local police informed homeowner Anthony Mitchell that they wanted to occupy his home in order to gain a “tactical advantage” in dealing with a domestic abuse case in an adjacent home. Mitchell refused the request, but this didn’t deter the police, who broke down Mitchell’s front door using a battering ram. Five officers pointed weapons at him, ordering him to the ground, where they shot him with pepper-ball projectiles.

 The point is this: America today is not much different from the America of the early colonists, who had to contend with British soldiers who were allowed to “enter private homes, confiscate what they found, and often keep the bounty for themselves.” This practice is echoed today through SWAT team raids and the execution of so-called asset forfeiture laws, “which allow police to seize and keep for their departments cash, cars, luxury goods and even homes, often under only the thinnest allegation of criminality.”

It is this intersection of law enforcement and military capability which so worried the founding fathers and which should worry us today. What Americans must decide is what they’re going to do about this occupation of our cities and towns by standing armies operating under the guise of keeping the peace.

Source:
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...ing-force.aspx

----------


## Brett85

> I'll bet you that if he was forced to answer directly on the issue of the state and federal constitutional prohibitions of standing armies that he would concede that we traditional conservatives are correct.


And I'll bet you wouldn't get Ron Paul to agree that "police forces" are actually "standing armies."

----------


## tod evans

> And I'll bet you wouldn't get Ron Paul to agree that "police forces" are actually "standing armies."


Read the post above yours.

----------


## donnay

> He never said anything about abolishing police forces at the state and local level.  He was just referring to unconstitutional federal agencies.



*Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston*
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul858.html

----------


## 69360

> How do volunteer firemen do it?  You are making mighty big ASSumptions there.


Almost every major city uses paid firefighters. Probably because the size and scale of it makes it impossible to do on a volunteer basis.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> How could a Sheriff and a few deputies possibly enforce laws against crime in a massive American city? How could they be at 1,000 places at once?





> By deputizing citizens.  Allow the states to set up militias as per the second amendment.


Yup, and I think Ron Paul would be hard pressed to not agree that that's what our state and federal constitutions prescribe.

----------


## Brett85

> Read the post above yours.


1)  Ron Paul didn't write that article.
2)  That article didn't advocate abolishing the police, but rather just demilitarizing them and making them smaller.
3)  I'm not necessarily opposed to having smaller police forces.  If I had my way, the war on drugs would end, which would mean that the police would do about half of what they currently do, and there wouldn't be a need for as many police officers.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How could a county sheriff possibly control a massive city of millions of people like Chicago and New York?


That's exactly the point, actually.  "Control" Is the last thing we want them doing.




> LOL @ those who want competing police services. One is hard enough to keep accountable.


Nevermind the fact that they could keep each other accountable.

I can imagine them saying the same thing in England about health insurance.

"Lol @ those who want competing healthcare services.  One is hard enough to keep accountable."

Anyone who knows anything about the free market would instantly dismiss this as idiotic drivel.  But of course, being a plant, you exist to undermine the free market at every opportunity.



> Right, the 10th amendment reserves the power of law enforcement, police forces to be handled at the state and local level.  There is not a prohibition on police forces in the federal Constitution.


Yeah, I have to agree with you here.  But then, there isn't really a prohibition against sodomy laws in the BOR either (I know SCOTUS made one up, but its just that, fiction.)  Does this make sodomy laws acceptable?  Of course not.  Does it mean the Federal Government shouldn't intervene against state sodomy laws?  If you're a constitutionalist, absolutely, while I don't see why any ancap would want to see the Federal Government get any bigger for any reason, constitutional or not.  But does it make sodomy laws any less wrong?  Of course not.

So I agree with you that its constitutional at the state or local level (Although theoretically, although it wouldn't likely happen, it wouldn't be unconstitutional for a state to ban police everywhere in that state) but I don't think that's really helpful beyond "The Federal Government shouldn't be involved" which I think most of us agree with anyway.




> How could a Sheriff and a few deputies possibly enforce laws against crime in a massive American city?  How could they be at 1,000 places at once?


I'd propose that they're way too busy enforcing crimes against the State that they really aren't doing much to help with real crime now.  

But, I agree with you that in a city this probably isn't practical.  In the country, on the other hand, I don't see why it wouldn't be.  Maybe that would be a fair compromise, at least for now?




> I guess, if you want to divide the city of Chicago up into 10,000 districts.


Just playing devil's advocate, what would be wrong with doing that?

(Note that I don't support doing that, I oppose arbitrarily imposed borders)



> LOL @ those who want government monopolies.


Agreed.

----------


## DamianTV

Police?  Yes.  

Elected Sheriffs that can be held accountable for misconduct?  No.

----------


## Brett85

> *Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston*
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul858.html


I fail to see where he called for abolishing police forces in that article.  He just criticized the way they conducted the search in Boston.

----------


## Brett85

> But, I agree with you that in a city this probably isn't practical.  In the country, on the other hand, I don't see why it wouldn't be.  Maybe that would be a fair compromise, at least for now?


That's the way it already is.  County sheriffs have jurisdiction over the country, and the police have jurisdiction over towns and cities.

----------


## TaftFan

> Nevermind the fact that they could keep each other accountable.
> 
> I can imagine them saying the same thing in England about health insurance.
> 
> "Lol @ those who want competing healthcare services.  One is hard enough to keep accountable."
> 
> Anyone who knows anything about the free market would instantly dismiss this as idiotic drivel.  But of course, being a plant, you exist to undermine the free market at every opportunity.


Explain to me how multiple licenses to use force is more accountable to the people than one license to use force.

Somebody else responded with the same reply and has yet to answer my rebuttal.

----------


## donnay

> Almost every major city uses paid firefighters. Probably because the size and scale of it makes it impossible to do on a volunteer basis.


Yes the firefighters were federalized too.  Yes, this hijacked federal government knew what it was doing--entice the people with money and they will do whatever it takes to keep it coming.  Welfare/warfare state.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

First, I would make *everyone* answer to the 3,077 County Sheriffs on their own turf.  Even the President.  Longer term is everyone but the Sheriff becomes vestigial, and those left are coms and operator channels.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's the way it already is.  County sheriffs have jurisdiction over the country, and the police have jurisdiction over towns and cities.


I live in a relatively small town.  Not exactly the middle of nowhere, but far from a "city."  Yet we have regular police here.



> Explain to me how multiple licenses to use force is more accountable to the people than one license to use force.
> 
> Somebody else responded with the same reply and has yet to answer my rebuttal.


Ultimately what matters more is what the laws actually are, and what kind of laws the people support.  If there isn't at least an active minority who opposes big government, we're screwed no matter what.

On the other hand, if you actually had to pay for police on the market, you'd be less likely to want to use them for drug busts, gun control, or the like, because it would be expensive to do so.  It would be even more difficult if the person who wants to use drugs or own a gun is hiring his own police force to protect him from the aggression of your police force.  And if the two decided to fight each other, it would be even more economically expensive for both sides, so  while its not impossible, there's an active incentive not to do it, unlike States, who have a monopoly by compulsion, get their revenue from compulsion, and so have no economic incentive not to start fights, or to not bother people who are minding their own business.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ok, police officers are not "troops," and that didn't even involve U.S troops, but British troops.  Of course that would cause people to revolt, as it should've.


"Troops" in Boston were serving the exact same role that police do now.

British?

Why does that make any difference?

These were British possessions, populated by British citizens and subjects of the Crown.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I read "abolish the police" and I'm seeing tanks coming out of Alexandrea into Raleigh to make damn sure that the locals don't do any policing of themselves.  So, no. I oppose any government with such an aggressive license.  Better yet, my answer doesn't fit into the poll.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

This country is obsessed with order.  A lot of code addresses order (read: control), but has nothing to do with law.  If we were really concerned about law, then a much smaller, elected force would do just fine.

The larger cities such as New York, Chicago, DC, etc. bring problems upon themselves, mostly through their helpless approach.  It's an approach that screams they want to be controlled.  Severe gun restriction in those cities abdicates responsibility.

Places like DC and Chicago have pitiful gun laws, and people are clueless as to why things break down.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> 1)  Ron Paul didn't write that article.
> 2)  That article didn't advocate abolishing the police, but rather just demilitarizing them and making them smaller.
> 3)  I'm not necessarily opposed to having smaller police forces.  If I had my way, the war on drugs would end, which would mean that the police would do about half of what they currently do, and there wouldn't be a need for as many police officers.


That'll never happen. Democrats are in love with unions, no way they'll let half of a unionized force lose their jobs, and Republicans generally like war on drugs type stuff, and other initiatives that require high numbers of cops.

----------


## TaftFan

> On the other hand, if you actually had to pay for police on the market, you'd be less likely to want to use them for drug busts, gun control, or the like, because it would be expensive to do so.  It would be even more difficult if the person who wants to use drugs or own a gun is hiring his own police force to protect him from the aggression of your police force.  And if the two decided to fight each other, it would be even more economically expensive for both sides, so  while its not impossible, there's an active incentive not to do it, unlike States, who have a monopoly by compulsion, get their revenue from compulsion, and so have no economic incentive not to start fights, or to not bother people who are minding their own business.


You are assuming those paying are benevolent. I can think of countless instances where it would be economically beneficial to violate common law.

----------


## surf

> Andy Taylor was the sheriff.


who's Andy Taylor? I was thinking Andy Griffith...

----------


## TaftFan

The biggest problem with private police really isn't providing security, but having arresting powers.

----------


## TaftFan

> who's Andy Taylor? I was thinking Andy Griffith...


Taylor was his name on the show.

----------


## thoughtomator

I'm not sure I am entirely on board with abandoning the idea of police entirely, but I am all for ditching the summary-executions-and-revenue-generation model of policing. Actual Peace Officers, whose job is to keep the peace, and not to exercise authority, would be worth a go.

----------


## donnay

> who's Andy Taylor? I was thinking Andy Griffith...


Yes.  Fictitious Sheriff of Mayberry.

----------


## 69360

> Yes the firefighters were federalized too.  Yes, this hijacked federal government knew what it was doing--entice the people with money and they will do whatever it takes to keep it coming.  Welfare/warfare state.


I just don't see how you could service large cities with millions of people with volunteer police and firefighters. It's just not practical. How would there be enough people available during weekday 9-5 when a majority are at their jobs? Or midnight to 6 when most sleep? Volunteer fire companies and first aid squads struggle to staff those hours.


I think just about everyone here is against militarized police with tanks, mraps, swat etc. But I think no police at all only works in a libertarian fantasy world. A sheriff with volunteer deputies isn't going to cut it to maintain some semblance of law and order in densely populated areas.

----------


## Cheimei

I voted no. Those that are advocating we stick with the traditional idea of a police force are thinking wrong. If roads were privatized, those that owned the roads would be responsible for providing a security force. If a murder (or something) occurred on their land, they would be held liable for it being on their land and not having an adequate security force; that would be the incentive to provide a security force. Those that own the road could also provide a contractual service to prevent crimes on your property while you're away (for example, in a neighborhood), or you could hire security for your property if it's too big (i.e., rural land).

It'd be dangerous to think that police could be trusted at your home while you're away. You can't have both property rights and a police force that is allowed to trespass on your property even to catch a criminal. I wouldn't be alright with this.

I don't have anyone who has influenced me in these thoughts: these are things that I have thought of on my own. Of course, these ideas also require free markets, a functioning economy and citizens who would be willing to privatize roads.

----------


## 69360

> I voted no. Those that are advocating we stick with the traditional idea of a police force are thinking wrong. If roads were privatized, those that owned the roads would be responsible for providing a security force. If a murder (or something) occurred on their land, they would be held liable for it being on their land and not having an adequate security force; that would be the incentive to provide a security force. Those that own the road could also provide a contractual service to prevent crimes on your property while you're away (for example, in a neighborhood), or you could hire security for your property if it's too big (i.e., rural land).
> 
> It'd be dangerous to think that police could be trusted at your home while you're away. You can't have both property rights and a police force that is allowed to trespass on your property even to catch a criminal. I wouldn't be alright with this.
> 
> I don't have anyone who has influenced me in these thoughts: these are things that I have thought of on my own. Of course, these ideas also require free markets, a functioning economy and citizens who would be willing to privatize roads.


Yes thousands of individual security forces accountable to nobody with differing rules of engagement has worked oh so well throughout recorded history.  We have enough trouble with holding what we have accountable and you want to divide that up and make it make it many thousandfold times worse?

----------


## donnay

> I just don't see how you could service large cities with millions of people with volunteer police and firefighters. It's just not practical. How would there be enough people available during weekday 9-5 when a majority are at their jobs? Or midnight to 6 when most sleep? Volunteer fire companies and first aid squads struggle to staff those hours.
> 
> 
> I think just about everyone here is against militarized police with tanks, mraps, swat etc. But I think no police at all only works in a libertarian fantasy world. A sheriff with volunteer deputies isn't going to cut it to maintain some semblance of law and order in densely populated areas.


You are also have to take into consideration; large cities where people are not allowed to exercise their second amendment right either. These people are sitting ducks for criminals and they know it!

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Anybody remember that Andy Griffith episode where Andy is away and Barney is in charge?  Andy comes back to find that Barney has thrown half the town in jail.  It's a pretty hilarious episode, but also ominous in a funny way too.  It's ironic today how the police--and not our populace--are the ones that are out of order.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> You are also have to take into consideration; large cities where people are not allowed to exercise their second amendment right either. These people are sitting ducks for criminals and they know it!


I wonder how many DC residents were burglarized, beaten, or killed because they had to disassemble their shotgun in their own home.

----------


## Ender

> You are also have to take into consideration; large cities where people are not allowed to exercise their second amendment right either. These people are sitting ducks for criminals and they know it!


"An armed society is a polite society."

-Robert A. Heinlein-

----------


## BuddyRey

Sometimes it's fun to pretend there are special costumes and signets that grant people crazy superpowers, but adults should know better than to run their politics according to games of make-believe.

----------


## Cheimei

> Yes thousands of individual security forces  accountable to nobody with differing rules of engagement has worked oh  so well throughout recorded history.   We have enough trouble with holding what we have accountable and you  want to divide that up and make it make it many thousandfold times  worse?


Wait, am I missing something? Could you not take the company to court?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yes thousands of individual security forces accountable to nobody with differing rules of engagement has worked oh so well throughout recorded history.  We have enough trouble with holding what we have accountable and you want to divide that up and make it make it many thousandfold times worse?


Divide what up?  You only vote for one Sheriff.

----------


## 69360

> Wait, am I missing something? Could you not take the company to court?


Good luck with that. Figure out who to sue, how and exactly what to sue for, pay ridiculous legal fees and hope the court finds in your favor. How practical is that every time you have a complaint? You really want to sue blackwater for shooting Grandma because she stepped over the property line?




> Divide what up?  You only vote for one Sheriff.


He was advocating everyone hire their own private security.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes thousands of individual security forces accountable to nobody with differing rules of engagement has worked oh so well throughout recorded history.  We have enough trouble with holding what we have accountable and you want to divide that up and make it make it many thousandfold times worse?


You're confusing "security" and "police".  "Security" personnel stay on the property they are paid to keep secure.  "Police" are a wandering standing army (gang) of thugs accountable to nobody.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sometimes it's fun to pretend there are special costumes and signets that grant people crazy superpowers, but adults should know better than to run their politics according to games of make-believe.


Thus, every adult should be an anarchist.  If only

----------


## 69360

> You're confusing "security" and "police".  "Security" personnel stay on the property they are paid to keep secure.  "Police" are a wandering standing army (gang) of thugs accountable to nobody.


You didn't read the post I quoted, he wanted private security forces for every roadway. How in the world would that be practical?

----------


## Cabal

> You didn't read the post I quoted, he wanted private security forces for every roadway. How in the world would that be practical?


Similar to how gated communities have rent-a-cops, or their own private neighborhood security; or similar to how retail chains, hotels, and all sorts of private businesses have their own security in their various locations; or similar to privatized security services that are now operating in Detroit.

----------


## Antischism

Having a third-party or state-sponsored police force runs contrary to the idea of anarchism. Rothbard was wrong when he made the claim that private police and anarchy were compatible. Actually, he tends to argue for private statism. A Henry Ford-esque small army of private police would be hierarchical and impose their force upon others more aggressively if need be, simply by the power of monetary influence from the highest bidder. Private wealth would simply control the private police and courts with capital. It's basically an army for hire with a vested interest in protecting the wealthy and ignoring those too poor to afford their services. It's a situation where having more money means you're more likely to get away with murder, figuratively speaking.

The ideal solution would be for average people to look after one another in communities. I know some anarchists would argue for a militia like the individualist types formed in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, but I don't believe that's the right course. The only type of authority that's valid in anarchism is natural authority. For example, natural authority would be the wisdom of a well-read, well-studied person who is an authority on a topic. It could be a church leader or a scientist you admire. It's an authority that comes with experience and comes from within, not derived from law or coercive in any way. However, natural authority can indeed become illegitimate authority if it's no longer voluntary and becomes coercive.

----------


## Origanalist

Way late to the discussion, but yes. Hell yes.

----------


## Cabal

> A Henry Ford-esque small army of private police would be hierarchical and impose their force upon others more aggressively if need be, simply by the power of monetary influence from the highest bidder. Private wealth would simply control the private police and courts with capital. It's basically an army for hire with a vested interest in protecting the wealthy and ignoring those too poor to afford their services. It's a situation where having more money means you're more likely to get away with murder, figuratively speaking.


These imaginary tycoons of yours must have endlessly deep pockets to be able to sustain such control. What exactly is the scenario here? The tycoon is forking out loads of cash to monopolize a security agency, and all competitors, and the passive masses continue to fund him so that he can oppress them via third party?

Of course, ideally there'd be no State, and thus the volatile market absent corporatism, coercive monopolization, barriers to entry, and other State interventions of this nature, on top of a rearmament of the citizenry, would make this whole hypothetical virtually impossible as far as I can tell. This is not to say that there wouldn't be a time needed for market experimentation and such, but it tends to be pretty good at satisfying demands even under such an interventionist State as we have now, so I can only assume its levels of efficiency and productivity, as well as its ability to satisfy demand would dramatically increase absent the State.

The real problem would be foreign States propping up dictators and warlords, like the US has been doing for decades. Then again, they might ultimately end up $#@!ing themselves over a la USSR.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You didn't read the post I quoted, he wanted private security forces for every roadway. How in the world would that be practical?


I don't know because I'm not an entrepreneur who specializes in that.  Most likely, such security would be handled in the most practical way possible.  Something like mall security adapted to roadways.  We know that entrepreneurs can handle the calculation problem (unlike central planning authorities), so we have to wait till someone with the necessary expertise studies the problem and creates a solution.

----------


## Henry Rogue

I don't think it is any secret where I stand on the question. Abolish the very institution.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Way late to the discussion, but yes. Hell yes.


Your tardiness is noted and reported.

----------


## Origanalist

> I don't know because I'm not an entrepreneur who specializes in that.  Most likely, such security would be handled in the most practical way possible.  Something like mall security adapted to roadways.  We know that entrepreneurs can handle the calculation problem (unlike central planning authorities), so we have to wait till someone with the necessary expertise studies the problem and creates a solution.


Why do we have to wait? I think most of us can chew gum and walk at the same time. People make $#@! too complicated IMO.

----------


## Origanalist

> Your tardiness is noted and reported.


Another demerit? OK...................

----------


## Antischism

> These imaginary tycoons of yours must have endlessly deep pockets to be able to sustain such control. What exactly is the scenario here? The tycoon is forking out loads of cash to monopolize a security agency, and all competitors, and the passive masses continue to fund him so that he can oppress them via third party?
> 
> Of course, ideally there'd be no State, and thus the volatile market absent corporatism, coercive monopolization, barriers to entry, and other State interventions of this nature, on top of a rearmament of the citizenry, would make this whole hypothetical virtually impossible as far as I can tell. This is not to say that there wouldn't be a time needed for market experimentation and such, but it tends to be pretty good at satisfying demands even under such an interventionist State as we have now, so I can only assume its levels of efficiency and productivity, as well as its ability to satisfy demand would dramatically increase absent the State.
> 
> The real problem would be foreign States propping up dictators and warlords, like the US has been doing for decades. Then again, they might ultimately end up $#@!ing themselves over a la USSR.


And what's to stop wealthy, privately owned businesses from hiring private police to legitimize force against workers if they should decide to protest? Do the workers then hire a competing group of private police, inciting a shoot-out? Oh, well, they sort of can't if they don't have the money and they certainly won't get the best representation when wealth can buy out the private courts and police. I don't trust a private army any more than I trust a state-sponsored army. They will shoot on sight and get away with it. Those predisposed towards taking on a position that polices and judges individuals for money and in what's essentially a gang will almost always have a thirst for exercising their authority over others, while us mundanes are oppressed.

Not only can they be bought out to do the nefarious bidding of those with plenty of wealth, but they can also be controlled through the promise of job positions, status or power. Just take a look at Henry Ford's private police and the way they murdered and oppressed workers for an example of private police being no better than State police.

----------


## Origanalist

> And what's to stop wealthy, privately owned businesses from hiring private police to legitimize force against workers if they should decide to protest? Do the workers then hire a competing group of private police, inciting a shoot-out? Oh, well, they sort of can't if they don't have the money and they certainly won't get the best representation when wealth can buy out the private courts and police. I don't trust a private army any more than I trust a state-sponsored army. They will shoot on sight and get away with it. Those predisposed towards taking on a position that polices and judges individuals for money and in what's essentially a gang will almost always have a thirst for exercising their authority over others, while us mundanes are oppressed.
> 
> Not only can they be bought out to do the nefarious bidding of those with plenty of wealth, but they can also be controlled through the promise of job positions, status or power. Just take a look at Henry Ford's private police and the way they murdered and oppressed workers for an example of private police being no better than State police.


Frankly I would much rather take my chances with Henry Ford's Po-Po's.

----------


## Cabal

> And what's to stop wealthy, privately owned businesses from hiring private police to legitimize force against workers if they should decide to protest? Do the workers then hire a competing group of private police, inciting a shoot-out? Oh, well, they sort of can't if they don't have the money and they certainly won't get the best representation when wealth can buy out the private courts and police. I don't trust a private army any more than I trust a state-sponsored army. They will shoot on sight and get away with it. Those predisposed towards taking on a position that polices and judges individuals for money and in what's essentially a gang will almost always have a thirst for exercising their authority over others, while us mundanes are oppressed.
> 
> Not only can they be bought out to do the nefarious bidding of those with plenty of wealth, but they can also be controlled through the promise of job positions, status or power. Just take a look at Henry Ford's private police and the way they murdered and oppressed workers for an example of private police being no better than State police.


Workers could just quit. Why would they want to work for such an asshat? If the market's free, it's not like they'll have too much trouble finding alternative employment. Then the psycho tyrant tycoon you're imagining will have zero production, and thus no income with which to needless throw away on his own private army. 

I'm sorry, but this whole scenario just doesn't make sense. Unless there is some huge economic incentive for this crazy tycoon to be screwing over his own business, and demonizing himself in the public eye, and unless there's some huge economic incentive for the private security firm to ostracize all of their other current/potential clients, and demonize themselves in the public eye, I don't see why they'd ever engage in the absurd behavior you're suggesting here. 

I mean, anyone can come up with hypothetical doomsday scenarios that don't really make much sense. I don't see how that's a valid argument against private security, especially since there are current and historical working examples of non-State private security working even within a State-dominated nation. 

I think so long as State corporatism exists, some semblance of your scenario here might be practically feasible, but again, ideally there'd be no State, and thus no corporatism to facilitate what you're talking about. But again, then the potential threat is that of foreign States, but the US is geographically one of the safest regions in the world right now, so that's not as much of an issue as it might be if we were say, in Africa or the Middle East. Massive oceans east and west, Canada north, Mexico south. Not exactly in a high threat zone over here.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I'm just asking whether you think that government police should exist at any level.


If by "government police" you mean police complying with the law and constitution, we don't have it, so it can't very well be abolished. Or do you just mean outlaws wearing badges?

----------


## fr33

It would really be nice to have a number to call besides 911 when you need an ambulance or fire truck. Actually in my area we do have a direct number to call the fire department. But not one for the EMTs unfortunately. If you need an ambulance and call 911, the over abundance of pigs on duty show up before the ambulance does and all they usually do is make things even more complicated.

----------


## DamianTV

Authority must have some form of Accountability, and Self Accountability doesn't count, in fact, it is part of what contributes to the "Just-Us System".

----------


## 69360

> Similar to how gated communities have rent-a-cops, or their own private neighborhood security; or similar to how retail chains, hotels, and all sorts of private businesses have their own security in their various locations; or similar to privatized security services that are now operating in Detroit.





> I don't know because I'm not an entrepreneur who specializes in that.  Most likely, such security would be handled in the most practical way possible.  Something like mall security adapted to roadways.  We know that entrepreneurs can handle the calculation problem (unlike central planning authorities), so we have to wait till someone with the necessary expertise studies the problem and creates a solution.



So what do you guys propose we do when Blackwater Xe or whatever they call themselves these days shoots and kills Grandpa for going 1 mph over the speed limit. They now have tanks and automatic weapons and are accountable to nobody but the property owner. Is sheriff Andy Taylor going to arrest them for killing grandpa with his 6 shooter? Nope now the sheriff needs his own tanks and automatic weapons to counter your "private security" 

See how fast it spirals out of control? Your ideas only work in a libertarian fantasy world.

----------


## brandon

This is a stupid question.

----------


## tod evans

> So what do you guys propose we do when Blackwater Xe


Without federal money Blackwater is out of business.

This idea that federally funded cops keep folks safe is absolutely insane.

There is realistically no difference between Blackwater and the NYPD other than which piece of turf they protect.

----------


## osan

> LOL @ those who want competing police services. One is hard enough to keep accountable.


Nice.  I agreed strongly with this.  Some go too far with putting everything into a competitive market.

There should be no police, but if you are going to have them this is how I would structure such entities:


Their ONLY purpose would be to _investigate_ crimes and accusations of same.They would have no power to arrest under any circumstance whatsoever beyond that of any other citizen, if even that.They would have no power to circumvent the BoR.On duty, they would be perforce unarmed.  This is a trust issue and such people can never be trusted.Upon discovering evidence of crime sufficient in their estimation for charges, the information is presented to a grand jury.If grand jury agrees, a warrant is issued _by them_ and the sheriff is called to muster a posse and execute the warrant.They could not be represented by a union in any manner or degree for any purpose whatsoever.If they stand accused, they are on their own in terms of representation for defense.

In short, they would be on the tightest leashes, fitted with chokers.  The punishments for misconduct would be harsh such that these investigators would quake in their boots at the very thought of violating the rights of others.  Compensation would be determined by the market and their numbers would be very strictly limited, though I have not given this any further thought.

----------


## osan

> Police were not set up to control the people.  That is where your thinking is flawed.  They were set up to _uphold the law_ and protect and serve the people--public servants.  That being said Sheriffs and Sheriff's deputies could do the job.
> 
> Did you know that the Sheriff has more power than the Executive Branch of Government?


Actually, no.  Originally, police had a single purpose, to *keep the peace*.  That is why they were called "peace officers" and not _law enforcement_.

Police as they exist today have no place in a free and civil land.

----------


## 69360

> Without federal money Blackwater is out of business.
> 
> This idea that federally funded cops keep folks safe is absolutely insane.
> 
> There is realistically no difference between Blackwater and the NYPD other than which piece of turf they protect.


These guys wanted private landowners and private road owners to pay for security, not the government. That would get out of hand real fast.


I don't want federally funded police. I don't want militarized police. I want old fashioned local police that do their job and are accountable to the people. It's worked for generations in the US and there is no reason to change that.

----------


## phill4paul

> They now have tanks and automatic weapons and are accountable to nobody but the *property owner*.


  You mean like it stands today?  Property owners being the federal, states and local governments?

----------


## Origanalist

> So what do you guys propose we do when Blackwater Xe or whatever they call themselves these days shoots and kills Grandpa for going 1 mph over the speed limit. They now have tanks and automatic weapons and are accountable to nobody but the property owner. Is sheriff Andy Taylor going to arrest them for killing grandpa with his 6 shooter? Nope now the sheriff needs his own tanks and automatic weapons to counter your "private security" 
> 
> See how fast it spirals out of control? Your ideas only work in a libertarian fantasy world.


Somebody hasn't been paying attention.

----------


## Danke

> Another demerit? OK...................


Don't worry, nobody reads his reports.

----------


## Brett85

These poll results are surprising.  I understand that some people are saying that you can be in favor of abolishing the police and not be an anarchist.  But, the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.

----------


## green73

> These poll results are surprising.  I understand that some people are saying that you can be in favor of abolishing the police and not be an anarchist.  But, the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.

----------


## donnay

> These poll results are surprising.  I understand that some people are saying that you can be in favor of abolishing the police and not be an anarchist.  But, the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.



This poll indicated to me that people are sick and tired of tyranny.  The militarized police, as it stand now, are the henchmen for the PTB.  You cannot live free with a government who has a standing army prepared to take down the citizenry with unlawful, unconstitutional laws.  We have to go back to the way our government was meant to be--three branches of government and checks and balances.  I do not consider that anarchy.

----------


## Danke

Immediately.

----------


## Origanalist

> These poll results are surprising.  I understand that some people are saying that you can be in favor of abolishing the police and not be an anarchist.  But, the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.


Courts weren't part of the question.

----------


## osan

> Somebody hasn't been paying attention.


Forgive me pal, but this isn't terribly helpful.  It is clear you disagree but give no basis.  We therefore have nothing on which to go in terms of evaluating the merits of your position.  69360 raises a valid sounding point.  If you disagree, say why so we can better understand.

The problem with an anarchocapitalist/libertarian solution as some envision it is the issue of accountability.  It is the same today with our current system.  The trouble lies not in whether such functions as security are "public" or "private".  At the root of it, all such concerns can be said to be one or the other because the functions are precisely the same in principle.  Under either labeling scheme the key issue is that of accountability.  Private "free market" security is no better than "public" if the players are not accountable.  If Backwater murders my son in "defense" of their client's turf, the exact same questions arise regarding to whom they shall be accountable.  To the client only?  If so, prepare yourselves for the world of Mad Max and worse.  If not, then to whom?  The right answer is "everybody", but what does that mean in practical terms?  In a purely private system, who gets to judge?  Perhaps the Backwater client has his own courts.  Perhaps Backwater itself has its own courts - not unthinkable, and in fact plausible and even likely for large organizations. 

Would you trust Backwater to honestly police itself after murdering my son for no good reason at all?  I sure as hell would not.

Accountability is the key issue in all matters of governance.  All other considerations fall as distant secondaries to the primacy of accountability.  In this, it would seem that "public" accountabilities may be superior because there is implied a universal standard for all.  One would find the land difficult to travel safely if every property owner ruled his turf by arbitrarily differing standards of comport.  If such a universal standard is in place, who is keeping it?  Simple words on paper mean nothing if we do not accord with the specifications.  This implies the need for a standard of behavior consistent with the specifications.  This can get very twisted up, so lets not go further down the hole.  Suffice to say that accountability lies at the very heart of this and accountability implies force.  Therefore, if we are going to accept a standard of behavior, we must forsooth accept the presence of the threat of force to uphold the standard as effectively meaningful.

This can all go so very wrong and in fact it has as we can see daily here in our own lands, bringing it right back to our own doorsteps.  If our hearts are not "clean" to some minimum standard, we are doomed.  At this moment it appears that doom shall be ours, though I retain hope.

I think there is going to be a fight and this will indeed get out of hand.  Where it will lead is anybody's guess, I suppose.

----------


## tod evans

> These poll results are surprising.  I understand that some people are saying that you can be in favor of abolishing the police and not be an anarchist.  But, the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.





> Courts weren't part of the question.


And you didn't specify which "police" you were inquiring about, I responded as I did because the majority of "police" are not sheriffs.

----------


## Danke

> Forgive me pal, but this isn't terribly helpful.  It is clear you disagree but give no basis.  We therefore have nothing on which to go in terms of evaluating the merits of your position.  69360 raises a valid sounding point.  If you disagree, say why so we can better understand.
> 
> The problem with an anarchocapitalist/libertarian solution as some envision it is the issue of accountability.  It is the same today with our current system.  The trouble lies not in whether such functions as security are "public" or "private".  At the root of it, all such concerns can be said to be one or the other because the functions are precisely the same in principle.  Under either labeling scheme the key issue is that of accountability.  Private "free market" security is no better than "public" if the players are not accountable.  If Backwater murders my son in "defense" of their client's turf, the exact same questions arise regarding to whom they shall be accountable.  To the client only?  If so, prepare yourselves for the world of Mad Max and worse.  If not, then to whom?  The right answer is "everybody", but what does that mean in practical terms?  In a purely private system, who gets to judge?  Perhaps the Backwater client has his own courts.  Perhaps Backwater itself has its own courts - not unthinkable, and in fact plausible and even likely for large organizations. 
> 
> Would you trust Backwater to honestly police itself after murdering my son for no good reason at all?  I sure as hell would not.
> 
> Accountability is the key issue in all matters of governance.  All other considerations fall as distant secondaries to the primacy of accountability.  In this, it would seem that "public" accountabilities may be superior because there is implied a universal standard for all.  One would find the land difficult to travel safely if every property owner ruled his turf by arbitrarily differing standards of comport.  If such a universal standard is in place, who is keeping it?  Simple words on paper mean nothing if we do not accord with the specifications.  This implies the need for a standard of behavior consistent with the specifications.  This can get very twisted up, so lets not go further down the hole.  Suffice to say that accountability lies at the very heart of this and accountability implies force.  Therefore, if we are going to accept a standard of behavior, we must forsooth accept the presence of the threat of force to uphold the standard as effectively meaningful.
> 
> This can all go so very wrong and in fact it has as we can see daily here in our own lands, bringing it right back to our own doorsteps.  If our hearts are not "clean" to some minimum standard, we are doomed.  At this moment it appears that doom shall be ours, though I retain hope.
> ...


Blackwater is funded by the governments.  It is not private.

----------


## osan

> And you didn't specify which "police" you were inquiring about, I responded as I did because the majority of "police" are not sheriffs.


Police <> sheriffs.  These are disjoint sets.

----------


## Brett85

> And you didn't specify which "police" you were inquiring about, I responded as I did because the majority of "police" are not sheriffs.


"Police" doesn't refer to Sheriffs.  I understand that some people are saying they support county Sheriffs but not police.  But it's entirely unrealistic to think that a Sheriff and a few citizen deputees could keep law and order in a massive city like Chicago or New York.  It would be possible to have that type of government if we had a country of 30,000 people, not 300 million.

----------


## Origanalist

> Forgive me pal, but this isn't terribly helpful. ...........................


You're forgiven, pal.That was a fairly long ramble about what? Accountability seems to be fairly rare as applied to those enforcing our "justice" system. There are too many laws, and too many with too much power to enforce them. 

My original point should have been obvious,




> Quote Originally Posted by 69360  View Post
> So what do you guys propose we do when Blackwater Xe or whatever they call themselves these days shoots and kills Grandpa for going 1 mph over the speed limit. *They now have tanks and automatic weapons and are accountable to nobody but the property owner.* Is sheriff Andy Taylor going to arrest them for killing grandpa with his 6 shooter? Nope now the sheriff needs his own tanks and automatic weapons to counter your "private security" 
> 
> See how fast it spirals out of control? Your ideas only work in a libertarian fantasy world.


He just described the police as they already exist.

----------


## tod evans

> "Police" doesn't refer to Sheriffs.  I understand that some people are saying they support county Sheriffs but not police.  But it's entirely unrealistic to think that a Sheriff and a few citizen deputees could keep law and order in a massive city like Chicago or New York.  It would be possible to have that type of government if we had a country of 30,000 people, not 300 million.


Well my ol' hillbilly perspective is to just wall off the cities anyway.

If the county sheriff had true authority in those cities and was held accountable to the people and not the federal government things would change rapidly.

The problem is federal money, whether we're talking Po-Dunk Ozarks or Chicago.

----------


## Danke

> "Police" doesn't refer to Sheriffs.  I understand that some people are saying they support county Sheriffs but not police.  But it's entirely unrealistic to think that a Sheriff and a few citizen deputees could keep law and order in a massive city like Chicago or New York.  It would be possible to have that type of government if we had a country of 30,000 people, not 300 million.


Police have been sooo effective in Chicago...

----------


## Brett85

> Police have been sooo effective in Chicago...


So because they're not 100% effective in fighting crime, the solution is to abolish them?

----------


## fisharmor

> Or do you just mean outlaws wearing badges?


The definition of an outlaw is one who is no longer afforded  protection by the legal system.  What this means is that someone branded  outlaw can be brought to justice in whatever manner those encountering  him deem fit.

This is the exact reverse of police.  Police by their very definition are not held _accountable_ by the law.  They are above or separate from the law.

If  someone can figure out how to have police that are still bound by the  same laws as non-police, then I might change my vote.  All of the cases  above that posit the possibility of having private security forces hinge  on that one distinction: private security forces would still be held to  the same legal standard as ordinary citizens.

That is the  essence of why I am against police as a concept.  Once you institute a  police force, you are by definition granting them extreme leeway in  breaking laws.  That is the fundamental problem.
It doesn't matter  whether we're talking about murder or speeding.  The concept is the  same.  They break laws and are not held accountable.

Once you hold them accountable, they are no longer police.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

"Fighting crime"

Thanks. I needed the laugh.

----------


## Danke

> So because they're not 100% effective in fighting crime, the solution is to abolish them?


100%?

not even close to that figure.

In fact, they are organized crime.  Have you ever heard of Aaron Russo and his nightclub?

----------


## Danke



----------


## kcchiefs6465

One thing to consider is that 83% of those arrested have not committed a crime.

Federal police are unconstitutional. They need to go, no question about it. The war on drugs is unconstitutional. It needs ended. At the least 83% of police forces need to be fired. They are nothing more than revenue generators and encroach or flat out violate the natural rights of millions yearly. Federal grants to police departments are unconstitutional, as well. It needs ended. Bearcats need scrapped with proceeds put in a fund to pay those who can prove their rights violated. Police must wear go-pro cameras. If there is an incident where the tape is tampered with, it will be assumed the person accusing the officer of violating their rights is telling the truth. Aggravated sentences for crimes committed under the color of law. Anyone unjustly in prison, 83% of those there, at least, needs released immediately. Anything that does not violate the rights of someone else or where there is no discernible victim is not a crime. As such the statutes need removed, the Constitution amended to spell out this very simple notion of crimes vs. vices.

If these things were to happen I may be able to support the concept of police at a locally accountable level.

----------


## 69360

> He just described the police as they already exist.


That's not true. There is legal recourse in this country and it's easily accessible. If you file a lawsuit against the police, you will get your day in court and they will appear.

Now say you get your way and the police are abolished. You now have heavily armed private security forces. Who is going to hold them accountable for wrong doing? You have nobody to bring them into the court system. Are you going to trust bands of mercenaries to self police and make themselves available to the courts jurisdiction? Society will devolve rapidly.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> So because they're not 100% effective in fighting crime, the solution is to abolish them?


A quick look at the UCR will clearly present what, or who, they are "fighting." It sure as $#@! isn't _crime._

----------


## 69360

> One thing to consider is that 83% of those arrested have not committed a crime.
> 
> Federal police are unconstitutional. They need to go, no question about it. The war on drugs is unconstitutional. It needs ended. At the least 83% of police forces need to be fired. They are nothing more than revenue generators and encroach or flat out violate the natural rights of millions yearly. Federal grants to police departments are unconstitutional, as well. It needs ended. Bearcats need scrapped with proceeds put in a fund to pay those who can prove their rights violated. Police must wear go-pro cameras. If there is an incident where the tape is tampered with, it will be assumed the person accusing the officer of violating their rights is telling the truth. Aggravated sentences for crimes committed under the color of law. Anyone unjustly in prison, 83% of those there, at least, needs released immediately. Anything that does not violate the rights of someone else or where there is no discernible victim is not a crime. As such the statutes need removed, the Constitution amended to spell out this very simple notion of crimes vs. vices.
> 
> If these things were to happen I may be able to support the concept of police at a locally accountable level.


In simple terms, end the drug wars and bring police back to the levels they were at in the 1950's. That is what would work.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> These poll results are surprising.  I understand that some people are saying that you can be in favor of abolishing the police and not be an anarchist.  But, the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.


OK.  So what?



> "Police" doesn't refer to Sheriffs.  I understand that some people are saying they support county Sheriffs but not police.  But it's entirely unrealistic to think that a Sheriff and a few citizen deputees could keep law and order in a massive city like Chicago or New York.  It would be possible to have that type of government if we had a country of 30,000 people, not 300 million.


This is a presupposition, which is based on certain assumptions.  I'd recommend actually proving them.

Namely, you'd have to prove that if:

1. Victimless crimes laws did not exist

2. Gun ownership was not restricted (logical corrolary of option 1)

3. People were permitted to hire their own security or police as long as this was consistent with the principles of non-aggression (Also a logical corrolary of #1)'

That there would still be a crime problem that could not be solved without a state monopoly.




> So because they're not 100% effective in fighting crime, the solution is to abolish them?





> One thing to consider is that 83% of those arrested have not committed a crime.
> 
> Federal police are unconstitutional. They need to go, no question about it. The war on drugs is unconstitutional. It needs ended. At the least 83% of police forces need to be fired. They are nothing more than revenue generators and encroach or flat out violate the natural rights of millions yearly. Federal grants to police departments are unconstitutional, as well. It needs ended. Bearcats need scrapped with proceeds put in a fund to pay those who can prove their rights violated. Police must wear go-pro cameras. If there is an incident where the tape is tampered with, it will be assumed the person accusing the officer of violating their rights is telling the truth. Aggravated sentences for crimes committed under the color of law. Anyone unjustly in prison, 83% of those there, at least, needs released immediately. Anything that does not violate the rights of someone else or where there is no discernible victim is not a crime. As such the statutes need removed, the Constitution amended to spell out this very simple notion of crimes vs. vices.
> 
> If these things were to happen I may be able to support the concept of police at a locally accountable level.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> In simple terms, end the drug wars and bring police back to the levels they were at in the 1950's. That is what would work.


The police were beating people to death in the '50s too.

It's a common misconception people have. That the police at some instance in time were benevolent forces protecting the citizenry from gangsters. Chicago and New York City, for a quick example, were torturing people with impunity throughout the '50s. In small towns, sure, the police may drive you home if you were exceptionally inebriated. They could also tear your rotator cuff if they didn't like your attitude.

My post above was more than simply redefining the police to any specific date's level. It is a redefining of the entire concept. Of course, and I forgot to add, for my scenario to ever play out there needs to be a diligent public who are unwavering in their principle and Just in the application of the Law. Anything short of _that_ and this is all just philosophical masturbation.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> OK.  So what?
> 
> This is a presupposition, which is based on certain assumptions.  I'd recommend actually proving them.
> 
> Namely, you'd have to prove that if:
> 
> 1. Victimless crimes laws did not exist
> 
> 2. Gun ownership was not restricted (logical corrolary of option 1)
> ...


There would still be a problem in certain areas where retaliatory murders have been occurring for decades. Other areas plagued by poverty and little opportunity as well. Locally those problems should be solved through negotiations between local gang leaders and of course not making it impossible for businesses to start. And again the police force should be locally funded and actually accountable.

It isn't as simple a solution as you put forth. Many things, including a philosophical change in the minds of the people would need to occur simultaneously. "Abolishing" the police would solve next to nothing if the people, for example "Guardian Angels", still feel it is their duty to meddle in the affairs of strangers and question locals about their intents and where they're from.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> *That's not true. There is legal recourse in this country and it's easily accessible. If you file a lawsuit against the police, you will get your day in court and they will appear.*
> 
> Now say you get your way and the police are abolished. You now have heavily armed private security forces. Who is going to hold them accountable for wrong doing? You have nobody to bring them into the court system. Are you going to trust bands of mercenaries to self police and make themselves available to the courts jurisdiction? Society will devolve rapidly.


* fantasy world*

----------


## Red Green

Frankly I am shocked that nearly 26% of people actually believe we should keep the police.  And here I thought the population of this board was a little more enlightened than that.  I guess it could be furloughed federal workers with too much time on their hands voting....

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm guessing the results will be about 60% in favor of abolishing the police and 40% opposed.  We'll see how accurate that prediction ends up being.



Yes	74.19%

No	25.81%

Police are an Authoritarian Concept. 
The idea that armed enforcers are necessary is Anti-Liberty.

The people can police themselves,, and did so for years before police were invented.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm



> The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.





> The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement.  Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding.  Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government.  Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.

----------


## fisharmor

> In simple terms, end the drug wars and bring police back to the levels they were at in the 1950's. That is what would work.


It worked great.

----------


## pcosmar

> It worked great.


That era was the direct result from Gun Laws (enforced by police).

Most gun laws were racist,, and a way of disarming minorities.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_...l_wtr8512.html

----------


## donnay

> * fantasy world*


Or really, really naïve.  The courts system is just as corrupt.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> "Police" doesn't refer to Sheriffs.  I understand that some people are saying they support county Sheriffs but not police.  But it's entirely unrealistic to think that a Sheriff and a few citizen deputees could keep law and order in a massive city like Chicago or New York.  It would be possible to have that type of government if we had a country of 30,000 people, not 300 million.


So, something about their name starting in "s" instead of "p" makes them incapable of hiring an appropriately sized workforce and keeping the peace in urban areas?  I wasn't aware that letters of the alphabet made that big of an impact, really...

----------


## pcosmar

> "Police" doesn't refer to Sheriffs.  I understand that some people are saying they support county Sheriffs but not police.  But it's entirely unrealistic to think that a Sheriff and a few citizen deputees could keep law and order in a massive city like Chicago or New York.  It would be possible to have that type of government if we had a country of 30,000 people, not 300 million.


Wrong.
People will enforce law.. The average citizen will oppose Murder Rape and Theft.
NO One needs to "Keep law and order".. People do that naturally. 
Police enforce unnatural laws,, unpopular law. Laws like prohibition. (Drug War) (Tax Collecting) 


What you are speaking about is enforcing laws that are not natural. 
People will get along peacefully and enforce the peace themselves,, given the chance to do so.

----------


## Cabal



----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why do we have to wait? I think most of us can chew gum and walk at the same time. People make $#@! too complicated IMO.


Because I don't have the Fatal Conceit (Hayekian lingo) of a central planner.  Actually, you don't really have to wait if you have a solution for your area already.  Go ahead and get the funding and do it!

----------


## osan

> I don't want federally funded police. I don't want militarized police.


So far I'm with you.




> I want old fashioned local police that do their job and are accountable to the people. _It's worked for generations in the US_ and there is no reason to change that.


<bump> <skid>... <shriek> <crash>


It has?  Lessee, cops started up here in what, the 1880s or 90s... by the '20s most police were as crooked as the day is long at the poles.  To wit, all the largest cities like NY, Chicago, LA, and so forth.  Leave the sheriffs out of it because they are NOT police.

Police have been a cluster-copulation almost from their first days in existence.  To assert that police have "worked" (presumably well) for generations is utterly unsupported by the facts.  The problem has been marginally less in small towns than in large cities, but we can scrape up all manner of historical examples of lousy small town police forces on the take, or running kangaroo speed trap courts and all that sort of nonsense.

Police certainly have worked - just not the way you imply but fail to state explicitly.  They have been one of the biggest banes to liberty and need to be abolished in toto across the land.

----------


## osan

> But, _the practical effect of abolishing the police would be anarchy_, so I don't really see any real difference between those who support abolishing the police but still want some extremely small level of government and those who support abolishing the police and having no government/state.


You have made an assertion without a shred of supporting evidence.

Credibility is on the line here.

----------


## Brett85

> One thing to consider is that 83% of those arrested have not committed a crime.
> 
> Federal police are unconstitutional. They need to go, no question about it. The war on drugs is unconstitutional. It needs ended. At the least 83% of police forces need to be fired. They are nothing more than revenue generators and encroach or flat out violate the natural rights of millions yearly. Federal grants to police departments are unconstitutional, as well. It needs ended. Bearcats need scrapped with proceeds put in a fund to pay those who can prove their rights violated. Police must wear go-pro cameras. If there is an incident where the tape is tampered with, it will be assumed the person accusing the officer of violating their rights is telling the truth. Aggravated sentences for crimes committed under the color of law. Anyone unjustly in prison, 83% of those there, at least, needs released immediately. Anything that does not violate the rights of someone else or where there is no discernible victim is not a crime. As such the statutes need removed, the Constitution amended to spell out this very simple notion of crimes vs. vices.
> 
> If these things were to happen I may be able to support the concept of police at a locally accountable level.


I agree with you in regards to ending the war on drugs and having far fewer people in prison, and I also agree that the federal grants, federal funding of state and local police forces is unconstitutional.  I'm not necessarily saying that I support the way our criminal justice system currently is.  I think there should be far fewer laws than there currently are.  I'm just not in favor of actually abolishing the police.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I agree with you in regards to ending the war on drugs and having far fewer people in prison, and I also agree that the federal grants, federal funding of state and local police forces is unconstitutional.  I'm not necessarily saying that I support the way our criminal justice system currently is.  I think there should be far fewer laws than there currently are.  *I'm just not in favor of actually abolishing the police*.


Not even in the short term (while we're trying to figure out a way to keep them and government in general in check)?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So far I'm with you.
> 
> 
> 
> <bump> <skid>... <shriek> <crash>
> 
> 
> It has?  Lessee, cops started up here in what, the 1880s or 90s... by the '20s most police were as crooked as the day is long at the poles.  To wit, all the largest cities like NY, Chicago, LA, and so forth.  Leave the sheriffs out of it because they are NOT police.
> 
> ...





> *You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again*.


 Out of ammo.   Somebody give this guy a +rep for me, plz.

----------


## 69360

> for my scenario to ever play out there needs to be a diligent public who are unwavering in their principle and Just in the application of the Law. Anything short of _that_ and this is all just philosophical masturbation.


That will never happen.




> * fantasy world*


No it's not. File a lawsuit or complaint against the police and they will show up in court and it will be heard. File a complaint against your "private security" in your world after you abolish the police. Who is going to enforce appearance in court? Oh yeah you abolished the ones who would, how's that working out for you?




> Frankly I am shocked that nearly 26% of people actually believe we should keep the police.  And here I thought the population of this board was a little more enlightened than that.  I guess it could be furloughed federal workers with too much time on their hands voting....


Not keep as is. We don't need cops in kevlar with tanks and automatic weapons. Just a reasonable force to uphold the laws.




> So, something about their name starting in "s" instead of "p" makes them incapable of hiring an appropriately sized workforce and keeping the peace in urban areas?  I wasn't aware that letters of the alphabet made that big of an impact, really...


They don't want the Sheriff to hire anyone. They think volunteers will be able to handle large cities with millions of people.




> So far I'm with you.
> 
> 
> 
> <bump> <skid>... <shriek> <crash>
> 
> 
> It has?  Lessee, cops started up here in what, the 1880s or 90s... by the '20s most police were as crooked as the day is long at the poles.  To wit, all the largest cities like NY, Chicago, LA, and so forth.  Leave the sheriffs out of it because they are NOT police.
> 
> ...


Sheriffs can be just as crooked as Policemen. It's just a label. There are bad apples in any position.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sheriffs can be just as crooked as Policemen. It's just a label. There are bad apples in any position.


The critical difference is that sheriffs can be voted out or thrown out if need be.  Cops have almost complete immunity.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> They don't want the Sheriff to hire anyone. They think volunteers will be able to handle large cities with millions of people.


Who is.. 'they?'

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Don't worry, nobody reads his reports.


The reports on me seem to go unread as well.  The Ministry Of Justice is slacking off.

----------


## fisharmor

> No it's not. File a lawsuit or complaint against  the police and they will show up in court and it will be heard. File a  complaint against your "private security" in your world after you  abolish the police. Who is going to enforce appearance in court? Oh yeah  you abolished the ones who would, how's that working out for  you?


What exactly _do_ your own kidneys smell like?

Video evidence of how it goes when you even ask questions about accusing a cop of something not even specified.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No it's not. File a lawsuit or complaint against the police and they will show up in court and it will be heard. File a complaint against your "private security" in your world after you abolish the police. *Who is going to enforce appearance in court?* Oh yeah you abolished the ones who would, how's that working out for you?


The same people who did it before police were invented.  You keep acting like history before police never existed.  Very strange indeed.

----------


## Cabal

> No it's not. File a lawsuit or complaint against the police and they will show up in court and it will be heard. File a complaint against your "private security" in your world after you abolish the police. Who is going to enforce appearance in court? Oh yeah you abolished the ones who would, how's that working out for you?


Setting aside the argument from morality, and sticking with argument from effect...

It's called economics. If private security sucks, they get fired, they make no money, they go out of business. In the market--the real world--you *must* satisfy customer demand in an efficient way, relative to competitors, to stay in business (unless of course you're getting propped up by the State, directly or indirectly). This is a huge contributing factor to why monopolies virtually cannot exist outside of the potential for fairly brief efficiency monopolies in a free market--it's too competitive and volatile. This is a huge contributing factor to why the State is inefficient, wasteful, and unsatisfactory in virtually every 'good or service' it tries to control, because it is no longer beholden to the demands of the customer, or to the bottom line of the business thanks to the coercive monopoly it maintains, and its control of the monetary system. 

This is *basic* free market economics 101.

And this is yet another example of the inconsistency of statists, I might add. Conservatives like to bitch and moan when the State regulates the market, when the State tries to 'take over healthcare', with the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the Department of Education, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services, EPA, FDA, DEA, and so on. But when it comes to the monopolization of police or 'justice', among other things... oh noes, can't apply the same logic there!

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

..

----------


## jllundqu

Yeah.... and when your child is kidnapped by Johnny Pedophile, don't call the cops..... right....

----------


## tod evans

> Yeah.... and when your child is kidnapped by Johnny Pedophile, don't call the cops..... right....


Exactly what percentage of abducted children do cops find?

I'd be interested in the numbers broken down by agency, local, county, state and feds.

----------


## 69360

> Yeah.... and when your child is kidnapped by Johnny Pedophile, don't call the cops..... right....


You just form yourself a posse and go looking. Problem is the pedophile has his own private security with tanks and will kill your posse if they step foot on his land looking for your kid. Now what?

Problems like this are conveniently overlooked in the fantasy world without police.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah.... and when your child is kidnapped by Johnny Pedophile, don't call the cops..... right....


...and when they show up and shoot the dog and maybe rough up the wife, you'll feel like an Upstanding Citizen...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You just form yourself a posse and go looking. Problem is the pedophile has his own private security with tanks and will kill your posse if they step foot on his land looking for your kid. Now what?
> 
> Problems like this are conveniently overlooked in the fantasy world without police.


You know that cops aren't obligated to find your kid, yes?  Problems like this are conveniently overlooked in the fantasy world with police.

----------


## jllundqu

> ...and when they show up and shoot the dog and maybe rough up the wife, you'll feel like an Upstanding Citizen...


As someone who knows literally hundreds of cops, I would argue that those instances of police abuse are GREATLY outweighed by the good they do and the scumbags they arrest.  If my child was kidnapped, I know who I would call.  

DOn't get me wrong.  People tend to think if someone defends cops, they must advocate a total police state and like to lick boots in submission.  I am for the rule of law.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> As someone who knows literally hundreds of cops, I would argue that those instances of police abuse are GREATLY outweighed by the good they do and the scumbags they arrest.  If my child was kidnapped, I know who I would call.  
> 
> DOn't get me wrong.  People tend to think if someone defends cops, they must advocate a total police state and like to lick boots in submission.  *I am for the rule of law*.


Belief in police and rule of law are contradictory.  Police are above the law and break it without punishment regularly.  As I pointed out before, the courts at every level have ruled that cops have no obligation whatsoever to help you if they aren't so inclined.  If police were brought under the control of the Sheriff or held to some similar standard, you would have a point.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> That's not true. There is legal recourse in this country and it's easily accessible. If you file a lawsuit against the police, you will get your day in court and they will appear.


And if the courts fail to administer justice, suck up the blowback. It's the only check you seem to understand, so it will increase until your ilk find it unbearable.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

..

----------


## Cabal

> As someone who knows literally hundreds of cops, I would argue that those instances of police abuse are GREATLY outweighed by the good they do and the scumbags they arrest.  If my child was kidnapped, I know who I would call.


This isn't a personal thing, or concerned with the individuals who may be cops. Whether you 'know literally hundreds of cops' or not is entirely irrelevant, not to mention a likely exaggeration (unless you're definition of 'knowing' someone is really weak) that is also anecdotal anyway.

----------


## jllundqu

> This isn't a personal thing, or concerned with the individuals who may be cops. Whether you 'know literally hundreds of cops' or not is entirely irrelevant, not to mention a likely exaggeration (unless you're definition of 'knowing' someone is really weak) that is also anecdotal anyway.


My job brings me into contact with cops/feds all day every day on routine business.  All of them are honorable.  Most of them are oathkeepers and members of either militia or a posse outside of work.  The ones I call friends are very much a part of the liberty movement and resent the fact that bad cops give them a bad name.  I won't get into another "all cops are evil pigs" debate, however.  Re: the OP... No  I think (as a minarchist) that police are a necessary part of society.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My job brings me into contact with cops/feds all day every day on routine business.  All of them are honorable.  Most of them are oathkeepers and members of either militia or a posse outside of work.  The ones I call friends are very much a part of the liberty movement and resent the fact that bad cops give them a bad name.  I won't get into another "all cops are evil pigs" debate, however.  Re: the OP... No  I think (as a minarchist) that police are a necessary part of society.


This is called "reasoning from parts to whole". (with a dash of confirmation bias)  It is not a sufficient counterargument to your opponents' arguments, especially WRT constitutionality and rationality of police.

----------


## Danke

> My job brings me into contact with cops/feds all day every day on routine business.  All of them are honorable.  Most of them are oathkeepers and members of either militia or a posse outside of work.  The ones I call friends are very much a part of the liberty movement and resent the fact that bad cops give them a bad name.  I won't get into another "all cops are evil pigs" debate, however.  Re: the OP... No  I think (as a minarchist) that police are a necessary part of society.


That's nice, but they would be fired if they didn't enforce unjust regulations, codes, ordinances, etc.  You know, I know it, and they know it.

----------


## Danke

Befehl ist Befehl!

----------


## Cabal

> My job brings me into contact with cops/feds all day every day on routine business.  All of them are honorable.  Most of them are oathkeepers and members of either militia or a posse outside of work.  The ones I call friends are very much a part of the liberty movement and resent the fact that bad cops give them a bad name.  I won't get into another "all cops are evil pigs" debate, however.  Re: the OP... No  I think (as a minarchist) that police are a necessary part of society.


"Into contact" =/= knowing someone. But that wasn't even my primary point. This whole thing about the character of individual cops is a red herring, and a straw man, it has nothing to do with the objection most, if not all have with the idea of police being discussed here. And moreover, even if it had any relevance, your anecdotal testimony isn't worth much, one way or the other, anyway; and not just because you may have bias, either.

So, back on topic, shall we?

----------


## 69360

> This is called "reasoning from parts to whole". (with a dash of confirmation bias)  It is not a sufficient counterargument to your opponents' arguments, especially WRT constitutionality and rationality of police.


No, it's called being realistic.

----------


## fisharmor

> My job brings me into contact with cops/feds all  day every day on routine business.  All of them are honorable.  Most of  them are oathkeepers and members of either militia or a posse outside  of work.  The ones I call friends are very much a part of the liberty  movement and resent the fact that bad cops give them a bad name.


Resent?  Well, that's a start.  Do they intend to bring the murderers and muggers and rapists to justice?
If the overwhelming majority of them are "good guys", then surely cops who kill dogs indiscriminately would be fired, right?
If there are only a couple bad apples, surely the good guys would cull them from their force, right?

Right?




> I won't get into another "all cops are evil pigs" debate, however.


 That's wise, because you have no argument.  Bad cops exist.  Ergo there are no good cops.
QED.




> No, it's called being realistic.


Well, look, guy, Aristotelian logic is used every single day by  people who design the bridges you drive on, the medical equipment that  gets used to save lives, the computer you're typing on, the system that  generates your paycheck - literally everything that goes into your  functional standard of living is governed by it.

If it all of a sudden doesn't apply simply because you're losing an argument, then there's nothing more to say.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Well, look, guy, Aristotelian logic is used every single day by people who design the bridges you drive on, the medical equipment that  gets used to save lives, the computer you're typing on, the system that  generates your paycheck - literally everything that goes into your  functional standard of living is governed by it.
> 
> If it all of a sudden doesn't apply simply because you're losing an argument, then there's nothing more to say.


You can keep your "logic", and I'll just employ government to extort more money to fund more obsequious internet-posts like 69360's.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> You just form yourself a posse and go looking. Problem is the pedophile has his own private security with tanks and will kill your posse if they step foot on his land looking for your kid. Now what?
> 
> Problems like this are conveniently overlooked in the fantasy world without police.


Pedophiles with love-shacks defended by tanks?
Well ... that's certainly a "fantasy world," all right ...

----------


## DamianTV

> * fantasy world*


+Rep

There is no Accountable Authority when the determination of a Crime comes not from the action performed, but by the Person that committed the action.  It is Legally Authorized for Cops to kill with the intent to use Deadly Force, but we go to prison until the end of our natural born lives for the most trivial of offenses, like giving someone an Aspirin.

Its a classic case of the Fox watching the Hen House.  If Criminals (Thieves and Robbers, not Cops in this case) were expected to Self Convict, most people would expect that there would be an excessively low Conviction Rate.  Apply the same thinking to Cops when they break their own laws.  They do NOT Self Convict, and they do NOT hold themselves accountable for their Crimes.  It is the Foundation of the "Just Us System" because they are granted the ability to Self Convict.

Sheriffs have a Non Court Based form of Accountability by way of Election.  If the Law is supposed to be applied to every person equally, every person, including Cops, Criminals and the Ordinary Man must be able to be held accountable, and those that can be held accountable must also be able to hold the Law accountable.  It is when "Special Exceptions" are allowed that the power to Non Self Convict leads to Unaccountable Authority.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Well, look, guy, Aristotelian logic is used every single day by  people who design the bridges you drive on, the medical equipment that  gets used to save lives, the computer you're typing on, the system that  generates your paycheck - literally everything that goes into your  functional standard of living is governed by it.
> 
> If it all of a sudden doesn't apply simply because you're losing an argument, then there's nothing more to say.


That's SOP for 90210. When he's unable to make a counter-argument (which is usually), he just throws out a straw man - or dismisses what you've said as irrelevant because he "doesn't care what you think" - or accuses you of being "unrealistic" or living in a "fantasy world" - or some other rhetorical equivalent of chanting "neener-neener-neener" ...

----------


## DamianTV

To maintain the Peace, they Shoot to Kill!

----------


## osan

> My job brings me into contact with cops/feds all day every day on routine business.  All of them are honorable.  Most of them are oathkeepers and members of either militia or a posse outside of work.  The ones I call friends are very much a part of the liberty movement and resent the fact that bad cops give them a bad name.  I won't get into another "all cops are evil pigs" debate, however.  Re: the OP... No  I think (as a minarchist) that police are a necessary part of society.


This is anecdotally irrelevant, unless you can say you work directly with all such persons every day, which I am confident you cannot.

The issue is not whether the _people_ are good or bad.  The very fabric of the position is evil, particularly as currently instituted.  When good men are compelled to commit evil acts under orders, their goodness as men no longer matters.  Honorable hearts are irrelevant when their orders drive them to violate to sovereign rights of their fellows.  There were a lot of good men who joined with the NAZIs.  Note how "we were only following orders" failed them as a defense.  But the cops are worse than this because they have the option of saying "no", yet they refuse because they want to keep their jobs.  Therefore, for those "good men" the bottom line is that their next paycheck is more important to them than the rights of others.

You say the people with whom you work are honorable, but are they really?  Do they refuse all orders that would of necessity result in them violating the rights of others?  I'd bet money I don't have that they do not.


You assert that police are "necessary".  Based on what?  Making the assertion as you have is not terribly unlike walking into a stranger's kitchen, taking a great big dump in the middle of the floor and then running away.  It's a little difficult to make sense of it.  So tell us why you think police are necessary.

----------


## donnay

> You just form yourself a posse and go looking. Problem is the pedophile has his own private security with tanks and will kill your posse if they step foot on his land looking for your kid. Now what?
> 
> Problems like this are conveniently overlooked in the fantasy world without police.


So the police will save the day?  You really have to be joking.  Besides when we are talking kidnapping it is the other standing army, the F-B-I who claim jurisdiction on kidnapping cases.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> You just form yourself a posse and go looking. Problem is the pedophile has his own private security with tanks and will kill your posse if they step foot on his land looking for your kid. Now what?
> 
> Problems like this are conveniently overlooked in the fantasy world without police.


Yeah, because the pedophile is rich enough to afford both his own massive security force and tanks, and all of the maintenance costs associated with them.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> So, something about their name starting in "s" instead of "p" makes them incapable of hiring an appropriately sized workforce and keeping the peace in urban areas?  I wasn't aware that letters of the alphabet made that big of an impact, really...


This right here.

----------


## 69360

> Yeah, because the pedophile is rich enough to afford both his own massive security force and tanks, and all of the maintenance costs associated with them.


Micheal Jackson was and had enough money to buy off his victims families. 

Any other scenarios you'd like debunked today?

----------


## fr33

> My job brings me into contact with cops/feds all day every day on routine business.  All of them are honorable.  Most of them are oathkeepers and members of either militia or a posse outside of work.  The ones I call friends are very much a part of the liberty movement and resent the fact that bad cops give them a bad name.  I won't get into another "all cops are evil pigs" debate, however.  Re: the OP... No  I think (as a minarchist) that police are a necessary part of society.


If they aren't enforcing unconstitutional laws, then 99% of them are retired. Are 99% of those you encounter "routinely" retired? If not, you're full of $#@!.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Micheal Jackson was and had enough money to buy off his victims families. 
> 
> Any other scenarios you'd like debunked today?


Micheal Jackson didn't have a weaponized tank. If he was allowed to, it is just as likely others would have weaponized tanks as well. Without police it is likely Micheal Jackson would have faced an angry mob and if tanks were involved, a well armed and regulated militia of the voluntary kind.

----------


## Henry Rogue

And I reject that Buford Pusser was a hero.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Exactly what percentage of abducted children do cops find?
> 
> I'd be interested in the numbers broken down by agency, local, county, state and feds.


And further break it down to the cases of which the people were responsible for the solving of the child abduction or for safely returning the child to parents.

----------


## Danke

Can the following members please write their police departments and tell them, if I am not hurting anyone else, to leave me alone?

No, leave me a $#@!ing alone!


    69360,
    Bohner,
    brandon,
    bwlibertyman,
    eduardo89,
    erowe1,
    FrankRep,
    GunnyFreedom,
    gwax23,
    Jeremy,
    jllundqu,
    MRoCkEd,
    mtr1979,
    qh4dotcom,
    surf,
    TaftFan,
    Theocrat,
    Traditional Conservative,
    Tywysog Cymru,
    Varin

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> As someone who knows literally hundreds of cops, I would argue that those instances of police abuse are GREATLY outweighed by the good they do and the scumbags they arrest.  If my child was kidnapped, I know who I would call.  
> 
> DOn't get me wrong.  People tend to think if someone defends cops, they must advocate a total police state and like to lick boots in submission.  I am for the rule of law.


83% of all arrests are for victimless "crimes."

If you know, say, two hundred cops, I'd say _conservatively_ 166 of them are worthless and ought to get real goddamn jobs instead of the leeching of actual productivity from what I can only amount to describe as their hosts.

Not to mention I haven't heard a single peep from any officer, PD or otherwise, condemning the murder of David Silva. Where are these "good" cops that I keep hearing about? Surely they'd want to be on record condemning the atrocities committed by their brethren and reinforcing the fact that they don't agree with said atrocities. Hell, or take it a step farther and have them actually do their jobs. You know, _arrest the scumbags_. My libertarian fantasy world, I know. The police will keep beating, shooting, running over, suffocating or in other ways murdering people with impunity and the people who profit, who served, who are related to or who wear the same gang colors will continue to make excuses. That is, if they're not participating in the murders, thefts, robberies, beatings, tortures, -_ crimes_ (not the majority of the $#@! they arrest the "scumbags" for) - in more flagrant manners.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

For good measure.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t=police+abuse

----------


## Red Green

> Not keep as is. We don't need cops in kevlar with tanks and automatic weapons. Just a reasonable force to uphold the laws.


We don't need government police forces.  Policing should be privatized.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> In the end, what we call “the economy” is just people doing stuff, engaged in productive activity, providing goods and services for each other. Over the centuries the state, along with the corporations and other rent-extracting economic institutions it upholds, have hijacked a major share of this productive activity and preempted the channels within which it takes place, so that many people produce goods and services for their fellows within an exploitative institutional framework. Their production of goods and services, which would naturally be governed by cooperative labor and peaceful exchange, is instead subject to the control of states and rent-extracting institutions like corporations whose monopoly powers derive from state coercion.
> These people are not our enemies. Many of them are simply people who find it fulfilling to teach kids, save homes from fires, and the like, and — like even most hard-core anarchists at one time — just take the existing system and its self-proclaimed naturalness and inevitability at face value.



http://c4ss.org/content/21746?utm_so...+Commentary%29

----------


## Mini-Me

I definitely support abolishing police departments as entities accountable only to city governments.  At the very least, they should be rolled up into county sheriff's departments run by an elected sheriff, and they should be limited to incident response, handling criminal investigations, and handling search/arrest warrants instead of constantly going out looking for trouble.  Moreover:
They should enjoy absolutely no privileges or immunities private citizens do not.  Want to be a cop (well, sheriff's deputy)?  Well, that comes with a lot of responsibility, so you'd better be on your best behavior at all times.They should be held accountable for unjust arrests (that is, arrests not following from a warrant or followed by a grand jury indictment for a real crime) and their conduct during arrests.  Resisting arrest should not be a crime in and of itself, and anyone should be able to press civil or criminal charges for unjust arrest, which juries can decide based on the circumstances and severity.Arrests of dangerous suspects should be handled by stakeouts, and nothing remotely resembling a SWAT team should ever be used for anything less grave than a full-blown hostage situation."Internal affairs" should be handled by an internal department dedicated to protecting the sheriff department's image (as it is with police departments).  Instead, it should be handled by an elected committee of citizens, each of which has the authority to independently investigate any incident (requiring full departmental cooperation) and bring charges against the sheriff, deputies, or department.  (Actually, anyone should be able to bring charges.)

Since voluntaryism will only ever realistically emerge from a gradually dismantled minarchy, the question of replacing sheriff's departments with private agencies is a matter that can be handled a couple hundred years from now, when we finally get to the point where the public will tolerate it or even comprehend the debate.

----------


## I<3Liberty

No. This is the kind of stuff that makes people see libertarians as wacky nuts. People (including myself) take comfort in knowing no matter where we are at my uni, at least one emergency button is visible and police are no less than 3-5 minutes away. Some people are like "Oh, you should protect yourself. What will happen within those 3-5 minutes?" 1) I weigh like 108 pounds. 2) Weapons (even for self-protection) are prohibited at my uni and many other areas. Either way, I'd much rather have someone thoroughly trained take hold of such matters. 

That being said, I do agree that some police have abused their power and gone overboard. Not all police are like this, though. I know three libertarians and libertarian-republicans that want to become cops.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

By prohibiting an armed government in their state and federal bills of rights, the revolutionary Americans of 1776 attempted to retain an important extra check--one extra veto--on the monopoly state.  

I think this veto is in the same important class as jury nullification in the way that it is a direct check by the people on the government compared to the "checks and balances" where various departments of the government are supposed to check each other.  Just as with juries where the state must go directly to the people before it can cage or kill somebody, so it is with the militia where the state must go directly to non-government people before it can call an armed throng into action for any purpose.

But as with juries, the militia is very likely to go along with whatever rotten adventures the government asks it to do.  Just look at how Hamilton and Washington easily called out the militias to steal taxes from the Whiskey rebels in 1794.

Non-monopoly state voluntarism is far preferable of course to all of these cracies and archies.  But why not teach people about juries, standing armies, and the militia when the history is sticking out like a sore thumb and everybody just reads past it like its some obsolete ceremonial stuff that we don't even need to bother to repeal?

I get a kick out of pointing this out to people who fashion themselves as "traditional conservatives"--the same kind who like to sneer at liberals, "What part of 'not infringed' don't you understand?"  They read right past the beginning part about a militia being the proper defense of a free state like its not even there.  You'd think they'd be embarrassed by adopting a position which is essentially:  Times have changed, the constitutional prohibitions on standing armies are obsolete, and we don't need to repeal anything because as the most belligerent of Boobus Americanus often say, "that's how we roll."

----------


## 69360

> Can the following members please write their police departments and tell them, if I am not hurting anyone else, to leave me alone?
> 
> No, leave me a $#@!ing alone!
> 
> 
>     69360,
>     Bohner,
>     brandon,
>     bwlibertyman,
> ...


Sorry I don't talk to the cops for any reason. I may think they are necessary, but don't want to interact with or rely on them personally.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> No. This is the kind of stuff that makes people see libertarians as wacky nuts.


It's this kind of stuff that makes me see the majority of people as authoritarians.

----------


## 69360

> We don't need government police forces.  Policing should be privatized.


What if my pretend private cops kill your pretend private cops and I don't like you so much? Then what?

----------


## Danke

> Sorry I don't talk to the cops for any reason. I may think they are necessary, but don't want to interact with or rely on them personally.


I have to laugh.  "I'm afraid of interacting with cops, but they are a force for good."

I have some boots that need polishing.

I try to avoid them also, but do confront them once and a while.  I gave them the finger not too long ago, wow, what a response I got from that.

They really gained my respect.

----------


## otherone

Abolish police and mandate that everyone be armed.  Actually, keep the police ONLY if everyone else is armed.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Can the following members please write their police departments and tell them, if I am not hurting anyone else, to leave me alone?
> 
> No, leave me a $#@!ing alone!
> 
> 
>     69360,
>     Bohner,
>     brandon,
>     bwlibertyman,
> ...


First tell me why you want to send federal troops in to disarm my state?  Wouldn't that be an act of war?

----------


## fr33

> Sorry I don't talk to the cops for any reason. I may think they are necessary, but don't want to interact with or rely on them personally.


That's because you are an ass-kissing, hand-wringing, hypocritical, pussy.

----------


## Danke

> First tell me why you want to send federal troops in to disarm my state?  Wouldn't that be an act of war?


lol.  So because I'm against corporate cops, therefore I am in favor of federal troops?  I know, you are an ex-marine, so I can kinda understand your "reasoning."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> lol.  So because I'm against corporate cops, therefore I am in favor of federal troops?  I know, you are an ex-marine, so I can kinda understand your "reasoning."


Well, you accused me of getting my cops to bother you on account of how I oppose being disarmed by the feds.  So I took your criticism as favoring my state being disarmed by the feds.  Don't you read?  or do you just sail from assumption to assumption?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

As I explained, I am not in favor of 'abolishing' the police, because that would require armies coming out of Washington DC to invade the 50 States and use deadly force to make sure the States are not going to be allowed to do any policing.  Instead of advocating an aggressive war like 72% of y'all apparently want, I would instead make every "law enforcement" everything from Secret Service and FBI down to municipal beat cop all answer to the County Sheriff, and make the Sheriff publish to voters a Constitutional justification for every law enforcement action taken in his county by anybody.

So from where I sit, it's the 72% who want to see Washington DC fly tanks and A-10's and drop mortars on the rest of the States in order to abolish something that those states clearly have no desire to abolish.  Hey, we LOVE liberty and all that as long as it's OUR liberty and nobody else gets to be free.  That would be such a bummer man if other people got to be free too.

----------


## Danke

> Well, you accused me of getting my cops to bother you on account of how I oppose being disarmed by the feds.  So I took your criticism as favoring my state being disarmed by the feds.  Don't you read?  or do you just sail from assumption to assumption?


Well, the question was "Are you in favor of abolishing the police?"  Not Sheriffs.  Anyone who knows anything about the subject realizes "police" are our modern day corporate law enforcement officers.  They work for the corporate state and the because of that, the federal government, as a subdivision.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> What if my pretend private cops kill your pretend private cops and I don't like you so much? Then what?


While all our pretend private cops are busy shooting at each other, a phalanx of pedophiles with tanks rolls in, kills all the adults, and carries off all the children ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, the question was "Are you in favor of abolishing the police?"  Not Sheriffs.  Anyone who knows anything about the subject realizes "police" are our modern day corporate law enforcement officers.  They work for the corporate state and the because of that, the federal government, as a subdivision.


And I am not in favor of 'abolishing' them, because that would require a hot-war by Washington DC upon the States to accomplish.  Instead, I would completely subjugate the police to the Sheriffs sole authority.  You could do that without a war.

----------


## Cabal

> No. This is the kind of stuff that makes people see libertarians as wacky nuts. People (including myself) take comfort in knowing no matter where we are at my uni, at least one emergency button is visible and police are no less than 3-5 minutes away. Some people are like "Oh, you should protect yourself. What will happen within those 3-5 minutes?" 1) I weigh like 108 pounds. 2) Weapons (even for self-protection) are prohibited at my uni and many other areas. Either way, I'd much rather have someone thoroughly trained take hold of such matters. 
> 
> That being said, I do agree that some police have abused their power and gone overboard. Not all police are like this, though. I know three libertarians and libertarian-republicans that want to become cops.


1. At 108 lbs, you can still squeeze a trigger.
2. Well would you look at that? GFZ further empowering the police monopoly, and furthering your dependence on them. How convenient.

As for what people think, if they think we're 'wacky nuts' for holding a logically sound, consistent, empirically reinforced, and valid position, then they aren't the kind of people I want agreeing with me anyway. I'm not going to pander to or suffer sheep, or irrational, illogical, intellectually bankrupt fools.

If police were abolished, the security services market would likely explode with competition, offering you much better alternatives in all likelihood. And if you think your uni wouldn't employ one of those alternatives, you're mistaken. 

Overboard? That's putting it mildly, at best. Again, this isn't about the character of individual police offers--like any other individual, 'goodness' will vary. That's not the point.

----------


## 69360

> That's because you are an ass-kissing, hand-wringing, hypocritical, pussy.


When your argument has failed resort to name calling, it's always an effective strategy.

----------


## 69360

> 1. At 108 lbs, you can still squeeze a trigger.
> 2. Well would you look at that? GFZ further empowering the police monopoly, and furthering your dependence on them. How convenient.
> 
> As for what people think, if they think we're 'wacky nuts' for holding a logically sound, consistent, empirically reinforced, and valid position, then they aren't the kind of people I want agreeing with me anyway. I'm not going to pander to or suffer sheep, or irrational, illogical, intellectually bankrupt fools.
> 
> If police were abolished, the security services market would likely explode with competition, offering you much better alternatives in all likelihood. And if you think your uni wouldn't employ one of those alternatives, you're mistaken. 
> 
> Overboard? That's putting it mildly, at best. Again, this isn't about the character of individual police offers--like any other individual, 'goodness' will vary. That's not the point.


You call them security services, I call them mercenaries and warlords. How well did that work out in various African and central asian  countries. I'm sure you'd be very happy in Somalia or Afghanistan what with all the "private security".

Let's face it this whole no police thing only works in your circle jerk fantasy world. Nobody here wants abusive militarized police, but we need police to have a civilized society.

----------


## Cabal

> You call them security services, I call them mercenaries and warlords. How well did that work out in various African and central asian  countries. I'm sure you'd be very happy in Somalia or Afghanistan what with all the "private security".


^^^ Last resort of every statist who fails in the face of anti-statism. Predictable ignorance is predictable and ignorant. 

90210, that second paragraph in the quote is for you.

----------


## Danke

> And I am not in favor of 'abolishing' them, because that would require a hot-war by Washington DC upon the States to accomplish.  Instead, I would completely subjugate the police to the Sheriffs sole authority.  You could do that without a war.


OK, I agree with that.  How do you accomplish it?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> OK, I agree with that.  How do you accomplish it?


First we need to go through and re-tune this draft for principle compliance, and then get State legislatures to introduce and pass it.




> *Sheriff's First and Gun Rights Protection Act*
> *SECTION 1.*
> 
> Declarations of authority. – The General Assembly declares that the authority for this act is the following:
> 
> (1) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the State and people of North Carolina certain powers as they were understood at the time that North Carolina adopted the Constitution in November 1789. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the State and people of North Carolina and the United States whereupon North Carolina was the first state to ratify following the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, without which it would not have been adopted, and the violation of said amendments usurps the principles whereupon North Carolina joined the Union on November 21, 1789.
> 
> (2) The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution and reserves to the people of North Carolina certain rights as they were understood at the time that North Carolina adopted the Constitution in 1789. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the State and people of North Carolina and the United States as of the time that the United States Constitution was agreed upon and adopted by North Carolina in 1789.
> 
> ...


ETA - In other words, yes, I don't just say all this crazy stuff, I've been working it for a while.

----------


## Danke

> First we need to go through and re-tune this draft for principle compliance, and then get State legislatures to introduce and pass it.


OK, you are way ahead of me.  Not bad for an ex-marine.  I'm just a spear chucker here.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> You call them security services, I call them mercenaries and warlords. How well did that work out in various African and central asian  countries. I'm sure you'd be very happy in Somalia or Afghanistan what with all the "private security".
> 
> Let's face it this whole no police thing only works in your circle jerk fantasy world. Nobody here wants abusive militarized police, but we need police to have a civilized society.


You call them police. I call them uniformed thugs with badges. How well did that work out in various European and Eurasian countries? I'm sure you'd be happy in Nazi/East Germany or the Soviet Union, what with all the "public security."

Let's face it. This whole "police" thing only works in your circle jerk fantasy world.

_(Ain't straw-manning fun?)_

----------


## Danke

> You call them police. I call them uniformed thugs with badges. How well did that work out in various European and Eurasian countries? I'm sure you'd be happy in Nazi/East Germany or the Soviet Union, what with all the "public security."
> 
> Let's face it. This whole "police" thing only works in your circle jerk fantasy world.
> 
> _(Ain't straw-manning fun?)_


Befehl ist Befehl!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> OK, you are way ahead of me.  Not bad for an ex-marine.  I'm just a spear chucker here.


LOL not hardly, but my primary point was that a 'no' may not necessarily mean what people think a 'no' means on this poll.  Poll is flawed.  There are probably lots of people who voted 'yes' in the poll who would stop short of going all Lincoln on the 50 States to make them quit policing.  Too much grey area in the poll, too many unstated assumptions.  If one could just wave a magic wand and eliminate everything BUT Sheriffs without spilling a drop of blood, sure, maybe, but you still have to address the town of Podunk Iowa wanting to keep their town cops and are we going to use force to make them comply with the new rules?  My method makes Podunk Iowa irrelevant, and pursues to (nearly) the same goal.

----------


## Mini-Me

> You call them security services, I call them mercenaries and warlords. How well did that work out in various African and central asian  countries. I'm sure you'd be very happy in Somalia or Afghanistan what with all the "private security".
> 
> Let's face it this whole no police thing only works in your circle jerk fantasy world. Nobody here wants abusive militarized police, but we need police to have a civilized society.


Your position is too far away from the anarchist position for you to properly conceptualize it in its entirety.  Instead, let's try taking things one step at a time and see where you start disagreeing:
Would you object to rolling police departments (accountable to cities, not constituents) into county sheriffs' departments to make them accountable to constituents?Would you object to limiting them to incident response, handling criminal investigations, and handling search/arrest warrants instead of constantly going out looking for trouble (like beat cops)?Would you object to any other limitations mentioned in my post above (e.g. no privileges and immunities, and SWAT teams should be for hostage situations only)?
If you're on board with all that, we're basically back to an Andy Griffith-ish society with peace officers instead of a police state with unaccountable bands of thugs.  So far, so good.  If you're not, then are you really sure you don't want militarized police? 

Now, in truth, the main difference between this Andy Griffith-ish society and an anarcho-capitalist society has much more to do with privatizing the law itself (that courts abide by) than privatizing police.  After all, consider a society where the state still has a monopoly on the courts and law, but the police (or sheriff's) legitimate duties are outsourced to the private sector one by one:
Even in our own society, we already have people like Dog the Bounty Hunter who serve things like arrest warrants.  You can already see how this works in the real world today, and it's not so bad.  They're not cops, but they're held accountable to the law and courts (actually, it's more like they're held accountable to the law and courts *because* they're not cops).  They also don't go around killing each other in the course of their competition, despite the lucrative reality show opportunities that might present.Even in our own society, we have private investigators and private labs, so it shouldn't be too hard to conceive of private agencies handling investigations without complete mayhem.Similarly, consider companies like AAA that respond to emergencies on the road: Is it really so hard to conceive of 911 services (incident response) being handled by competing agencies without complete mayhem?  If two agencies are called by different people (e.g. George Zimmerman and Travyon Martin), don't you think they'd be more likely to jointly deescalate and resolve a situation like adults instead of senselessly shooting it out for no good reason?  After all, they were called up to ensure the safety of the caller in an emergency situation, not to wage war on the caller's behalf.  (That costs extra...like, a lot extra. )  If nothing else, each agency can arrest the other caller and let the courts sort it out, and both will still be paid.  Realistically, it would look a lot more like sheriffs' deputies from neighboring counties showing up in response to different calls than it would look like the Bloods and Crips. What about hostage situations?  Is there really much of a difference between SWAT teams and mercenaries, except that mercenaries wouldn't be given a pass by the courts when they kill the wrong people?On the matter of funding:  As a libertarian, I'm sure you can recognize the usefulness of insurance companies in mitigating the cost of rare risks like fires, floods, thefts, unexpected health crises, etc.  Would it be so much of a stretch to think that police services, fire department services, etc. could fall under the same means of funding?
Put in those terms, hopefully you can see the trickiest issue for social stability isn't privatizing police at all, because you can have privatized police who are still answerable to a monopolistic rule of law.  In terms of social stability, the trickiest issue with anarcho-capitalism is actually privatizing courts and law, and that's a totally separate debate for another day.

----------


## 69360

> Your position is too far away from the anarchist position for you to properly conceptualize it in its entirety.  Instead, let's try taking things one step at a time and see where you start disagreeing:
> Would you object to rolling police departments (accountable to cities, not constituents) into county sheriff's departments?Would you object to limiting them to incident response, handling criminal investigations, and handling search/arrest warrants instead of constantly going out looking for trouble (like beat cops)?Would you object to any other limitations mentioned in my post above (e.g. no privileges and immunities, and SWAT teams should be for hostage situations only)?
> If you're on board with all that, we're basically back to an Andy Griffith-ish society with peace officers instead of a police state with unaccountable bands of thugs.  So far, so good.  If you're not, then are you really sure you don't want militarized police? 
> 
> Now, in truth, the main difference between this Andy Griffith-ish society and an anarcho-capitalist society has much more to do with privatizing the law itself (that courts abide by) than privatizing police.  After all, consider a society where the state still has a monopoly on the courts and law, but the police (or sheriff's) legitimate duties are outsourced to the private sector one by one:
> Even in our own society, we already have people like Dog the Bounty Hunter who serve things like arrest warrants.  You can already see how this works in the real world today, and it's not so bad.  They're not cops, but they're held accountable to the law and courts (actually, it's more like they're held accountable to the law and courts *because* they're not cops).  They also don't go around killing each other in the course of their competition, despite the lucrative reality show opportunities that might present.Even in our own society, we have private investigators and private labs, so it shouldn't be too hard to conceive of private agencies handling investigations without complete mayhem.Similarly, consider companies like AAA that respond to emergencies on the road: Is it really so hard to conceive of 911 services (incident response) being handled by competing agencies without complete mayhem?  If two agencies are called by different people (e.g. George Zimmerman and Travyon Martin), don't you think they'd be more likely to jointly deescalate and resolve a situation like adults instead of senselessly shooting it out for no good reason?  After all, they were called up to ensure the safety of the caller in an emergency situation, not to wage war on the caller's behalf.  If nothing else, each agency can arrest the other caller and let the courts sort it out, and both will still be paid.  Realistically, it would look a lot more like sheriffs' deputies from neighboring counties showing up in response to different calls than it would look like the Bloods and Crips. What about hostage situations?  Is there really much of a difference between SWAT teams and mercenaries, except that mercenaries wouldn't be given a pass by the courts when they kill the wrong people?On the matter of funding:  As a libertarian, I'm sure you can recognize the usefulness of insurance companies in mitigating the cost of rare risks like fires, floods, thefts, unexpected health crises, etc.  Would it be so much of a stretch to think that police services, fire department services, etc. could fall under the same means of funding?
> Put in those terms, hopefully you can see the trickiest issue for social stability isn't privatizing police at all, because you can have privatized police who are still answerable to a monopolistic rule of law.  In terms of social stability, the trickiest issue with anarcho-capitalism is actually privatizing courts and law, and that's a totally separate debate for another day.


Why would heavily armed private mercenaries be accountable to the courts or legal system? Who is going to enforce the laws on them? That's the fatal flaw in your anarchist paradise.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Why would heavily armed private mercenaries be accountable to the courts or legal system? Who is going to enforce the laws on them? That's the fatal flaw in your anarchist paradise.


First, I'm not exactly an anarcho-capitalist myself, let alone a utopian anarcho-capitalist (of which there are few).  I'm just trying to promote some rational understanding here, because there's far too much misunderstanding going around, and it bothers me that minarchists and anarchists are always at each others' throats.  Now, back to actual discussion:

In today's society, heavily armed citizens already outgun the police by a wide margin.  Why don't the Los Zetas run roughshod over the LAPD (for instance) and take them all out in a violent coup to establish their dominion?  Well, for one, the national guard or military would step in to restore law and order...or the militia, if we lived in a society with no standing army.  After all, if we had no standing army, the militia (loosely unified by a shared love of country and its founding principles) would undoubtedly be more prominent and serve as the primary means of protecting the country as a whole from armed threats to the peace.  Public or private, the police are always going to be outgunned by the military or militia.

That's dodging the larger issue though, because you might wonder what would happen if the private sector took over national defense as well, and it was a mixture of militia and military tech companies.  So, let's address this separate but equally interesting dilemma with another comparison to today's world: Private citizens in our world don't just outgun the LAPD and the sum total of all police departments.  Private citizens also already outgun the military too (except that only the military can nuke the whole land into oblivion to keep anyone at all from living out of spite ), and we don't see powerful political factions taking over Washington, DC by force.  You can't really say it's because there aren't enough people around with a unified goal, because there are enough armed and disgruntled Republicans alone to storm DC and end Obamacare (for example).  So...why don't they?  Why doesn't the RNC command this of its loyal hordes of minions?   I think it's primarily for the following two reasons:
Few people really enjoy the thought of an enormous firefight.  Government police or not, it's not trivial to pull together a singular group of thugs willing to flout the law and overpower all of the others in a violent coup.The vast majority of people recognize and uphold the authority of law, and they wouldn't really take kindly to the Bloods and Crips trying to subjugate their neighborhoods and longstanding laws and traditions by force, with no plausible mask of legitimacy.  If there's anything that would mobilize the populace at large into fighting back, it would be something like that.  The only reason we put up with abuse from cops today is because too many of us have been indoctrinated to believe they're legitimate instruments of the law itself.

----------


## Danke

///

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why would heavily armed private *mercenaries* be accountable to the courts or legal system? Who is going to enforce the laws on them? That's the fatal flaw in your anarchist paradise.


The way you (mis)use this word tells me you don't know what it means.  It seems you ought to do some more study before debating this issue.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> This is the kind of stuff that makes people see libertarians as wacky nuts.


Only mental defectives see it that way.

----------


## Working Poor

I am sitting on the fence with this one because I do think that knowing there are LEO does deter some crime. I do wish they would stop killing puppies and unarmed people though.

----------


## Cabal

> I am sitting on the fence with this one because I do think that knowing there are LEO does deter some crime. I do wish they would stop killing puppies and unarmed people though.


How so?

If it weren't for the DEA, and other police agents, do you think the drug laws would remain as they are now? Without a bloated police force, how would the State be able to enforce these kinds of ridiculous, non-violent, victimless crimes? In fact, you could even make the case that it is, at least in part, for the purpose of growing the police-state and making the police relevant that these things have even become and remained criminalized. These sorts of 'crimes' and 'criminals' account for the vast majority of the prison population.

In effect, what you get is someone thrown into a violent world of criminality, subject to all manner of brutality, for a non-violent, victimless crime. It's a breeding program from criminality. 

Now think about the prohibition of drugs, and how that helps facilitate criminal gangs and organizations. It has happened with alcohol in the past, and it's been happening with drugs for a while now. Due to their criminalization, cartels have been able to dominate the black market of the drug industry, and use it as a source of funding for their criminal activities. 

Then, of course, there's the monopolization, dependency, and disarming issue. 

So does it really deter crime? Or does it create significantly more crime than would otherwise exist?

----------


## Origanalist

> Out of ammo.   Somebody give this guy a +rep for me, plz.


My pleasure.

----------


## pcosmar

> Just a reasonable force to uphold the laws.


What laws?

Exactly what laws do they need to enforce,, that the people as a whole will not enforce by themselves?

Gun Laws? Contraband? Revenue collection? Prohibition?

What laws exactly?

The people themselves (armed) are all the force that is needed. They will "enforce the law" locally..
They will band together against threats to the peace and security of their local communities.

They did so before the invention of police. They will if allowed to do so.

----------


## fisharmor

> I am sitting on the fence with this one  because I do think that knowing there are LEO does deter some  crime.


Every state in the union has law enforcement officers.  So there are 50 to choose from if you want to talk numbers.
Not  every state has widespread gun ownership.  Few states have permissive  concealed carry laws.  Fewer states have permissive open carry.

The  correlation between permissive gun laws and low crime isn't debatable.   If it was, then the gun grabbers would discuss facts on the matter and  bring up crime statistics.  But they don't, because they can't, because  crime statistics clearly favor permissive gun laws.

On the other hand, we don't have *any* data on how policing deters crime.  
Did you know that there isn't even a statistic for how many _people_ police kill while on duty?
Let's  ignore the moral travesty involved there for a second.  Don't you think  the number of people police kill would have the tiniest significance in  determining whether or not they're effective at deterring crime?

One strategy - arming the populace - has clear statistics and clear successes.
The  other strategy - policing - has no statistics, no clear successes, and a  pile of dead people, dead dogs, stolen property, overflowing prisons  full of people who had the wrong plants in their possession, and a  definite social caste system.

I'm not talking to 90210 anymore because he's admitted openly in post 248 that he has Stockholm Syndrome.   But I hope you can see that we don't have much of a reason to assume  they do anything effective other than collect taxes and kill puppies and  unarmed people.

----------


## tod evans

> But I hope you can see that we don't have much of a reason to assume  they do anything effective other than collect taxes and kill puppies and  unarmed people.


The children man!

Who do you call when your child is............................?

----------


## Origanalist

> And I reject that Buford Pusser was a hero.


Wyatt Earp too......

----------


## fisharmor

> Who do you call when your child is............................?









This "protection of our kids" is especially good, and unfortunately is in my home state....








Who do you call when your child is getting brutalized on the sidewalk?

And this is just the skateboarding videos.

Fine $#@!ing job they're doing protecting our kids.

----------


## tod evans

But, but..................The argument was made deeper in this thread that we _neeeeed_ the police if a child is abducted..

Somehow I just don't see pedophiles running rampant once the citizenry is unleashed on them.

----------


## tod evans

In all this "what-if" discussion nobody has asked the question;

What would the enforcer class do to provide for their families?

Realistically we're looking at a several million member gang that has extorted their existence through brutality and coercion for decades. If they were defunded I can't see the lot of 'em taking on productive work.

----------


## Origanalist

> Why would heavily armed private mercenaries be accountable to the courts or legal system? Who is going to enforce the laws on them? That's the fatal flaw in your anarchist paradise.


The fatal flaw in your statist paradise is that you think that 

1. Police are held accountable.
2. That police are there to protect people and keep them safe.

----------


## Cabal

> In all this "what-if" discussion nobody has asked the question;
> 
> What would the enforcer class do to provide for their families?
> 
> Realistically we're looking at a several million member gang that has extorted their existence through brutality and coercion for decades. If they were defunded I can't see the lot of 'em taking on productive work.


Security services, to name one.

In a very disconnected way, as it relates to the market, labor is a resource, and it comes from people. So where that resource is no longer required in one area, those resources may then be allocated to an area where there is demand for them. With the abolition of police, it stands to reason the market for security services would increase dramatically, and that market would demand labor.

This happens with industrialization and technological advancement too. When a machine takes over the labor that people used to produce, those people migrate to another sector, either previous or emerging, which demands labor.

----------


## tod evans

> Security services, to name one.
> 
> In a very disconnected way, as it relates to the market, labor is a resource, and it comes from people. So where that resource is no longer required in one area, those resources may then be allocated to an area where there is demand for them. With the abolition of police, it stands to reason the market for security services would increase dramatically, and that market would demand labor.
> 
> This happens with industrialization and technological advancement too. When a machine takes over the labor that people used to produce, those people migrate to another sector, either previous or emerging, which demands labor.


So your suggestion is to retain the services of the same corrupt bunch of hoodlums just give them a more palatable name and pay them from different coffers?

----------


## Cabal

> So your suggestion is to retain the services of the same corrupt bunch of hoodlums just give them a more palatable name and pay them from different coffers?


I think to say that all police officers are evil and corrupt is a fallacy.

Most people believe they are in service of good, and against evil. This applies to police, politicians, voters, and all other sorts.

One way of showing people that monopolized violence is unnecessary, unproductive, and wrong is by demonstration.

----------


## osan

> In all this "what-if" discussion nobody has asked the question;
> 
> What would the enforcer class do to provide for their families?
> 
> Realistically we're looking at a several million member gang that has extorted their existence through brutality and coercion for decades. If they were defunded I can't see the lot of 'em taking on productive work.



Who cares?  Not my problem.  When one turns mugger,  let them face the muzzle in the manner they so casually employed against others.  I have no concern for the welfare of such persons because they are not fit for it.

----------


## tod evans

> Who cares?  Not my problem.  When one turns mugger,  let them face the muzzle in the manner they so casually employed against others.  I have no concern for the welfare of such persons because they are not fit for it.


I certainly don't care but I was hoping to get a few others thinking.....

----------


## donnay

The other problem I have with the standing army, is if you defend yourself against them and they go down, you now have a capital offense hanging over your head.

----------


## fisharmor

> Realistically we're looking at a several  million  member gang that has extorted their existence through brutality  and  coercion for decades. If they were defunded I can't see the lot of  'em  taking on productive work.


This idea applies equally to all state parasites.

The money they take home as pay is a fraction of what these state functions actually cost.
Here  is a universal axiom regarding state employees: they do harm by  taking  this money home, but the greater harm is what they do while on  the job.

I submit that the easiest way to get rid of police, or the EPA, or the IRS, or any other state agency, is simply to _pay them to go away._
Tell  them that they are losing their jobs, but they will get paid 60%  of  their salaries if they simply don't show up for work ever again.

ETA of course they're free to go get other jobs, but wiping up the  Slurpee machine can raise a family if you're also getting paid $60k in  go-away money.

Shutter and sell off the offices, auction off the cruisers, surplus the  guns, and that pays for at least the first year of salaries.

In  20 years, nobody is left.  In those 20 years, the harm they do is  not  being done, and people are left to be productive.  Standard of  living  rises, and the fact that we're continuing to subsidize parasites  is a  small burden which eventually disappears totally.

----------


## tod evans

> The other problem I have with the standing army, is if you defend yourself against them and they go down, you now have a capital offense hanging over your head.


Once a person makes a stand they're dead, when they die is the question......

----------


## tod evans

> This idea applies equally to all state parasites.
> 
> The money they take home as pay is a fraction of what these state functions actually cost.
> Here  is a universal axiom regarding state employees: they do harm by taking  this money home, but the greater harm is what they do while on the job.
> 
> I submit that the easiest way to get rid of police, or the EPA, or the IRS, or any other state agency, is simply to _pay them to go away._
> Tell  them that they are losing their jobs, but they will get paid 60% of  their salaries if they simply don't show up for work ever again.
> 
> Shutter and sell off the offices, auction off the cruisers, surplus the guns, and that pays for at least the first year of salaries.
> ...


This could actually work for the small percentage who are in it for the money.

The ones who are in it for the power would never acquiesce...

----------


## fisharmor

> This could actually work for the small percentage who are in it for the money.
> 
> The ones who are in it for the power would never acquiesce...


I think most people are like me.  They have jobs that the kind of like, but daydream about doing something else.
And that something else is universally something that won't pay the bills.

I  would be a professional armorer in a heartbeat, if I could raise a  family on the $30k a year I might be able to eke out of that.
If I was taking home 60% of my current pay for not working, I'd do it in a second.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Who cares?  Not my problem.  When one turns mugger,  let them face the muzzle in the manner they so casually employed against others.  I have no concern for the welfare of such persons because they are not fit for it.


While I agree with you, fisharmor probably has the smoother solution:



> This idea applies equally to all state parasites.
> 
> The money they take home as pay is a fraction of what these state functions actually cost.
> Here  is a universal axiom regarding state employees: they do harm by  taking  this money home, but the greater harm is what they do while on  the job.
> 
> I submit that the easiest way to get rid of police, or the EPA, or the IRS, or any other state agency, is simply to _pay them to go away._
> Tell  them that they are losing their jobs, but they will get paid 60%  of  their salaries if they simply don't show up for work ever again.
> 
> ETA of course they're free to go get other jobs, but wiping up the  Slurpee machine can raise a family if you're also getting paid $60k in  go-away money.
> ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

If most of them took it, we might be able to kill off the rest of them.

Which would leave them with a choice to make.  Threaten us and die, or go home...

(The non-armed parasites probably wouldn't even consider option A in that case.  Armed parasites like cops and soldiers... some probably would fight to keep their jobs while others would not.)

----------


## Red Green

> No. This is the kind of stuff that makes people see libertarians as wacky nuts. People (including myself) take comfort in knowing no matter where we are at my uni, at least one emergency button is visible and police are no less than 3-5 minutes away. Some people are like "Oh, you should protect yourself. What will happen within those 3-5 minutes?" 1) I weigh like 108 pounds. 2) Weapons (even for self-protection) are prohibited at my uni and many other areas. Either way, I'd much rather have someone thoroughly trained take hold of such matters. 
> 
> That being said, I do agree that some police have abused their power and gone overboard. Not all police are like this, though. I know three libertarians and libertarian-republicans that want to become cops.


Why would a school (which should be, if it is not, a private concern) use police for protection?  I am fine with you having a button, but it should be to summons private security rather than the pigs.

----------


## Red Green

> What if my pretend private cops kill your pretend private cops and I don't like you so much? Then what?


If it's all pretend, then I'll just yell "I sank your battleship!" and claim to have won.

----------


## 69360

> The people themselves (armed) are all the force that is needed. They will "enforce the law" locally..
> They will band together against threats to the peace and security of their local communities.
> 
> They did so before the invention of police. They will if allowed to do so.


The people that can't even look up from texting and fedbook to notice a guy pointing a gun at them? 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-09-04-21-46




> he man drew the gun several times on the crowded San Francisco commuter train, with surveillance video showing him pointing it across the aisle without anyone noticing and then putting it back against his side, according to authorities.
> 
> The other passengers were so absorbed in their phones and tablets they didn't notice the gunman until he randomly shot and killed a university student, authorities said.


People like you are a tiny minority, people like them are a vast majority

----------


## phill4paul

> The people that can't even look up from texting and fedbook to notice a guy pointing a gun at them? 
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-09-04-21-46
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are a tiny minority, people like them are a vast majority


  People are like that because of the false sense of security that having a police force instills. Another problem that comes with having a police force.

----------


## 69360

> The fatal flaw in your statist paradise is that you think that 
> 
> 1. Police are held accountable.
> 2. That police are there to protect people and keep them safe.


Nice deflection. Can't answer the original question can you? Here it is again-

When you have all this heavily armed private security and no police, who holds them accountable? Why would they recognize the authority of the courts when there is nobody to enforce the court system's power upon them? Don't say the people, because the people have already given up their power to this "private security" apparatus. How quick does society devolve into armed factions battling it out?

----------


## pcosmar

> Can't answer the original question can you?


Back at ya,,
You have not answered this.



> What laws?
> 
> Exactly what laws do they need to enforce,, that the people as a whole will not enforce by themselves?
> 
> Gun Laws? Contraband? Revenue collection? Prohibition?
> 
> What laws exactly?


I am not in favor of private police either.. 
Private security if you are unwilling or unable to take care of yourself,, but keep them the hell out of my business and out of my face.

----------


## Red Green

I'll make a very simple, yet completely compelling argument against government police forces: monopolies are ALWAYS bad for the consumer.  Period.  There is no getting around that argument; it is as close to a truism as you can have in economics.  So the question becomes why would someone want to create a monopoly out of police services?  Monopolies always use their power to their benefit and to the detriment of those who purchase from them.  All of those who claim that government police services are 'necessary' or even 'good' cannot get around the fact that this monopoly of law enforcement will work to the detriment of those it claims to serve.  

So for all those straw arguments against private security and bounty hunters, there is no counter argument to the fact that having multiple sellers of services will benefit those who are using that service.  That alone should be a compelling enough argument to get rid of the government police monopoly.

----------


## 69360

> Back at ya,,
> You have not answered this.
> 
> 
> I an not in favor of private police either.. 
> Private security if you are unwilling or unable to take care of yourself,, but keep them the hell out of my business and out of my face.


Not BS like guns and drugs. Real crime like murder, rape, theft etc.  

You really want vigilante justice for those?

----------


## 69360

> I'll make a very simple, yet completely compelling argument against government police forces: monopolies are ALWAYS bad for the consumer.  Period.  There is no getting around that argument; it is as close to a truism as you can have in economics.  So the question becomes why would someone want to create a monopoly out of police services?  Monopolies always use their power to their benefit and to the detriment of those who purchase from them.  All of those who claim that government police services are 'necessary' or even 'good' cannot get around the fact that this monopoly of law enforcement will work to the detriment of those it claims to serve.  
> 
> So for all those straw arguments against private security and bounty hunters, there is no counter argument to the fact that having multiple sellers of services will benefit those who are using that service.  That alone should be a compelling enough argument to get rid of the government police monopoly.


Then who holds these private security groups to the same standard? Who holds them accountable when they don't keep to a standard? Don't forget they are armed.

----------


## 69360

..

----------


## pcosmar

> Not BS like guns and drugs. Real crime like murder, rape, theft etc.  
> *
> You really want vigilante justice for those?*


Yes.. I want vigilant justice. Swift and sure and public.

That is what works as a preventative.  What we have now is not justice,, and certainly not vigilant.

Look up that word sometime.

----------


## osan

> While I agree with you, fisharmor probably has the smoother solution:


Yes, his solution was rather slick.  But those who say "no"... what of them?  Firing squad?

May come to that anyway, before all is said and done.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, his solution was rather slick.  But those who say "no"... what of them?  Firing squad?
> 
> May come to that anyway, before all is said and done.


Depends on what they're doing.

If they are aggressors themselves, sure.  I don't have a problem with that, if they won't cease their aggression.

On the other hand, if you're talking about government employees who are really just parasites rather than aggressors themselves than there is no need to resort to violence against them.  The people you'd need to worry about in that case are the people resorting to aggression in order to pay the parasites.

You'd deal with a clerk at the social security office in a different manner than you would a tax collector.

----------


## osan

> No. This is the kind of stuff that makes people see libertarians as wacky nuts.


Says you.  Whoopdee doo.  I say the moon is made of green cheese.




> People (including myself) take comfort in knowing no matter where we are at my uni, at least one emergency button is visible and police are no less than 3-5 minutes away.


I hate to break this to you, but a lot can happen in 3-5 minutes.  In 10 seconds I could cripple you for life without breaking a sweat, but I'd never do that.  There are, however, people who might.  what will you do between the time you hit the panic button and the cops arrive, buy that time giving a blow job?  Seriously, you have not thought this out well at all.




> 1) I weigh like 108 pounds.


Irrelevant.  If you took defense of your own life seriously you would train yourself in the means of affecting such.  As it stands you have insufficient interest in it to move you to begin.  When the mugger comes for you, I will not rejoice but neither will I be able to muster too many tears.  You make your choices; you must live with the consequences.




> 2) Weapons (even for self-protection) are prohibited at my uni and many other areas.


Did anyone twist your arm to attend that school?  If not, onus rests with you.




> Either way, I'd much rather have someone thoroughly trained take hold of such matters.


Careful, your profound ignorance is showing.  Police training sucks.  I've known of many cops getting their asses beaten senseless and even killed by people far better trained that were they.  I have been on the range with many police and can tell you from first hand experience that their marksmanship generally sucks and their muzzle discipline is utterly and immediately dangerous to all including themselves.  I was at the range one day at lunch at Ray's in Watchung (NJ).  All of a sudden the range officer shouts out "I said don't point that $#@!ING gun at me!"  We all turned to find a ON DUTY Watchung cop pointing his unlocked and loaded service weapon directly at the RO.  He said "you can't talk to me like that." and the RO said, "I just did, now get the $#@! off my range."  The cop left in a huff and I bet the RO got tickets every day for months or years thereafter.  I've seen cops do incredibly dangerous things with their guns.  In general, they are idiots.  That you would trust your life to them speaks of dangerous naiveté.




> That being said, I do agree that *some police have abused their power and gone overboard. Not all police are like this, though.* I know three libertarians and libertarian-republicans that want to become cops.


This is demonstrably false.  The nature of what it is to be a cop today in America necessitates even the best of men to violate the rights of their fellows.  This cannot be avoided.  Those who do are shown the door.  End of story.  Your perception of police is not sound, but if it makes you feel better to think otherwise, then by all means continue to praise them.

----------


## osan

> Depends on what they're doing.
> 
> If they are aggressors themselves, sure.  I don't have a problem with that, if they won't cease their aggression.
> 
> On the other hand, if you're talking about government employees who are really just parasites rather than aggressors themselves than there is no need to resort to violence against them.  The people you'd need to worry about in that case are the people resorting to aggression in order to pay the parasites.
> 
> You'd deal with a clerk at the social security office in a different manner than you would a tax collector.


Parasitism = aggression

----------


## Origanalist

> Nice deflection. Can't answer the original question can you? Here it is again-
> 
> When you have all this heavily armed private security and no police, who holds them accountable? Why would they recognize the authority of the courts when there is nobody to enforce the court system's power upon them? Don't say the people, because the people have already given up their power to this "private security" apparatus. How quick does society devolve into armed factions battling it out?


Read slower......who holds the police accountable now?

----------


## osan

> You really want vigilante justice for those?


$#@! yeah.

----------


## Red Green

> Then who holds these private security groups to the same standard? Who holds them accountable when they don't keep to a standard? Don't forget they are armed.


The market does.  Having a choice is the biggest deterrent to anti-social behavior, in case you had not noticed.  If a business employs heavy-handed, rude and otherwise unhelpful security services, do you not think that their business will suffer?  

Think about it: the worst possible condition for any activity is to have a monopoly or a monopsony.  All efforts should first be made to avoid such things.  We can discuss the details about everything else after that.

----------


## fisharmor

> You really want vigilante justice for those?


For those of you who can connect the dots.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Parte_Crow_Dog




> _Ex parte Crow Dog_, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that followed the death of one member of a Native American tribe at the hands of another on reservation land.[fn 1] Crow Dog was a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux. On August 5, 1881 he shot and killed Spotted Tail, a Lakota chief; there are different accounts of the background to the killing.
> ....
> On August 5, 1881 Crow Dog shot and killed Spotted Tail,[fn 6] who was the uncle of Oglala Lakota war leader Crazy Horse.[10] Spotted Tail had not been selected as a chief by the tribe, but instead had been appointed by General George Crook in 1876, which hurt him in the view of many of the tribe.[11] He was viewed as an accommodationist and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) referred to him as the "great peace chief."[12] He also supervised the tribal police of about 300 men.[13] In contrast, Crow Dog was a traditionalist[14]  and although he had been a captain in the tribal police, he was fired  by Spotted Tail sometime after a July 4, 1881, confrontation during  which Crow Dog pointed a rifle at Spotted Tail.[15]
>  On August 5, tensions further escalated at a tribal meeting where a  number of tribal members criticized Spotted Tail for taking  Light-in-the-Lodge, the wife of Medicine Bear, a crippled man, into his  household as his second wife.[11][16][17]  It was believed that the killing occurred that day as the result of  Crow Dog and Spotted Tail meeting, both armed, and mistaking the other  man's intentions.[18]  In another version of the story, Crow Dog was appointed by the tribal  council to head the tribal police, which undermined the authority of  Spotted Tail. Crow Dog discovered that Spotted Tail was taking money  from ranchers for "grazing rights" and he denounced him for it, while  Spotted Tail defended the practice.[11][19] A later conflict with the Indian agent forced the tribal police to disband, and Crow Dog lost his position.[20]  This version makes no mention of another man's wife being the reason  for the killing, and states that Crow Dog ambushed Spotted Tail to gain  power in the tribe.[21] There is no consensus among historians as to which events happened as described.
>  In either case, the matter was settled within the tribe, following longstanding tribal custom, by Crow Dog making a restitution payment of $600,[fn 7] eight horses, and one blanket to Spotted Tail's family.


So the "savages" knew the score exactly.
Spotted Tail was a $#@!bag that lots of people apparently didn't like.
Crow Dog had a bone to pick with him.  The two met and Crow Dog ended up with what is technically a Murder 2.
Even though Spotted Tail wasn't that popular a guy, tribal tradition still called for restitution and Crow Dog paid it.
The matter was considered settled.

BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.............




> Following the killing and the settlement under tribal customs, the  Indian agent had Crow Dog arrested and taken to Fort Niobrara, Nebraska.
> ....
> The trial was viewed at the time as a sham,[fn 9] and despite testimonies from Indian witnesses stating that Spotted Tail had killed a rival once before,[fn 10] that Spotted Tail drew a pistol on Crow Dog, and that Spotted Tail's intention was to kill Crow Dog,[33][34] Crow Dog was convicted and sentenced to be hanged on May 11, 1882.


Happy  ending for the statists, right?  Even though everyone involved was  satisfied with the outcome, the state stuck its unwanted nose into their  $#@! and sentenced him to hang.
Luckily that wasn't the end of the story.




> Crow Dog then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of _habeas corpus_ and the Supreme Court accepted the case.
> ....
> the Court concluded, the First Judicial District Court of Dakota was without jurisdiction to hear the case. The writ of _habeas corpus_ was issued, discharging Crow Dog from federal custody.


Victory for justice, right?

BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.............




> Shocked by the Supreme Court's decision and under strong pressure from the BIA,[43] Congress passed the Major Crimes Act in response.[fn 15][48][49]  The Major Crimes Act placed seven serious felony offenses (with  amendments over the years, now fifteen) under the jurisdiction of the  federal government.


So there you have it.  A case of murder that was clearly and fairly  resolved by local tradition, taking extenuating circumstances into  account, that was completely unnecessarily turned into a SCOTUS case.
And now we're all worse off for it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Then who holds these private security groups to the same standard? Who holds them accountable when they don't keep to a standard? Don't forget they are armed.


Private security does not and would not equate to public police as we know it in a stateless society.  Private security would provide security to the client as the client required it; there's nothing wrong with that - that service exists in our society with a state.  The "service" that public police, along with the "justice" system, presently provides would, in a stateless society, be provided by private, "free-market" insurance and arbitration companies.  These services also exist in our society today, with a state, and they are governed and held accountable by which the same standards that other voluntarily provided goods and services are.

The only difference between what we advocates of statelessness propose and what we have today is that there would _not_ exist an entity within society with the authority to arbitrarily commit acts of violence, such as theft, kidnap, and murder according to the capricious standard established by "the king", or, "the politburo", or, "the people".  And that standard, by the way, is almost _never_ established according to defensible principles.

So, the question goes back to you, tho' you'll have a harder time answering it: who holds your statist, monopolist public police to this utterly capricious standard, and what is the point of even holding them to that standard when it is so completely indefensible to begin with?  And don't forget: they're armed... not only with firearms, but with the sanction to do the bidding of the political authority.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Parasitism = aggression


I disagree

----------


## 69360

> The market does.  Having a choice is the biggest deterrent to anti-social behavior, in case you had not noticed.  If a business employs heavy-handed, rude and otherwise unhelpful security services, do you not think that their business will suffer?  
> 
> Think about it: the worst possible condition for any activity is to have a monopoly or a monopsony.  All efforts should first be made to avoid such things.  We can discuss the details about everything else after that.


The market? What if a a wealthy person with no business interests at all hires this private security and starts taking other's property and building up power. Who is going to stop him? Before you say "the people", what if he acquires a nuke or other WMD? 




> Private security does not and would not equate to public police as we know it in a stateless society.  Private security would provide security to the client as the client required it; there's nothing wrong with that - that service exists in our society with a state.  The "service" that public police, along with the "justice" system, presently provides would, in a stateless society, be provided by private, "free-market" insurance and arbitration companies.  These services also exist in our society today, with a state, and they are governed and held accountable by which the same standards that other voluntarily provided goods and services are.
> 
> The only difference between what we advocates of statelessness propose and what we have today is that there would _not_ exist an entity within society with the authority to arbitrarily commit acts of violence, such as theft, kidnap, and murder according to the capricious standard established by "the king", or, "the politburo", or, "the people".  And that standard, by the way, is almost _never_ established according to defensible principles.
> 
> So, the question goes back to you, tho' you'll have a harder time answering it: who holds your statist, monopolist public police to this utterly capricious standard, and what is the point of even holding them to that standard when it is so completely indefensible to begin with?  And don't forget: they're armed... not only with firearms, but with the sanction to do the bidding of the political authority.


I don't want a stateless society, it doesn't work. Name one example in modern history where it has. Countries without a central government and law enforcement inevitably descend into fiefdoms and chaos. Afghanistan and Somalia are prime examples of this.




In general I think I've had enough of this thread, you all can enjoy your fantasy dystopian stateless wasteland, it's obvious that's what you really want, might as well just admit it. Say hi to Mad Max for me.

----------


## Red Green

> The market? What if a a wealthy person with no business interests at all hires this private security and starts taking other's property and building up power. Who is going to stop him? Before you say "the people", what if he acquires a nuke or other WMD?


Sigh.... you sound like a communist now.  What would stop these people from buying up all the food?  All the cars?  All the electricity?  All the medicine?  Why hasn't it happened already!?  Wait, it already did - it's called the local / state / federal police force.  

Seriously, get a grip.

----------


## Cabal

Stop feeding the troll.

----------


## Origanalist



----------


## Henry Rogue

> As I explained, I am not in favor of 'abolishing' the police, because that would require armies coming out of Washington DC to invade the 50 States and use deadly force to make sure the States are not going to be allowed to do any policing.  Instead of advocating an aggressive war like 72% of y'all apparently want, I would instead make every "law enforcement" everything from Secret Service and FBI down to municipal beat cop all answer to the County Sheriff, and make the Sheriff publish to voters a Constitutional justification for every law enforcement action taken in his county by anybody.
> 
> So from where I sit, it's the 72% who want to see Washington DC fly tanks and A-10's and drop mortars on the rest of the States in order to abolish something that those states clearly have no desire to abolish.  Hey, we LOVE liberty and all that as long as it's OUR liberty and nobody else gets to be free.  That would be such a bummer man if other people got to be free too.






> And I am not in favor of 'abolishing' them, because that would require a hot-war by Washington DC upon the States to accomplish.  Instead, I would completely subjugate the police to the Sheriffs sole authority.  You could do that without a war.


 I am not and have not called for a civil war or for the federal government to strong arm the states. In voting yes to this pole and stating i am for abolition, I perceived a more peaceful solution. Simply that those particular laws that grant special privileges and protections to law enforcement be removed. That those police institutions be unfunded by government. I realize that this isn't going to happen until a majority agrees with me, nor do i expect universal abolition all at once, but the pole asked for my view and this is my view. One of the points of these forums is to gain support to make change, I have to start somewhere. Frankly I am a pessimistic person by nature, I don't see this issue or the others discussed on these forums getting better. Although i do appreciate the optimistic members of these forums, they do lighten my mood from time to time.

----------


## Christian Liberty

The police supporters need to answer for things like this:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nto-buying-pot

Now, I know nobody here supports this, but does it DISGUST you?  Does it make you wish George Washington was still alive to lead the second American Revolution?  Honestly, if you don't wish the immediate death of people who do this kind of sick, demented evil, either you are a far better Christian man  than I am, or otherwise you simply have no soul at all.

Seeing this kind of crap really does drive me insane.  I'm so sick of "moderation."  

I guess the question that remains is, is it even POSSIBLE to have a statist police force that doesn't powermonger like this.  I don't believe that its possible.  I think its the inevitable result of statism.  I'd rather have full-blown "chaotic" anarchy over sitting and watching this kind of nonsense happening.  I feel like I'm living in a combination of 1984 and the Matrix.

You don't like the State, but do you HATE It?  If not, you're useless.  Full stop.

----------


## pcosmar

> , what if he acquires a nuke or other WMD?


I can't believe you seriously typed that.

What little credibility I had previously assigned you is hereby rescinded.

----------


## osan

> When you have all this heavily armed private security and no police, who holds them accountable?


Who holds current police accountable?  The NYPD is the sixth largest standing army in the world with close to 50K members.  The only thing that keeps them under control is THEM.  If they decided to go rogue in a truly big way, the ONLY thing that would be able to stop them is the US military or a huge armed militia group.  Barring those, they would be able to run roughshod over the residents of NYC pretty much as whim moved them if they were to become of such a mind.

Public and private are the poles in a phony baloney schism that has no material truth in reality save that which people give it in their thoughts.  The problem is not private versus public; it is more power versus less in some hands versus the rest.




> Why would they recognize the authority of the courts when there is nobody to enforce the court system's power upon them?


Same question applies to police as they now exist.  The answer would most likely be that other security agencies that had not gone completely insane would eiether act on their own or be contracted to deal with the problems of another such organization gone rogue.  

Furthermore, let us examine the situation in Mexico.  Private gangs are fighting the MX army and the army loses at least as often as they win.  Therefore,  it is no forgone conclusion that the publicly funded agent is going to be the winner.

There are examples of how your model fails all around you.  Apparently you have failed to make a reasonable effort to discover them.  Shame on you.




> Don't say the people, because the people have already given up their power to this "private security" apparatus.


That is a wild assumption that, given the environment in which ubiquitous private security is likely to arise as a reality, cannot be taken as credible.  In such an environment I doubt people would be waiving their rights and abdicating their responsibilities toward themselves precisely because people who do that are never going to want the environment in the first place.  You need to engage your analytic mechanism a bit better and get into better habits because the obvious answers seem to be waving at you as you blindly stroll past.




> How quick does society devolve into armed factions battling it out?


It doesn't.  The reason it doesn't is that there is a greater balance of power than what we now have.  A cursory examination of the politics of the twentieth century immediately reveals in bold colors that virtually all of the trouble of that era was the result of a small handful of muck rakers wielding continent destroying powers while the vast majority of the populations remained disarmed.  If you examine human history in even the most casual manner a few things jump out at you.  One of those is that those societies where physical power, e.g. through arms, was most equally distributed amongst the populace, the less warring was evident.  The reasons for this should be intuitively obvious, especially in times where even small wounds could be life-threatening.  Yes, the large and strong could mug the weaker for the physical possessions of the latter, and sometimes they did - but the risks to even a seasoned warrior were not zero.  If I possess a knife and daily dip the blade in feces, to be cut in any but the most superficial manner would likely be a death sentence in a world without antibiotics.  That makes $#@!ty little 150# me a serious threat to the 220# trained ex-soldier.  People understood this far and away better than most do now because it was in their faces daily.  The world is not any less dangerous now than then.  It is, in fact, more so, the only real differences being the specific forms and some of the sources, perhaps.

When examined a bit more closely we find that people on the mean are actually VERY peaceful beings.  It is the comparatively uncommon pathological personality of those seeking power over others combined with the blind followers and hangers-on that cause the trouble as my aforementioned references to the muck rakers of the twentieth century attest.  The Soviet Union and communist China rose at the hands of a TINY fraction of the respective populations - the men willing to take up arms and terrorize and butcher the peaceable people who probably wanted nothing more than a decent day's bread, some honest work, and a place to rest that would not see them drown in the rain or freeze in the snow.  By implication you paint the average man as a frothing-at-the-mouth dog itching and twitching to kill and cause mayhem.  This is pure bull$#@! and shows how little you understand the human animal.  People have plenty of other unflattering qualities - that cannot be denied - but that which you attribute by implication is not one of them with any commonness, so cut the crap and get real.  Were what you assert true, given the weapons commonly available to us, there'd be nary a man left on the planet.  Once again and for the last time, 99% of the problems issue from perhaps 1% of the people and it is ALWAYS "government" that is at the root of problems as monumentally disastrous as world wars.  Private security firms which have been armed and about for at least 100 years have yet to start an identifiable war.  "Governments" have done it endlessly.

QED, and have a nice day.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> The market? What if a a wealthy person with no business interests at all *the government* hires this private security *monopoly* and starts taking other's property and building up power. Who is going to stop him? Before you say "the people", what if he acquires a nuke or other WMD?




The answer is "no one" because too many people believe it's totally legit.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I hate to break this to you, but a lot can happen in 3-5 minutes.  In 10 seconds I could cripple you for life without breaking a sweat, but I'd never do that.  There are, however, people who might.  what will you do between the time you hit the panic button and the cops arrive,... .


I'm sure you've heard that Oldie-but-Goody saying, but maybe it bears repeating in this thread: _ When seconds count, the police are just minutes away._

----------


## Occam's Banana

> , what if he acquires a nuke or other WMD?





> I can't believe you seriously typed that.
> 
> What little credibility I had previously assigned you is hereby rescinded.


I believe it ...

Pedophiles.
With tanks.

... 'nuff said.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't want a stateless society, it doesn't work. Name one example in modern history where it has. Countries without a central government and law enforcement inevitably descend into fiefdoms and chaos. Afghanistan and Somalia are prime examples of this.


So, I answer your question, then ask you one which you refuse to answer and right away demand more answers from me?  No.  Answer my questions.





> In general I think I've had enough of this thread, you all can enjoy your fantasy dystopian stateless wasteland, it's obvious that's what you really want, might as well just admit it. Say hi to Mad Max for me.


Thank you for giving us the opportunity to disprove your childish, fear-based objections to society without the state and to make rational, logical arguments for it to reasonable, interested people who might be reading this thread.  I appreciate it!

----------


## osan

> The market? What if a a wealthy person with no business interests at all hires this private security and starts taking other's property and building up power. Who is going to stop him? Before you say "the people", what if he acquires a nuke or other WMD?


This statement is stupid to the point of pain.  I am embarrassed for you.





> I don't want a stateless society, it doesn't work. Name one example in modern history where it has. Countries without a central government and law enforcement inevitably descend into fiefdoms and chaos. Afghanistan and Somalia are prime examples of this.


Are you truly this ignorant or unimaginative, or just a grand troll?

Somalia and Afghanistan are not "stateless".  The true meaning of "state" in this sense of the term is the presence of an entity wielding overwhelming concentrations of force over that portion of a population that is not directly part of the so-called "state".  It declares itself monopolistically king in terms of legitimacy and backs the assertion by the power of the sword.  This is no different in principle from the mafia, drug gangs, etc.

What you have in Somalia is feudalism, which is nothing other than a form of _empire_.  Empire is that where the "state" rules over the rest by sheer threats of force and using it to compel the rest to do its bidding.  Build this bridge.  Erect that monument.  Exact tribute to pay for it, and perhaps even compel labor.

You apparently have less than zero understanding of the "state", which is a very common failing because most people are unequipped to engage in proper analytic activity.  You simply have not developed the skills necessary to see the truth of the matter.  The skill in question turns on one's ability to strip away irrelevancies, exposing the radical elements underpinning a given circumstance.  It is the ability to distill a mass into its quintessence.




> In general I think I've had enough of this thread, you all can enjoy your fantasy dystopian stateless wasteland, it's obvious that's what you really want, might as well just admit it. Say hi to Mad Max for me.


Very adult attitude.  Why not call us all poopy faces, stick your tongue out and then run away while you're at it?  In fact, I prefer you did.

----------


## Red Green

> This statement is stupid to the point of pain.  I am embarrassed for you.


^^^^^This.

One has to wonder what someone with so little faith in the market is doing on RPFs.......

----------


## A Son of Liberty

The people in Somalia and Afghanistan didn't rise up against and overthrow the occupying states; those states collapsed around them.  Speaking personally, tho' I would prefer a collapse of the state to its perpetuation, I do not advocate a thoughtless, haphazard anarchy.  I advocate for an educated, reasoned, intentional statelessness.

----------


## fisharmor

> The people in Somalia and Afghanistan  didn't rise up against and overthrow the occupying states; those states  collapsed around them.  Speaking personally, tho' I would prefer a  collapse of the state to its perpetuation, I do not advocate a  thoughtless, haphazard anarchy.  I advocate for an educated, reasoned,  intentional statelessness.


What about Detroit?  There are private actors implementing security  forces and trying to build communities there without state interference,  and they're enjoying some successes.
In one case, spontaneous order  took of simply because one man with a riding mower decided to clean up a  public park so kids could play somewhere.

I came up with the  "pay to go away" idea a while back because I realized that all that's  necessary for the things we advocate to happen is..... nothing.
That means the current tyrants need to do nothing - and future tyrants need to do nothing.
I don't believe there has to be any positive action at all.  
Only void.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> What about Detroit?  There are private actors implementing security  forces and trying to build communities there without state interference,  and they're enjoying some successes.
> In one case, spontaneous order  took of simply because one man with a riding mower decided to clean up a  public park so kids could play somewhere.
> 
> I came up with the  "pay to go away" idea a while back because I realized that all that's  necessary for the things we advocate to happen is..... nothing.
> That means the current tyrants need to do nothing - and future tyrants need to do nothing.
> I don't believe there has to be any positive action at all.  
> Only void.


That all sounds great to me!  

Here is why I advocate intentional, educated statelessness: because eventually, the state will rush in, and the odds are pretty good that, if those folks aren't intentionally choosing statelessness, they won't see anything wrong with it.  

I'm all for civilization without the state (but then I repeat myself  ), but unless people actually _understand_ that the state is itself *evil*, they won't object to it when it comes along with its candy bag.

----------


## Cabal

> That all sounds great to me!  
> 
> Here is why I advocate intentional, educated statelessness: because eventually, the state will rush in, and the odds are pretty good that, if those folks aren't intentionally choosing statelessness, they won't see anything wrong with it.  
> 
> I'm all for civilization without the state (but then I repeat myself  ), but unless people actually _understand_ that the state is itself *evil*, they won't object to it when it comes along with its candy bag.


Yep. It has to be a conscious, intellectual choice driven by an anti-statist culture. Movements aren't enough; they dwindle after a time. The culture has to evolve, just as it did when it decided to reject slavery. For me, that's what the rEVOLution was always all about--sparking a cultural shift away from statism. Unfortunately, that's been obfuscated quite a bit from inside and out.

----------


## Brett85

> Can the following members please write their police departments and tell them, if I am not hurting anyone else, to leave me alone?
> 
> No, leave me a $#@!ing alone!
> 
> 
>     69360,
>     Bohner,
>     brandon,
>     bwlibertyman,
> ...


Absolutely, but if you hurt someone else, you absolutely shouldn't be left alone.  That should be the purpose of the police existing, to punish aggression.

----------


## Brett85

> No. This is the kind of stuff that makes people see libertarians as wacky nuts. People (including myself) take comfort in knowing no matter where we are at my uni, at least one emergency button is visible and police are no less than 3-5 minutes away. Some people are like "Oh, you should protect yourself. What will happen within those 3-5 minutes?" 1) I weigh like 108 pounds. 2) Weapons (even for self-protection) are prohibited at my uni and many other areas. Either way, I'd much rather have someone thoroughly trained take hold of such matters. 
> 
> That being said, I do agree that some police have abused their power and gone overboard. Not all police are like this, though. I know three libertarians and libertarian-republicans that want to become cops.


Exactly.  And I would add that the vast majority of libertarians aren't in favor of abolishing the police.  The anarchist wing of libertarianism is only a small part of it and certainly doesn't represent average libertarians.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Exactly.  And I would add that the vast majority of libertarians aren't in favor of abolishing the police.  The anarchist wing of libertarianism is only a small part of it and certainly doesn't represent average libertarians.


One need not be an anarchist to favor abolishing police.  A lot of minarchists support abolishing police for a number of reasons, such as the unconstitutionality and unaccountability of them.

ETA: How do you know what the "vast majority" of libertarians think of this issue?  Where did you get your polling data?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Absolutely, but if you hurt someone else, you absolutely shouldn't be left alone.  *That should be the purpose of the police existing, to punish aggression.*


"Ought" is not "is".  As has been pointed out numerous times on RPFs, the police have no legal obligation whatsoever to help anyone.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yep. It has to be a conscious, intellectual choice driven by an anti-statist culture. Movements aren't enough; they dwindle after a time. The culture has to evolve, just as it did when it decided to reject slavery. For me, that's what the rEVOLution was always all about--sparking a cultural shift away from statism. Unfortunately, that's been obfuscated quite a bit from inside and out.


Indeed!  The move away from slavery is to me a perfect example of the sort of thing I'm praying we see - a complete social and cultural rejection of an institution that had been up until that point wholly embraced and accepted.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Absolutely, but if you hurt someone else, you absolutely shouldn't be left alone.  That should be the purpose of the police existing, to punish aggression.





> Exactly.  And I would add that the vast majority of libertarians aren't in favor of abolishing the police.  The anarchist wing of libertarianism is only a small part of it and certainly doesn't represent average libertarians.


Honest question: are you actually reading every post in this thread?

----------


## Cabal

> "Ought" is not "is".  As has been pointed out numerous times on RPFs, the police have no legal obligation whatsoever to help anyone.


They also have no economic interest in doing so; in fact, as a system, they have an economic interest in creating more crime. For instance, the DEA would become entirely irrelevant--thus negating all those jobs, and all those seizures/confiscations--if drugs were decriminalized/legalized. Or, with organized crime, officials/officers in all tiers stand to get kickbacks for ignoring crime.

----------


## fisharmor

> Absolutely, but if you hurt  someone else, you absolutely shouldn't be left alone.  That should be  the purpose of the police existing, to* punish* aggression.


Is this a slip, or are you actively advocating police dispensing punishments?
It's  not the cops' job to punish anything even in the kookoo fantasyland  version of what cops are for.  There's supposed to be a judiciary to  decide that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Tywysog Cymru,


He doesn't believe it now, but Tywysog is a future anarchist.  He's exactly where I was 18 months or so ago.  I wouldn't have believed I'd ever be an anarchist back then either.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Is this a slip, or are you actively advocating police dispensing punishments?*
> It's  not the cops' job to punish anything even in the kookoo fantasyland  version of what cops are for.  There's supposed to be a judiciary to  decide that.


Reminds me of this...

----------


## pcosmar

> Absolutely, but if you hurt someone else, you absolutely shouldn't be left alone.  That should be the purpose of the police existing, to punish aggression.


???
The police have never been such.. despite the myth.

They are an Authoritarian construct,, and are anti-Liberty from inception.

The alleged purpose is to catch law breakers.. The courts and Juries punish lawbreakers.

It is not the job or the purview of police to punish,, nor even to decide guilt.

----------


## pcosmar

> Is this a slip, or are you actively advocating police dispensing punishments?


It is not a slip. 
He is an Authoritarian.

----------


## Brett85

> ???
> The police have never been such.. despite the myth.
> 
> They are an Authoritarian construct,, and are anti-Liberty from inception.
> 
> The alleged purpose is to catch law breakers.. The courts and Juries punish lawbreakers.
> 
> It is not the job or the purview of police to punish,, nor even to decide guilt.


I said that they *should* exist to punish aggression, not that they always do.  I think they do punish aggression when they go after murderers, rapists, burglars, etc.  But I do think that arresting people who use drugs isn't necessary and isn't an example of "punishing aggression."  But still, the job of the police is to enforce laws, not write them.  I blame our politicians for writing laws that imprison people for crimes that don't involve any victim.

----------


## Brett85

> It is not a slip. 
> He is an Authoritarian.


You're completely ridiculous.  I'm not any more of an "authoritarian" than Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc, none of whom are in favor of abolishing the police.  They all believe in limited government.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I said that they *should* exist to punish aggression, not that they always do.  I think they do punish aggression when they go after murderers, rapists, burglars, etc.  But I do think that arresting people who use drugs isn't necessary and isn't an example of "punishing aggression."  But still, the job of the police is to enforce laws, not write them.  I blame our politicians for writing laws that imprison people for crimes that don't involve any victim.


I thought 'punishment' was the sole province of the courts.  Does the Constitution allow people to be punished before they stand trial?

----------


## Brett85

> Is this a slip, or are you actively advocating police dispensing punishments?
> It's  not the cops' job to punish anything even in the kookoo fantasyland  version of what cops are for.  There's supposed to be a judiciary to  decide that.


That's obviously not what I meant.  Perhaps I should've said "stop" aggression.  If a burglar or murderer breaks into someone's home, and that person dials 9-11, the police have an obligation to try to stop the burglar or murderer from aggressing against the home owner.

----------


## Brett85

> I thought 'punishment' was the sole province of the courts.  Does the Constitution allow people to be punished before they stand trial?


See my post below yours.  Perhaps "stop aggression" is a better term.  Obviously I'm not saying that the police should torture suspects after they've been arrested.

----------


## phill4paul

> That's obviously not what I meant.  Perhaps I should've said "stop" aggression.  If a burglar or murderer breaks into someone's home, and that person dials 9-11, *the police have an obligation to try to stop the burglar or murderer from aggressing against the home owner.*


  NO. They do not. This has been settled in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia

----------


## osan

> Perhaps I should've said "stop" aggression.  If a burglar or murderer breaks into someone's home, and that person dials 9-11, the police have an obligation to try to stop the burglar or murderer from aggressing against the home owner.


This is EVERYBODY'S right, not just cops.  There is no justification for police.  Any argument posited in favor of police can be summarily destroyed without any great effort.

----------


## Brett85

> One need not be an anarchist to favor abolishing police.  A lot of minarchists support abolishing police for a number of reasons, such as the unconstitutionality and unaccountability of them.


If minarchists are in favor of abolishing the police, then I don't see any real difference between minarchists and anarchists.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That's obviously not what I meant.  Perhaps I should've said "stop" aggression.  If a burglar or murderer breaks into someone's home, and that person dials 9-11, the police have an obligation to try to stop the burglar or murderer from aggressing against the home owner.


Unfortunately, SCOTUS disagrees.  The only real obligations of the police are to provide the DA with people to indict, and the evidence with which to convict them.  In ideal-land life, a police force should exist to prevent aggression and to defend those being aggressed against.  Sadly, no such utopia exists in the US or anywhere in the world.  Universally, as a human condition, the police are inextricably linked to the enforcement arm of the will of the powers that be.

----------


## Brett85

> This is EVERYBODY'S right, not just cops.


I do think that people have a responsibility to defend themselves and shouldn't simply rely on the police for protection.  At the same time, it's still the job of the police to help people out when they're being robbed, raped, murdered, etc.

----------


## Brett85

> Unfortunately, SCOTUS disagrees.  The only real obligations of the police are to provide the DA with people to indict, and the evidence with which to convict them.  In ideal-land life, a police force should exist to prevent aggression and to defend those being aggressed against.  Sadly, no such utopia exists in the US or anywhere in the world.  Universally, as a human condition, the police are inextricably linked to the enforcement arm of the will of the powers that be.


So are you saying that the police shouldn't come to someone's home to help them out if they're being robbed and they call the police for help?  Or are you simply saying that they're not required by law to help out people who are being robbed?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I do think that people have a responsibility to defend themselves and shouldn't simply rely on the police for protection.  At the same time, it's still the job of the police to help people out when they're being robbed, raped, murdered, etc.


No, it's really not.  It's the job of the police to bring the perpetrators of crimes (including those you listed) to a District Attorney with the evidence to produce an indictment and a conviction.  It is not the job of the police to help anybody.  And that is a huge part of what is wrong.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So are you saying that the police shouldn't come to someone's home to help them out if they're being robbed and they call the police for help?  Or are you simply saying that they're not required by law to help out people who are being robbed?


Neither.

----------


## osan

> I do think that people have a responsibility to defend themselves and shouldn't simply rely on the police for protection.  At the same time, it's still the job of the police to help people out when they're being robbed, raped, murdered, etc.


Not according to the courts.

----------


## Cabal

> If minarchists are in favor of abolishing the police, then I don't see any real difference between minarchists and anarchists.


Well, minarchism is generally a pit-stop on the way to anarchism for quite a few.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not according to the courts.


Or the police themselves.

----------


## Brett85

> Not according to the courts.


Well, regardless, police officers come to people's homes to help them out when they're getting robbed.  9-1-1 operators and police officers don't generally just ignore people who call 9-1-1 who say that they need help because someone broke into their home.

----------


## phill4paul

> I do think that people have a responsibility to defend themselves and shouldn't simply rely on the police for protection.  A*t the same time, it's still the job of the police to help people out when they're being robbed, raped, murdered, etc.*


  You keep repeating this horse$#@! even after I supplied you with a link.......




> The court stated that official *police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection* unless a special relationship exists


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, regardless, police officers come to people's homes to help them out when they're getting robbed.  9-1-1 operators and police officers don't generally just ignore people who call 9-1-1 who say that they need help because someone broke into their home.


  Well, regardless....  That's the best ya got after someone refutes you with documentation?

  Here, this should give you a few days worth of reading......

http://www.google.com/search?q=911+c...+calls+ignored

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, regardless, police officers come to people's homes to help them out when they're getting robbed.  9-1-1 operators and police officers don't generally just ignore people who call 9-1-1 who say that they need help because someone broke into their home.


No, they do not.  They come after the perpetrators have fled to take reports.  If they come at all.  If they come quickly enough that there is a risk the perpetrators are still inside, then the victim is as likely to get shot and killed as not.  They do not exist to help victims.  They do not even pretend to exist to help victims.

----------


## Brett85

> No, they do not.  They come after the perpetrators have fled to take reports.  If they come at all.  If they come quickly enough that there is a risk the perpetrators are still inside, then the victim is as likely to get shot and killed as not.  They do not exist to help victims.  They do not even pretend to exist to help victims.


Sigh, I don't even know how to argue with that logic, because it's flat out false.  There are countless examples of police officers coming to people's homes to help them when they call 9-1-1.  It happens every single day in our country, all around the United States.  This just seems like a completely pointless conversation when you and others basically live in another universe.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Sigh, I don't even know how to argue with that logic, because it's flat out false.  There are countless examples of police officers coming to people's homes to help them when they call 9-1-1.  It happens every single day in our country, all around the United States.  This just seems like a completely pointless conversation when you and others basically live in another universe.


Apparently you do live in another universe, because I am describing reality.  Backed up by multiple accounts, documents, and court decisions provided by others throughout this thread.  More often than not, the police do respond to a 911 call.  A lot of times they do not.  When they do, their response is so delayed as to ensure the criminals have long fled the scene.  They arrive for the sole purpose of taking reports, gathering evidence for the DA, and looking for any opportunistic crimes they can spot while interviewing the victims.

The purpose of the police is to provide District Attorneys with high conviction rates.  Their actions in real life bear that out.  I understand that you are wedded to your perception of the police here, but it's neither accurate nor is it a description of the reality in which we live.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sigh, I don't even know how to argue with that logic, because it's flat out false.  *There are countless examples of police officers coming to people's homes to help them when they call 9-1-1.*  It happens every single day in our country, all around the United States.  This just seems like a completely pointless conversation when you and others basically live in another universe.


Reasoning from parts to whole.  Just because you find instances of this happening, it does not follow that this is true of the whole (all police).  As it has been pointed out to you numerous times, police have no legal obligation to help anyone.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Apparently you do live in another universe, because I am describing reality.  Backed up by multiple accounts, documents, and court decisions provided by others throughout this thread.  More often than not, the police do respond to a 911 call.  A lot of times they do not.  When they do, their response is so delayed as to ensure the criminals have long fled the scene.  They arrive for the sole purpose of taking reports, gathering evidence for the DA, and looking for any opportunistic crimes they can spot while interviewing the victims.
> 
> The purpose of the police is to provide District Attorneys with high conviction rates.  Their actions in real life bear that out.  I understand that you are wedded to your perception of the police here, but it's neither accurate nor is it a description of the reality in which we live.


This^^

----------


## Brett85

So the government doesn't have a legal obligation to protect people when they're being aggressed against, but yet they have the power to constantly wiretap people's phones without getting a warrant.  That's just a perfect illustration of how messed up the Supreme Court's reasoning is.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So the government doesn't have a legal obligation to protect people when they're being aggressed against, but yet they have the power to constantly wiretap people's phones without getting a warrant.  That's just a perfect illustration of how messed up the Supreme Court's reasoning is.


Indeed, but it goes way, way beyond the Supreme Court.  Not only does it effect nearly every court in the land, but that same infection plagues nearly all politicians in both parties from the White House down to the Town Hall, and that same disease is also carried by the vast majority of the police departments in the United States.

----------


## jllundqu

> No, it's really not.  It's the job of the police to bring the perpetrators of crimes (including those you listed) to a District Attorney with the evidence to produce an indictment and a conviction.  It is not the job of the police to help anybody.  And that is a huge part of what is wrong.


This is 100% correct.  Police do not have a duty to protect or a duty to act.  It is their job to pick up the pieces after the crime has been committed.  Occassionally police protect people by responding to calls etc, but that is not their job.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> So the government doesn't have a legal obligation to protect people when they're being aggressed against, but yet they have the power to constantly wiretap people's phones without getting a warrant.  That's just a perfect illustration of how messed up the Supreme Court's reasoning is.


Would you expect anything less, when an institution gives itself monopoly power to create and enforce laws, exact punishment, and gives itself oversight and accountability responsibilities?

----------


## jllundqu

> This^^


When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

----------


## jllundqu

> Well, minarchism is generally a pit-stop on the way to anarchism for quite a few.


I'm a pretty solid in the minarchist/objectivist camp... Anarchism is a bridge too far for me in terms of understanding the human condition.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So the government doesn't have a legal obligation to protect people when they're being aggressed against, but yet they have the power to constantly wiretap people's phones without getting a warrant.  That's just a perfect illustration of how messed up the Supreme Court's reasoning is.


See why some of us see little to no use for government?

They're a legalized gang of thugs.  Seeing the posts here eventually woke me up to that fact.



> I said that they *should* exist to punish aggression, not that they always do.  I think they do punish aggression when they go after murderers, rapists, burglars, etc.  But I do think that arresting people who use drugs isn't necessary and isn't an example of "punishing aggression."  But still, *the job of the police is to enforce laws,* not write them.  I blame our politicians for writing laws that imprison people for crimes that don't involve any victim.


Nuremberg Defense, not valid.  You aren't magically immune to responsibility for your actions because you wear a badge and there's some scribble on a piece of paper giving you authorization.



> You're completely ridiculous.  I'm not any more of an "authoritarian" than Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc, none of whom are in favor of abolishing the police.  They all believe in limited government.


Keep in mind that as Federal politicians their opinions on state level police really don't matter.  I suspect that Ron Paul probably agrees with us but just doesn't feel like "going there" as a Federal politician.



> If minarchists are in favor of abolishing the police, then I don't see any real difference between minarchists and anarchists.


The baseline for "minarchist" is supporting no government except for police, courts, and defense.  But I think its possible to be a minarchist and say government should only do one or two of those three.

Keep in mind that some people here who want to abolish the police still support sheriffs.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Would you expect anything less, when an institution gives itself monopoly power to create and enforce laws, exact punishment, and gives itself oversight and accountability responsibilities?


This is ultimately the fundamental argument, right here.  TC, you might intuitively reject it, or find it repulsive, but this is the reality we live in.

----------


## Brett85

> Would you expect anything less, when an institution gives itself monopoly power to create and enforce laws, exact punishment, and gives itself oversight and accountability responsibilities?


We have a system with different branches of government where the different branches are supposed to provide a check and balance on each other.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, state legislatures, and members of Congress haven't done a very good job of checking the power of the police.  I disagree with almost all of these Supreme Court decisions that give more power to the police and take away power from citizens, so I'm not some "radical authoritarian" as others have said.  I've just argued in favor of reforming our criminal justice system, not actually abolishing the police.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> We have a system with different branches of government where the different branches are supposed to provide a check and balance on each other.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, state legislatures, and members of Congress haven't done a very good job of checking the power of the police.  I disagree with almost all of these Supreme Court decisions that give more power to the police and take away power from citizens, so I'm not some "radical authoritarian" as others have said.  I've just argued in favor of reforming our criminal justice system, not actually abolishing the police.


I agree that you aren't, but I honestly think you're just as utopian as anarchists, if not more so.  You expect that the beast will actually limit itself.  Honestly, with all due respect, and I used to believe as you do, but I think that's utopian.

On the other hand, I don't see why competing police is any more utopian than competing grocery stores, competing restaurants, competing gun markets, competing drug stores, etc.

----------


## Cabal

> I'm a pretty solid in the minarchist/objectivist camp... Anarchism is a bridge too far for me in terms of understanding the human condition.


Many an anarchist once thought along the same lines, tbh.

----------


## Brett85

> On the other hand, I don't see why competing police is any more utopian than competing grocery stores, competing restaurants, competing gun markets, competing drug stores, etc.


If private police forces would have the power to keep people in prision in an anarchist society, how exactly would people be any more "free" than they are today?  It doesn't seem like people would be "free" if they were behind bars, whether the government exists or not.

----------


## Cabal

> We have a system with different branches of government where the different branches are supposed to provide a check and balance on each other.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, state legislatures, and members of Congress haven't done a very good job of checking the power of the police.  I disagree with almost all of these Supreme Court decisions that give more power to the police and take away power from citizens, so I'm not some "radical authoritarian" as others have said.  I've just argued in favor of reforming our criminal justice system, not actually abolishing the police.


The State is the disease, all else are merely its numerous symptoms and defense mechanisms.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We have a system with different branches of government where the different branches are supposed to provide a check and balance on each other.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, state legislatures, and members of Congress haven't done a very good job of checking the power of the police. * I disagree with almost all of these Supreme Court decisions that give more power to the police and take away power from citizens, so I'm not some "radical authoritarian" as others have said.  I've just argued in favor of reforming our criminal justice system, not actually abolishing the police.*


"Reform" in any meaningful sense requires abolishing the police.

----------


## Brett85

> "Reform" in any meaningful sense requires abolishing the police.


In my opinion it just requires things like repealing the war on drugs and focusing on going after violent criminals, electing politicians who will write laws that prosecute police officers who conduct warrantless searches and violate the Bill of Rights, etc.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Many an anarchist once thought along the same lines, tbh.


Yep.  I did.  (Although I was never an Objectivist.  I've always hated Objectivism with a passion and I still do.  But I was once a minarchist who thought like that.




> If private police forces would have the power to keep people in prision in an anarchist society, how exactly would people be any more "free" than they are today?  It doesn't seem like people would be "free" if they were behind bars, whether the government exists or not.


OK, the issue of privatizing police is a different question than privatizing law.  You're ultimately right that if the laws suck or there's no culture of freedom, than we aren't really any more free.  

Punishment theory is an issue that libertarians don't even really agree with each other, so its hard to answer questions about that.  Personally, my ideal solutions would not make use of prisons (Note that this does not mean there are no penalties for aggression, just not prison) but some other libertarians do.  You may or may not agree with his conclusions, I don't agree with him on every single particular, but I think this is the most compelling argument for RATIONAL libertarian punishment, by Stephan Kinsella.  Any libertarian, anarchist or not, should read through it at least once:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf

Here's a video explaining how private law could hypothetically work:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...457F47AA69D5BE

The alternative was Rothbard's suggestion, which was to privatize police but to have laws be universally agreed on by the popultion in a given area.  I could see it being some combination of the two.  but ultimately, your real issue is with the complexity of privatizing law, not the simple matter of privatizing law enforcement.





> In my opinion it just requires things like repealing the war on drugs and focusing on going after violent criminals, electing politicians who will write laws that prosecute police officers who conduct warrantless searches and violate the Bill of Rights, etc.


But why would politicians want to do that?  They want power by nature.  And who's going to punish the enforcers?

----------


## Brett85

> But why would politicians want to do that?  They want power by nature.  And who's going to punish the enforcers?


Why would politicians want to abolish the police?  Or abolish the entire government?  If they want power by nature, there's no way that the government will ever be abolished either.

----------


## pcosmar

> That's obviously not what I meant.


No.
You said what you meant.



> I said that they *should* exist to punish aggression,


And no,,they should not.

Courts and juries decide guilt, and punishment. And they can do that without police.
They did it before police existed.

----------


## pcosmar

> Well, regardless, police officers come to people's homes to help them out when they're getting robbed.  9-1-1 operators and police officers don't generally just ignore people who call 9-1-1 who say that they need help because someone broke into their home.


No they don't.. They show up after the fact.. if at all/
And they make a report. Sometimes they do investigate further.. often they do not.

Very few burglaries are ever prevented or stopped. and only seldom are the stolen articles recovered.

You live in a fantasy world if you believe otherwise.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Why would politicians want to abolish the police?  Or abolish the entire government?


Obviously, they would not "want" to abolish those things. So what?
Matters are not solely contingent upon what politicians do or do not "want" ...




> If they want power by nature, there's no way that the government will ever be abolished either.


Wanting power and being allowed to have & exercise it are two entirely different things.
The British king & parliament wanted to retain power over the American colonies - yet their desire was nonetheless frustrated.

----------


## fisharmor

> NO. They do not. This has been settled in court.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia


Don't forget Deshaney V. Winnebago county, and Castle Rock V. Gonzales.

There are *at least three SCOTUS cases* that have ruled this way.

----------


## fisharmor

> This is 100% correct.  Police do not have a duty  to protect or a duty to act.  It is their job to pick up the pieces  after the crime has been committed.  Occassionally police protect people  by responding to calls etc, but that is not their job.


What you're describing is a detective.  Detectives do not hut-hut  around in SWAT gear, they do not pull people over for driving at  reasonable speeds, they don't beat up old ladies and rape teenagers, and  they don't shoot dogs.

----------


## Brett85

> No.
> You said what you meant.
> 
> 
> And no,,they should not.
> 
> Courts and juries decide guilt, and punishment. And they can do that without police.
> They did it before police existed.


No, I meant that the police should try to *stop* aggression.  But you can believe what you want.  You believe that Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie are all radical authoritarians, so it's really hard to reason with you.

----------


## tod evans

> No, I meant that the police should try to *stop* aggression.  But you can believe what you want.


This is the job of men in a just society.

There is absolutely no need for tin shields and body armor on the taxpayers dime.

The idea that anyone can opine on what a government employee "should" do is just plain nuts.

They "should" get off the tit and learn a trade is what they "should" do.

----------


## Brett85

> This is the job of men in a just society.
> 
> There is absolutely no need for tin shields and body armor on the taxpayers dime.
> 
> The idea that anyone can opine on what a government employee "should" do is just plain nuts.
> 
> They "should" get off the tit and learn a trade is what they "should" do.


Well, I just disagree.  I want the government to have a very limited role.  But like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, and others, I believe the main purpose of government and why it should exist is to defend life, liberty, and property.  Having the police respond to 9-1-1 calls and try to help people out is one of the main ways that the government can try to protect the lives, liberties, and private property rights of the American people.

----------


## fisharmor

> Many an anarchist once thought along the same lines, tbh.


All it takes is for your brain to stop screaming "THAT'S INSANE".
The screams drown out the facts.
All it takes is to stop swinging at it long enough to consider whether it's a valid viewpoint.




> If private police forces  would have the power to keep people in prision in an anarchist  society


Whoa, whole other topic there.
Don't you think it's odd that prison as we know it is a concept that doesn't exist before police as we know it?

I don't agree with prison, and I'm sure most of my brethren don't either.
I'd like to say "One crazy concept at a time", but this is interwoven.

What is prison?
It is punishment.
What is punishment?
It is revenge.
Is revenge justice?
No.

Without police and without prison, people would be forced into figuring out ways to achieve justice.
Right  now, "justice" involves the state exacting revenge for breaking its  statutes.  And its statutes don't make any damned sense.

The  first question you need to ask is "what is law"?  Is it the dictates of  the state?  Or is there a natural law which is immutable, written on the  hearts of every human, and universal the world over?

Obviously I  don't believe the dictates of the state are law.  But I recognize that  every human being on Earth recognizes that theft, murder, property  destruction, and bodily harm are universally morally wrong.
You can  bring up exceptions, sure.  You can point out that samurai were able to  take the life of anyone they pleased.  Or that Indian tribes practiced  revenge killings.  Or that the Thugee were a cult of murderers.

Every exception, however, is just that - an exception.
In  Japan, the concept of murder still existed: it's just that the state  defined two classes of people, and declared that one murdering the other  wasn't really murder.
The Indian tribes never tolerated people running around murdering random victims - there was a clearly defined exception.
The Thugee were never blessed by anyone - it was a cult that the locals didn't like any more than the British did.

Once you define "law", then defining "crime" becomes easy - and the inevitable result is that a crime _must include a victim._  It is an action against an individual.  And that throws out about 99% of our current laws.

Once  you focus on the fact that an individual was wronged, it becomes bloody  obvious, I think, that our current system just doesn't give a $#@!  about the individuals who were wronged. As I like to point out, they are  nothing more than puppets that the DA makes to dance in front of a  jury, so the system can end another life.

Go back and read Ex Parte Crow Dog ( post 318 ).  The Lakota knew what happened, they knew the actors involved, and they knew how to handle it.
In  our "justice" system, Crow Dog would be killed, or worse, locked up at  taxpayer expense.  And Spotted Tail's family would have gotten bupkiss.   This happens daily around the country.
I just don't see how anyone can call this justice.

Coming back to the topic at hand, _police are the lynchpin in this system._  The exist because of some basic assumptions:
1) Justice involves exacting revenge on people who break the state's dictates.
2) People must be constantly monitored to be sure they aren't breaking the state's dictates.

Even  in your kookoo fantasy version of cops, where they "keep the peace"  through policing, those two assumptions are still what underpins the  entire idea.

I disagree vehemently with those assumptions.  I have historical evidence that there are other ways to do things.
I am 100% convinced that our current surveillance/police state is the natural conclusion of those two assumptions.

If you reject those assumptions, then you reject police.

----------


## Brett85

What you call "revenge" I would simply call "justice."  We have to have a way to keep people who harm others away from the rest of society so that the rest of us won't be aggressed against and have our liberties taken away by these people.

----------


## tod evans

> Well, I just disagree.  I want the government to have a very limited role.  But like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, and others, I believe the main purpose of government and why it should exist is to defend life, liberty, and property.  Having the police respond to 9-1-1 calls and try to help people out is one of the main ways that the government can try to protect the lives, liberties, and private property rights of the American people.


Well that was an uncompelling, name dropping argument that basically states that you're unwilling to man up and take care of yourself.

Cradle to grave...........

Not me! Thanks anyway.

----------


## fisharmor

> What you call "revenge" I would  simply call "justice."  We have to have a way to keep people who harm  others away from the rest of society so that the rest of us won't be  aggressed against and have our liberties taken away by these  people.


Right, well, then it follows that you also don't give a crap about  the victims, and are perfectly willing to bill them to store their  aggressors in a rape cage.
It also follows that you believe law is dictated by the state, and also that any of the state's dictates are valid.

You  are an authoritarian.  I'm sure you'll drop more names marginally  involved with this travesty you call "justice" in an effort to paint me  as a kook.  It doesn't make you not an authoritarian.

----------


## tod evans

> What you call "revenge" I would simply call "justice."  We have to have a way to keep people who harm others away from the rest of society so that the rest of us won't be aggressed against and have our liberties taken away by these people.


The Boogeyman argument..

Dressed up with "aggressed" and "liberty".

Stand up for yourself man!

Do not rely on some tax-tick to do it for you.

----------


## Brett85

> Well that was an uncompelling, name dropping argument that basically states that you're unwilling to man up and take care of yourself.
> 
> Cradle to grave...........
> 
> Not me! Thanks anyway.


No, people should have to take care of themselves first and foremost.  The police can't always arrive on time to help you, so you have to assume some responsibility for yourself.  At the same time, there are times when the police can help people out and should help people out when they're being aggressed against.  It's hard for an 80 year old woman in a wheelchair to defend herself against a burglar, or someone who's mentally handicapped, etc.  Like I said, I agree with the longtime libertarian idea that the government exists to defend life, liberty, and property.  (And as I said, I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't take any responsibility for their own safety)

----------


## Brett85

> The Boogeyman argument..
> 
> Dressed up with "aggressed" and "liberty".
> 
> Stand up for yourself man!
> 
> Do not rely on some tax-tick to do it for you.


I don't agree that libertarianism is a philosophy that says that people should have the right to harm others.  I believe in the non aggression principle.

----------


## tod evans

> (And as I said, I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't take any responsibility for their own safety)


That is exactly what you're saying.

The idea that some armed tax-tick is going to "protect" anyone is completely ludicrous.

The position that because the tax-tick is a professional strong-arm he is somehow better equipped to deal with Boogeymen than you are is just a way to avoid personal responsibility.

Cradle to grave.

----------


## fisharmor

> I agree with the longtime  libertarian idea that the government exists to defend life, liberty, and  property.  (And as I said, I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't  take any responsibility for their own safety)


Fair enough, but you should also consider these other axioms.

1) When the state takes over a function, it criminalizes other actors providing that function.
2) After that monopoly is created, the state immediately starts failing in its goals.
3) State failure to meet goals causes _increase_ in funding.
4) State success in meeting goals causes _decrease_ in funding.
5) This is the exact reverse of market pressure.  State functions are rewarded for failure and punished for success.

It doesn't matter what the state function is: these are the pattern for whatever it undertakes.

And that includes the functions that you want it to do.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't agree that libertarianism is a philosophy that says that people should have the right to harm others.  I believe in the non aggression principle.


The $#@!ing NAP again.....SMH!

The whole discussion is whether or not society is better off funding tax-ticks to be "aggressive" in your stead.

Hired thugs who realistically don't perform as advertised.

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, I just disagree.  I want the government to have a very limited role.  But like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, and others, I believe the main purpose of government and why it should exist is to defend life, liberty, and property.  Having the police respond to 9-1-1 calls and try to help people out is one of the main ways that the government can try to protect the lives, liberties, and private property rights of the American people.


   It sure takes some strained logic to argue the position that the police state is a defender of liberty.

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't agree that libertarianism is a philosophy that says that people should have the right to harm others.


No one ever said that.

But you are arguing that police prevent or stop these aggressions,, and that is simply not true.

Police arrive after the fact,, make a report (sometimes) and perhaps if it is easy enough,, catch the offender. 

Mostly they are busy violating the God given rights of those committing no crime at all. Shooting dogs,, beating suspects,, and spying on everyone.

Law enforcement is best left to the people affected and the people of the local community.

I have posted this often,, and am sure only a few have even bothered to read it.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm



> *The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens,* along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. *The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.*



It is not "anarchy",, it is Constitutional and common sense Law Enforcement.

----------


## pcosmar

> It sure takes some strained logic to argue the position that the police state is a defender of liberty.


No $#@!in' $#@!.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Well, I just disagree.  I want the government to have a very limited role.  But like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, and others, I believe the main purpose of government and why it should exist is to defend life, liberty, and property.  Having the police respond to 9-1-1 calls and try to help people out is one of the main ways that the government can try to protect the lives, liberties, and private property rights of the American people.


Your positions ought to be explainable without the appeals to authority.

----------


## Cabal

> I don't agree that libertarianism is a philosophy that says that people should have the right to harm others.  *I believe in the non aggression principle.*


You clearly do not. If you did, it necessarily follows that you would have to reject the State on those grounds, as that's all the State is at a very basic level--an institution of aggressive monopolized violence.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> In my opinion it just requires things like repealing the war on drugs and focusing on going after violent criminals, electing politicians who will write laws that prosecute police officers who conduct warrantless searches and violate the Bill of Rights, etc.


Would you agree that, according to the UCR, 83% of people arrested have committed no crime at all?

Does it not stand to reason that we have is an institutionalized system of creating revenue for the sole purpose of funding themselves; of using fear campaigns and propaganda as a means to justify their behaviors; a system that oversees itself, in all investigations into their misconduct; a system where the alleged "good cops" are those who don't have any complaints levied against them?

You speak as if you wish to keep all of these public leeches paid and only wish to change their stated mission directive into being a targeting of violent criminals and thugs. If this is the case, how would you plan on paying for all this? Without federal grants, asset forfeitures, and fines there is not a way. By its very nature the system is set up to violate the rights of the People. If you wouldn't plan on keeping all of the police officers that we have, what percentage would you feel comfortable in relieving them of their "duty?"

I also am curious as to what you think about the obligation each individual has to provide for their own defense. This, collectively, deters crime, and on the whole benefits society. Do you believe that one's personal defense is not an obligation of the individual?

----------


## Origanalist

> It sure takes some strained logic to argue the position that the police state is a defender of liberty.


The defenders of "truth, justice, and the American 
way."

----------


## Brett85

> That is exactly what you're saying.
> 
> The idea that some armed tax-tick is going to "protect" anyone is completely ludicrous.


So you basically see no role at all for government?  Like I said, I believe in limited government, as does Ron Paul.

----------


## Brett85

> You  are an authoritarian.  I'm sure you'll drop more names marginally  involved with this travesty you call "justice" in an effort to paint me  as a kook.  It doesn't make you not an authoritarian.


I'm not an anarchist, but how does that make me an "authoritarian?"  I understand that we don't agree when it comes to no government vs. limited government, but I don't really understand why you're calling me an "authoritarian" when I have the exact same political views as Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, etc.  It seems extremely weird that you and others keep calling Ron Paul an "authoritarian" on his own forum.

----------


## Brett85

> Would you agree that, according to the UCR, 83% of people arrested have committed no crime at all?


I've stated that I'm not in favor of throwing people in prison for victimless crimes like drug use.  But non violent offenders make up about 50% of all prisoners, so I would say that about half of the people in prison committed no real crime at all.




> I also am curious as to what you think about the obligation each individual has to provide for their own defense. This, collectively, deters crime, and on the whole benefits society. Do you believe that one's personal defense is not an obligation of the individual?


I said pretty clearly before that individuals have the primary responsibility to defend themselves, but the police should still help people out when they can.  People are simply taking my comments completely out of context.

----------


## tod evans

> So you basically see no role at all for government?  Like I said, I believe in limited government, as does Ron Paul.


Dropping the good Dr.'s name and attributing statements not made in the same sentence...

Have a cup of coffee and a doughnut with your buddies while you regroup...

The discussion is about "Police" as we know them today...

Deflecting, obfuscating and name dropping don't address the issue of wanting a tax-tick to be a strong-arm in your stead on my dime.

Stand up for yourself, help your neighbors, be a man.

Don't rely on government to pay someone to do it for you.

----------


## phill4paul

Ron Paul would have every federal agent disarmed. Carry that to the next logical step.

----------


## tod evans

> But non violent offenders make up about 50% of all prisoners, so I would say that about half of the people in prison committed no real crime at all.


Hogwash!

80+% of federal inmates are in on dope charges.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I've stated that I'm not in favor of throwing people in prison for victimless crimes like drug use.  But non violent offenders make up about 50% of all prisoners, so I would say that about half of the people in prison committed no real crime at all.


Where do you get this 50% number from? The UCR shows that only 17% of the people arrested are arrested for actual crimes. Of them an even smaller percentage committed violent crimes. The majority of the crimes are thefts and burglaries. I would wonder how 50% of the people in prison are there as violent offenders with those numbers. Sure, the prison system can turn a non-violent person into someone who does what they have to do, but I find your 50% figure unbelievable.

As I mentioned earlier though, there are fear campaigns and propaganda that floats around. 50% of people in prison being violent offenders being one of them, probably.




> I said pretty clearly before that individuals have the primary responsibility to defend themselves, but the police should still help people out when they can.  People are simply taking my comments completely out of context.


This thread grew by some thirty pages when I was at work. I looked to see if anyone responded to me and that was about it. I didn't intentionally skip over your posts I just skipped about 20 pages and read the rest. I apologize if my questions have already been answered by you. (have you answered what percentage of the police forces you'd feel comfortable not having, yet?)

Your comments actually overlook a point I wanted to make. People, often times, will help those in need. It isn't as if citizens, who are unrelated to law enforcement, have never risked their lives or helped someone in need. You are furthering the myth that only the police can save you. Consider this, I'm told constantly that the people become police officers because they want to help people. Assuming this is the case, would their ambitions to help society suddenly go away if they weren't police officers? Would they suddenly not try to help someone in need? Where does this idea that you can rob, to be clear on terms, everyone to pay for services only some may need? (or rather, some may _think_ they need) You agree with the NAP, I believe I have read. Would you use government force or a majority's opinion to attempt to force me to pay for your services?

For the sake of argument I will concede that the police have helped people in need. So tf what? People help people in need. Usual people don't get carte blanche "authority" with qualified immunity. When they do something wrong; say: rob, steal, beat, murder, torture etc; they are charged with a crime. This is one of the main differences and one of the main reasons why the concept of police is abhorrent to a Just society. There can't be Justice when a percentage of the ruling class operates with impunity. It causes many others to disregard the Law and creates a chaotic, untrustworthy system of abuses.

----------


## jllundqu

> You clearly do not. If you did, it necessarily follows that you would have to reject the State on those grounds, as that's all the State is at a very basic level--an institution of aggressive monopolized violence.


I have to agree with this.  




> Anyone who truly believes in the non-aggression principle and takes it to its logical conclusion, must conclude that the state is by its very nature incompatible with that principle. Having Goldilocks arguments about what size government is "just right" totally misses the point. It is also counter-productive and a waste of time because such a professed libertarian either doesn't truly believe in the non-aggression principle, doesn't understand logic or are too afraid to admit the truth

----------


## jllundqu

Might I take a moment to truly thank everyone here on RPF.  It takes a truly dedicated soul to voluntarily come to a place and engage in debate with people who strongly disagree with you about many things.

I know we have Republicans, Conservatives, Independents, AnCaps, Voluntaryists, Minarchists, Libertarians of all stripes, and many more.  I sincerely thank each and every one of you for thoughtful debate and reasoned arguments.  We all have a different understanding of what the role of government should and should not be.  We are all striving for a better understanding of the world and our place in it and how we can make it better.  

I love this place.  Without RPF, I would have no one to challenge my beliefs and present alternative logic and reason.

At the risk of sounding 'high'....  I love you guys.

----------


## fisharmor

> I'm not an anarchist, but how does that make me an "authoritarian?"


I thought I had spelled it out, but let me try again.
The fact that the state's punishments for defying its statutes is, in fact, revenge, is not in question.
You openly equated revenge with justice. 
I'm naming you authoritarian because, like most of the world, you accept your conditioning in this regard.
We  are all told that when tax-ticks (totally stealing that, Tod) do  something terrible to people who have disobeyed, this is "justice".

Justice is defined this way on dictionary.com:

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. 

 2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.  

 3. the moral principle determining just conduct. 

 4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment. 

 5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward. 


You get the last definition, and I get the first four.
And if you never stop and ask questions about whether the state's response to breaking its edicts is _right_, then you fail those four definitions.
If you do start asking whether it's right, then you can't hold the position that police are a net positive to society.

Locking people in rape cages or killing them cannot achieve justice - _because it completely ignores the victim._
You're  the same type here who sees cases where cops find a bag of weed on  someone's front step and then arrest him, confiscate his cars and house,  throw him in jail with no bond, and when he empties his life savings  and borrows heavily from all his friends and relatives to fight it in  court and ends up not going to prison for the rest of his life, you show  up on those threads and cry "Justice is done!"

*BULL$#@!.*
Justice  is not a function of whether or not someone goes to prison.  It's not a  function of whether someone gets the death penalty.
In order for  justice to be done, you have to first recognize what the law is, and  then you have to recognize that the law governs interactions between  people, not between people and the state.

Justice goes undone as  long as those people who committed the crime against that homeowner -  THE COPS - go unaccountable for their actions.

Come on, man,  break out of your conditioning for just a second and really think about  that.  It's been said ad nauseum in this thread: police are the primary  aggressors in our society.  How can you say that justice is being done  when their crimes aren't going to be reviewed? 

How can you claim  their crimes might be reviewed when I already pointed out that police  that are held accountable for their crimes are no longer police?  Once  you strip the shield of state privilege from them, _they're no longer cops._

You  have the standard pants-on-head-retarded view of what justice actually  is.  You admitted it yourself when you casually dismissed everything  I've been saying about it and countered with 'What you call "revenge" I  would  simply call "justice." '  As long as you maintain that view -  that the only purpose of law is to facilitate those in charge to  controlling the masses - you're not going to get any of this.

Of  course you're never going to understand getting rid of the police.   They're part and parcel of this system of the state-god exacting its  revenge on we peons who should be thanking it daily for the privilege of  living under its boot.

----------


## pcosmar

> Ron Paul would have every federal agent disarmed. Carry that to the next logical step.


Actually,, he had called for them to be disbanded altogether. There is absolutely not Constitutional justification for any Federal LE.

He has stated directly that he would disband the CIA , DEA , ATF etc.

As far as the state level,, he supports the 2nd amendment and local Militia and Constitutional Sheriffs,, there is no need for any LE beyond that.

----------


## phill4paul

> Actually,, he had called for them to be disbanded altogether. There is absolutely not Constitutional justification for any Federal LE.
> 
> He has stated directly that he would disband the CIA , DEA , ATF etc.
> 
> As far as the state level,, he supports the 2nd amendment and local Militia and Constitutional Sheriffs,, there is no need for any LE beyond that.


  Correct you are, Pete! I was just trying to break into that particular conversation gently.

----------


## tod evans

TC, since you seem to want to follow _someone_ why not take Pete's post and learn from it?

Ron Paul has written volumes, spoke until he's blue in the face in an attempt to get his philosophy understood.

I think we're all in agreement that he's a wise man, right?

Spending some time reading and listening would glean you 70+ years of experience from a trusted source..

----------


## Brett85

> As far as the state level,, he supports the 2nd amendment and local Militia and Constitutional Sheriffs,, there is no need for any LE beyond that.


Show me a quote from Ron Paul where he ever said that the police should be abolished at the state level.

----------


## Brett85

> TC, since you seem to want to follow _someone_ why not take Pete's post and learn from it?
> 
> Ron Paul has written volumes, spoke until he's blue in the face in an attempt to get his philosophy understood.


I understand his philosophy and generally agree with it.  I've said that I'm probably slightly less libertarian than Ron but still agree with him on 95% of the issues.  But it seems to me that the philosophy you and others are advocating is 180 degrees opposite of the limited government philosophy that Ron supports.  I've never heard Ron Paul argue that the police shouldn't help out a woman who's being raped or murdered when she calls 9-1-1 for help.  That's completely at odds with the philosophy that Ron Paul believes in.

----------


## Brett85

> Actually,, he had called for them to be disbanded altogether. There is absolutely not Constitutional justification for any Federal LE.
> 
> He has stated directly that he would disband the CIA , DEA , ATF etc.


So what?  You could abolish the entire federal government and still have police forces at the state and local level.  Ron Paul has *never* advocated abolishing the state and local police.  That's not a philosophy that he believes in.

----------


## phill4paul

> So what?  You could abolish the entire federal government and still have police forces at the state and local level.  Ron Paul has *never* advocated abolishing the state and local police.  That's not a philosophy that he believes in.


  Has Ron Paul ever advocated *for* police at a state and local level? Please provide documentation.

----------


## Brett85

> Has Ron Paul ever advocated *for* police at a state and local level? Please provide documentation.


I can't find where he's really said anything about it.  But he supports a so called "standing army," since he supports bringing our army home from overseas and said during a Republican debate that he supports having more military bases here at home than we have now.  So if he supports having a "standing army" here in the United States, I don't see why he would want to abolish the police, since the police are supposedly a "standing army."

----------


## tod evans

> I understand his philosophy and generally agree with it.  I've said that I'm probably slightly less libertarian than Ron but still agree with him on 95% of the issues.  But it seems to me that the philosophy you and others are advocating is 180 degrees opposite of the limited government philosophy that Ron supports.  I've never heard Ron Paul argue that the police shouldn't help out a woman who's being raped or murdered when she calls 9-1-1 for help.  That's completely at odds with the philosophy that Ron Paul believes in.


You're doing the Boogeyman thing again..

Spend a while listening to Ron talk about personal responsibility and about the overreach of government, especially the police and the courts.

Little old ladies aren't going to suffer with a lack of SWAT teams and traffic cops, heck their dogs might even survive.

----------


## phill4paul

> *I can't find where he's really said anything about it.*  But he supports a so called "standing army," since he supports bringing our army home from overseas and said during a Republican debate that he supports having more military bases here at home than we have now.  So if he supports having a "standing army" here in the United States, I don't see why he would want to abolish the police, since the police are supposedly a "standing army."


  Then that destroys any semblance of argument or inference on your part that Ron Paul advocates for state and local police.

----------


## pcosmar

> Show me a quote from Ron Paul where he ever said that the police should be abolished at the state level.


I know of no such direct quote..  but here are a few.




> Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.





> Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law... every time we write a law to control private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun,





> All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals.





> To me, to be a conservative means to conserve the good parts of America and to conserve our Constitution.


Show me the "police" anywhere in the Constitution.  In fact,, it limits (or attempts to) everything that the police presently do. And they violate it on a daily routine basis.






> Liberty once again must become more important to us than the desire for security and material comfort. Personal safety and economic prosperity can only come as the consequence of liberty. They cannot be provided by an authoritarian government... The foundation for a police state has been put in place, and it's urgent we mobilize resistance before it's too late...


And there is,,of course,, my sig line,, which has been posted here with ever post I have made for the years I have been here,,

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I can't find where he's really said anything about it.  But he supports a so called "standing army," since he supports bringing our army home from overseas and said during a Republican debate that he supports having more military bases here at home than we have now.  So if he supports having a "standing army" here in the United States, I don't see why he would want to abolish the police, since the police are supposedly a "standing army."


He's spoken against standing armies multiple times, most notably in Iowa to an evangelical group while discussing 1 Samuel, and at a Mises summit over summer in which he said national defense could be achieved if people owned AK-47s.

----------


## Brett85

> Show me the "police" anywhere in the Constitution.  In fact,, it limits (or attempts to) everything that the police presently do. And they violate it on a daily routine basis.


Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution limits what the federal government can do, not the states.  The states have the authority under the Constitution to do a lot of things that the federal government can't or shouldn't be allowed to do.  State and local governments have the authority under the 10th amendment to set up police forces.

----------


## Brett85

> He's spoken against standing armies multiple times, most notably in Iowa to an evangelical group while discussing 1 Samuel, and at a Mises summit over summer in which he said national defense could be achieved if people owned AK-47s.


I've never heard him say anything like that, and if he did, it would directly contradict what he said in the Republican debates where he said that he would bring our army home from around the world and build additional military bases here in the United States.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I understand his philosophy and generally agree with it.  I've said that I'm probably slightly less libertarian than Ron but still agree with him on 95% of the issues.  But it seems to me that the philosophy you and others are advocating is 180 degrees opposite of the limited government philosophy that Ron supports.  I've never heard Ron Paul argue that the police shouldn't help out a woman who's being raped or murdered when she calls 9-1-1 for help.  That's completely at odds with the philosophy that Ron Paul believes in.


NOBODY says that.  Wow...

What we're saying is that that's what happens, not that that's what should happen.

@Fisharmor- I think Stephan Kinsella makes a pretty compelling case that the death penalty can be completely libertarian.

----------


## Brett85

> Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage.


It sounds to me that he's simply speaking out against unconstitutional searches and seizures and the militarization of the police, not saying that the police don't have a legitimate function in society.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've never heard him say anything like that, and if he did, it would directly contradict what he said in the Republican debates where he said that he would bring our army home from around the world and build additional military bases here in the United States.


I think Ron makes a distinction between his political goals and his interior philospophy, if that makes sense.

----------


## Brett85

> NOBODY says that.  Wow...
> 
> What we're saying is that that's what happens, not that that's what should happen.


No, read through the thread again.  People are arguing that people have to completely rely on themselves and defend themselves in that situation, that the police shouldn't come help someone in that situation.  They are absolutely arguing that if a rapist breaks into a 100 pound woman's home and tries to rape her, and the woman calls the police for help, the police shouldn't do anything to try to stop the rapist.




> That is exactly what you're saying.
> 
> The idea that some armed tax-tick is going to "protect" anyone is completely ludicrous.
> 
> The position that because the tax-tick is a professional strong-arm he is somehow better equipped to deal with Boogeymen than you are is just a way to avoid personal responsibility.
> 
> Cradle to grave.

----------


## Brett85

> I think Ron makes a distinction between his political goals and his interior philospophy, if that makes sense.


I'm not going to believe that Ron Paul is an anarchist until he actually comes out and says it.  He said that he's not an anarcho capitalist about six months ago or so.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, read through the thread again.  People are arguing that people have to completely rely on themselves and defend themselves in that situation, that the police shouldn't come help someone in that situation.


No,, They are arguing that Police should not exist at all .. That the very concept of police is contrary to Liberty and the spirit of the Constitution.

The very concept of police is an Authoritarian construct that was invented long after the Constitution.. and it had NO Constitutional basis.

Police simply did not exist until they were invented. And they have violated Rights ever since they were invented.

----------


## pcosmar

> They are absolutely arguing that if a rapist breaks into a 100 pound woman's home and tries to rape her, and the woman calls the police for help, the police shouldn't do anything to try to stop the rapist.


Police do not stop rape. They may or may not catch the rapist (often not).

But they certainly do not prevent it. or stop it,, except on a possible rare occasion where one stumbles on a rape in progress.

----------


## Brett85

> Police do not stop rape. They may or may not catch the rapist (often not).
> 
> But they certainly do not prevent it. or stop it,, except on a possible rare occasion where one stumbles on a rape in progress.


In your hypthetical world where the only kind of law enforcement would be county Sheriffs and deputees, do you think that a county sheriff or a deputy should come to the aid of a woman who was being raped and called the Sheriff's office for help?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, read through the thread again. People are arguing that people have to completely rely on themselves and defend themselves in that situation, that the police shouldn't come help someone in that situation. They are absolutely arguing that if a rapist breaks into a 100 pound woman's home and tries to rape her, and the woman calls the police for help, the police shouldn't do anything to try to stop the rapist.


I agree with what I think Tod is saying.  I don't think he's saying the police SHOULDN'T help a woman in that situation, but that the reality is that they likely won't and so it would be wise of her not to be in a position to have to rely on the police.

Am I reading you correctly, Tod?

Would you object if a police officer actually did help a woman in that situation, however unlikely?



> I'm not going to believe that Ron Paul is an anarchist until he actually comes out and says it.  He said that he's not an anarcho capitalist about six months ago or so.


Did he say that?  Can you quote it?  Are you sure he is objecting to the concept and not just the term?

I've seen people quote Ron in order to prove that he's a constitutionalist and to prove that he's an anarchist.  Some people think the constitutionalist is his "political" side while the "real him" is an anarchist.  I personally don't think that jives with his honest character.  I think its more likely that he's been influenced by both philosophies and may be somewhere between the two.

I seriously doubt Ron is pro-standing army, however.  George Washington opposed a standing army, do you think this makes him an "anarchist?"  I don't.

----------


## pcosmar

> In your hypthetical world where the only kind of law enforcement would be county Sheriffs and deputees, do you think that a county sheriff or a deputy should come to the aid of a woman who was being raped and called the Sheriff's office for help?


I think everyone should come to the aid of someone being assaulted. And they should be armed and able to do so at all times.
The police can not be everywhere,, nor can a Sheriff.
 But a neighbor can and should intervene,, and arrest such. And shoot him like a rabid dog if he resists. And beyond a report file on the incident,, should have no further repercussions.

I do not think police should be able to arrest anyone for anything that they did not physically observe themselves,, unless they have a valid arrest warrant,, sworn out by witnesses before a judge.  Same would be required of a Sheriff.  or any man.

And no one should ever be arrested,, (or even bothered) for anything less than Theft, Assault or Murder. (Real Crime)

The rest of petty codes should be stricken from the books.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In your hypthetical world where the only kind of law enforcement would be county Sheriffs and deputees, do you think that a county sheriff or a deputy should come to the aid of a woman who was being raped and called the Sheriff's office for help?


I know you didn't ask me, but just so you know where I stand.

If a mafia crook saved a woman from being raped, I would congratulate him on this action.  I might oppose him, even hate him, but other things that he does.  But I would nonetheless condone his particular action of saving a woman in distress.

That does not mean that I believe there should be any mafia crooks.

The same principle would apply to the military or State-police forces (free market police are a different matter entirely).  I won't object if they do something good, I'd congratulate them for it, but they still shouldn't exist.



I also fail to see how "No State" and "Very, very limited State" are opposite philosophies.  They aren't the same, but they are similar.  The opposite of Ron Paul would be someone like Lindsey Graham or Tom Cotton, not someone like Rothbard.

----------


## tod evans

> No, read through the thread again.  People are arguing that people have to completely rely on themselves and defend themselves in that situation, that the police shouldn't come help someone in that situation.  They are absolutely arguing that if a rapist breaks into a 100 pound woman's home and tries to rape her, and the woman calls the police for help, the police shouldn't do anything to try to stop the rapist.


Would you please stop mischaracterizing what I type!

I don't believe you're dense or stupid so there's no reason for this.

----------


## tod evans

> I agree with what I think Tod is saying.  I don't think he's saying the police SHOULDN'T help a woman in that situation, but that the reality is that they likely won't and so it would be wise of her not to be in a position to have to rely on the police.


Every human being "should" help a person in need and most do, in fact regular folks are often the first to respond to crimes or potential crimes.





> Am I reading you correctly, Tod?


Yup.




> Would you object if a police officer actually did help a woman in that situation, however unlikely?


It's not unlikely that a cop would help her, in fact it's highly likely one would help and I'd be insane to object to anyone helping a woman "in that situation".

Where I take issue with the pro-police crowd is the idea that the woman should even consider calling 911 in the first place. Any upright person of either gender has a moral responsibility to intercede on her behalf, paying a hired thug and granting him immunity from prosecution doesn't absolve the pro-police crowd from the responsibility to help.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So what?  You could abolish the entire federal government and still have police forces at the state and local level.  Ron Paul has *never* advocated abolishing the state and local police.  That's not a philosophy that he believes in.


If you say so, Ron Paul's conscience.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> In your hypthetical world where the only kind of law enforcement would be county Sheriffs and deputees, do you think that a county sheriff or a deputy should come to the aid of a woman who was being raped and called the Sheriff's office for help?


Sure, but why does it have to be law enforcement?  Can't someone else come to her aid and be just as effective as the police?  What is so special about the police that they are the only ones who can help victims of crimes?

----------


## Brett85

> Did he say that?  Can you quote it?  Are you sure he is objecting to the concept and not just the term?


http://www.dailypaul.com/283231/ron-...cho-capitalist

----------


## Brett85

> Sure, but why does it have to be law enforcement?  Can't someone else come to her aid and be just as effective as the police?  What is so special about the police that they are the only ones who can help victims of crimes?


I didn't say that they should be the only ones to help victims of crimes, just that they have a responsibility to stop crimes if they can, and then bring evidence to the district attorney to prosecute crimes afterward.  But of course I'm not opposed to neighbors and others coming to the defense of those who are being assaulted or robbed.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> I also fail to see how "No State" and "Very, very limited State" are opposite philosophies.


Seems to me to depend on how you characterize state intervention, especially from a historical standpoint. For me, the growth of the state is a _secondary concern_. "Limited government" advocates perhaps don't always realize that the US state always had the potential to grow by virtue of its being a state in the first place. The Constitution was (some, including me, contend purposely) written in a vague way to allow for this. Minarchists tend to cite certain years (1860s, 1913, even 1936 are the most commonly named ones) as the pivotal moment in US history when it "all started going to hell in a handbasket," but the roots go back even further. Even the "limited" state's attempts to "enforce" property rights, really enforcing some people's property rights at the expense of others', create distortions that play right into the hands of interested capitalists (I refuse to call them cronyists, because in this case every capitalist benefits whether they realize it or not) and lead to a situation where labor's power in relation to capital is severely curtailed. 

So just to be clear, the biggest mistake starts with the establishment of the state in the first place. One of the state's so-called essential functions (according to minarchists) by itself will inevitably lead to its continued growth. Simply paring back the state won't erase the fundamental injustice of history, the one in which labor is artificially deprived of its power. Everything follows from that, IMO. 

To argue otherwise seems to me to mischaracterize the state - it's not some artificial covering, like a blanket, that a fevered person can remove to "feel better" (alleviate that heated, feverish feeling). It changes too much regardless of its size.

----------


## Brett85

> Where I take issue with the pro-police crowd is the idea that the woman should even consider calling 911 in the first place. Any upright person of either gender has a moral responsibility to intercede on her behalf, paying a hired thug and granting him immunity from prosecution doesn't absolve the pro-police crowd from the responsibility to help.


If you're a 100 pound woman being raped by a 250 pound man, you're going to want to call 9-1-1 in that situation.  And I'm sure you're going to say, "the woman has a responsibility to use a gun against the rapist."  Well, I think it's generally good for people to own guns for their own protection.  But it's a right, not a requirement.  If you have a woman being raped who doesn't like guns or doesn't believe in using them, then I guess she's pretty much screwed if the police aren't going to come help her, or if her neighbors are on vacation, or are asleep and don't know what's going on.

----------


## Brett85

> Seems to me to depend on how you characterize state intervention, especially from a historical standpoint. For me, the growth of the state is a _secondary concern_. "Limited government" advocates perhaps don't always realize that the US state always had the potential to grow by virtue of its being a state in the first place. The Constitution was (some, including me, contend purposely) written in a vague way to allow for this. Minarchists tend to cite certain years (1860s, 1913, even 1936 are the most commonly named ones) as the pivotal moment in US history when it "all started going to hell in a handbasket," but the roots go back even further. Even the "limited" state's attempts to "enforce" property rights, really enforcing some people's property rights at the expense of others', create distortions that play right into the hands of interested capitalists (I refuse to call them cronyists, because in this case every capitalist benefits whether they realize it or not) and lead to a situation where labor's power in relation to capital is severely curtailed.


In an anarchist society, there would be no way from stopping a group of people from creating a new government.  An anarchist society couldn't stop the growth of government either, because they would have no mechanism to stop a group of people from creating a new government, and then the government would grow from that point on.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> No, read through the thread  again.  People are arguing that people have to completely rely on  themselves and defend themselves in that situation, that the police  shouldn't come help someone in that situation.  They are absolutely  arguing that if a rapist breaks into a 100 pound woman's home and tries  to rape her, and the woman calls the police for help, the police  shouldn't do anything to try to stop the rapist.


Straw men are made of straw ...




> Would you please stop mischaracterizing what I type!


It's not just you he's mischaracterizing. He's doing it to everyone he disagrees with (by lumping us all together under the words "people" and "they").

I've read every post in this thread, and not a single one of them is "arguing" what he says they are ...

----------


## Brett85

> It's not just you he's mischaracterizing. He's doing it to everyone he disagrees with (by lumping us all together under the words "people" and "they").
> 
> I've read every post in this thread, and not a single one of them is "arguing" what he says they are ...


I'm not exactly sure how else to interpret what he's saying, when he accuses me of supporting a "cradle to grave" society simply because I think the police should help people when they call 9-1-1 for help.  I have no other way to interpret his comments but to conclude that he believes that people should have to completely rely on themselves and defend themselves when they get robbed or assaulted, or possibly rely on their "neighbors," who could very well be somewhere else and not in their homes.

----------


## tod evans

> If you're a 100 pound woman being raped by a 250 pound man, you're going to want to call 9-1-1 in that situation.  And I'm sure you're going to say, "the woman has a responsibility to use a gun against the rapist."  Well, I think it's generally good for people to own guns for their own protection.  But it's a right, not a requirement.  If you have a woman being raped who doesn't like guns or doesn't believe in using them, then I guess she's pretty much screwed if the police aren't going to come help her, or if her neighbors are on vacation, or are asleep and don't know what's going on.


So your argument, without hyperbole, is that paying thugs with tax dollars and granting them immunity is the only way this woman can be assured of a response when she dials 911?

This is total and utter bull$#@!!

The 911 system could function *better* without the tax-ticks.

Would you opt to pay protection or volunteer one day every year?

Go ahead and try the argument that the tax-ticks are "professionals" and are better suited....(After some of the $#@! posted here that'll be interesting!)

It's not my place to say a 100# woman _should_ do anything and the fact that you keep trying to paint a picture of helplessness with big-bad policemen coming to the rescue is quite frightening. 

You might be well served to talk to a rape victim or two and ask their opinion of police.....

----------


## jllundqu

This thread has devolved into a mental masturbation thread basically arguing whether anarchism is better than minarchism.

----------


## Brett85

> So your argument, without hyperbole, is that paying thugs with tax dollars and granting them immunity is the only way this woman can be assured of a response when she dials 911?
> 
> This is total and utter bull$#@!!
> 
> The 911 system could function *better* without the tax-ticks.


Ok, can someone please explain how I'm possibly misinterpreting his remarks when he's being so clear in what he's saying?  How can I possibly interpret this comment as anything other than a statement that the police shouldn't help a woman that's getting raped, that she simply has to rely on herself and her neighbors to survive?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> If you're a 100 pound woman being raped by a 250 pound man, you're going to want to call 9-1-1 in that situation.  And I'm sure you're going to say, "the woman has a responsibility to use a gun against the rapist."  Well, I think it's generally good for people to own guns for their own protection.  But it's a right, not a requirement.  If you have a woman being raped who doesn't like guns or doesn't believe in using them, then I guess *she's pretty much screwed if the police aren't going to come help her*, or if her neighbors are on vacation, or are asleep and don't know what's going on.


As has been pointed out repeatedly, the police have no obligation or responsibility to "come and help her" (or anyone else).

----------


## Brett85

> This thread has devolved into a mental masturbation thread basically arguing whether anarchism is better than minarchism.


And basic minarchism is being described as "authoritarianism" by the anarchists, which makes me wonder why they're even on this forum, supporting an "authoritarian" like Ron Paul.

----------


## Cabal

> In an anarchist society, there would be no way from stopping a group of people from creating a new government.  An anarchist society couldn't stop the growth of government either, because they would have no mechanism to stop a group of people from creating a new government, and then the government would grow from that point on.


So, your logic is: statism will always eventually try to emerge, therefore we shouldn't reject statism? 

The mechanism to prevent statism is the rejection of statism, and the demonstration that civilized society exists despite statism, not because of it. A society that has become anarchic as a result of the cultural rejection of statism isn't likely to allow statism to re-establish itself so easily. And even if a State were to be re-established in some way, that doesn't mean statism should be accepted as legitimate or valid.

"Well, slavery will always exist, so we should just accept that slavery is a reality, and stop trying to reject it."

----------


## Brett85

> As has been pointed out repeatedly, the police have no obligation or responsibility to "come and help her" (or anyone else).


Then how am I "misinterpreting" your comments and others' comments when I say that you're saying that a woman who has a rapist break into her home should have to rely completely on herself for survival or depend on her neighbors?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.dailypaul.com/283231/ron-...cho-capitalist


Well he did say "Maybe that's an ultimate goal, but not for a long time yet."  I tend to agree with you that he probably isn't, but he isn't as clearly opposed to it as you are.  The most logically consistent application of Ron's philosophy is still anarcho-capitalism, IMO. 




> If you're a 100 pound woman being raped by a 250 pound man, you're going to want to call 9-1-1 in that situation.  And I'm sure you're going to say, "the woman has a responsibility to use a gun against the rapist."  Well, I think it's generally good for people to own guns for their own protection.  But it's a right, not a requirement.  If you have a woman being raped who doesn't like guns or doesn't believe in using them, then I guess she's pretty much screwed if the police aren't going to come help her, or if her neighbors are on vacation, or are asleep and don't know what's going on.


While I agree with you on the rights/responsibilities issues, if she doesn't believe in using guns, isn't she kind of a hypocrite for asking the police to use them for her?




> I didn't say that they should be the only ones to help victims of crimes, just that they have a responsibility to stop crimes if they can, and then bring evidence to the district attorney to prosecute crimes afterward.  But of course I'm not opposed to neighbors and others coming to the defense of those who are being assaulted or robbed.


I agree that this is true, although as we've mentioned, SCOTUS disagrees.

----------


## Cabal

> I also fail to see how "No State" and "Very, very limited State" are opposite philosophies.  They aren't the same, but they are similar.


Honestly not trying to be rude here, but you may want to rethink your self-proclaimed anarchism if you fail to see how these are necessarily polar opposites--the distinction between the two is rather central to anarchism. Statism is the polar opposite of anti-statism, no matter how small a State you're talking about, by definition. Any centralized monopoly on the use of violence over a geographical region is a State, and is thus antithetical to anti-statism, aka "no State".

----------


## Brett85

> While I agree with you on the rights/responsibilities issues, if she doesn't believe in using guns, isn't she kind of a hypocrite for asking the police to use them for her?


Maybe she doesn't feel comfortable using guns herself?  Maybe she has some sort of religious belief or religious doctrine that says that it's wrong for her to use guns?

----------


## Brett85

> Honestly not trying to be rude here, but you may want to rethink your self-proclaimed anarchism if you fail to see how these are necessarily polar opposites--the distinction between the two is rather central to anarchism. Statism is the polar opposite of anti-statism, no matter how small a State you're talking about, by definition. Any centralized monopoly on the use of violence over a geographical region is a State, and is thus antithetical to anti-statism, aka "no State".


Then do you believe that Ron Paul is just a closet anarchist who just pretends to be a minarchist, and you feel that you can support him because of that?

----------


## tod evans

> I'm not exactly sure how else to interpret what he's saying, when he accuses me of supporting a "cradle to grave" society simply because I think the police should help people when they call 9-1-1 for help.  I have no other way to interpret his comments but to conclude that he believes that people should have to completely rely on themselves and defend themselves when they get robbed or assaulted, or possibly rely on their "neighbors," who could very well be somewhere else and not in their homes.


A constitutionally elected sheriff is fully capable of providing for the needs of his county or he gets the boot.

Try to determine how many crimes are _prevented_  by the presence of unconstitutional police. G-ahead give it a whirl.

The world isn't going to be "safe" no matter how many cops there are. The more cops there are the more they drain society both financially and on the liberty front, they've got to earn their keep, protecting and serving right?

Wanting government to provide safety "cradle to grave" is a pipe dream, expecting tax-tick cops to do it is insane!

The "Just-Us" system needs to be killed, it's head cut off and it's body burnt and "police" as we know them today are an integral part of the "Just-Us" system.

Courts and sheriffs can, and should, be part of a justice system.

How many more abuses must society suffer at the hands of "police" and their enablers before people such as yourself grasp the concept of personal responsibility?

----------


## jllundqu

I've never heard so many folks striving to be Philosopher King in the never ending game of "I'm right and you are wrong".

----------


## Occam's Banana

> In an anarchist society, there would be no way from stopping a group of people from creating a new government.


So prove it. (And by "prove" I mean "demonstrate" - not merely "assert.")

Why is it impossible for some people to prevent some other people from "creating a new government?"




> An anarchist society couldn't stop the growth of government either, because they would have no mechanism to stop a group of people from creating a new government [...]


More assertion without evidence. (Beg the question, much?)

I repeat: Why is it impossible for some people to prevent some other people from "creating a new government?"

And before you merely repeat your unsupported assertion, note that there clearly and undeniably IS in fact a "mechanism to stop a group of people from creating a new government." To wit: the refusal to submit to or comply with the people trying to impose "new government" on other people (backed up with guns, if necessary).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And basic minarchism is being described as "authoritarianism" by the anarchists, which makes me wonder why they're even on this forum, supporting an "authoritarian" like Ron Paul.


I'd be quite happy living in a minarchist society, and I'm more than willing to work with minarchists, but I ultimately don't view minarchy as a logically coherent system.  

I'm an anarchist and I never said all minarchists were authoritarians.  So you shouldn't generalize like that.  I'd be more inclined to call minarchists inconsistent anarchists than I would to call them statists

That said, are you even a basic minarchist?  Don't you support a little more government than minarchy would allow for?  (note that by asking this question I am not saying you are an authoritarian.)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I've never heard so many folks striving to be Philosopher King in the never ending game of "I'm right and you are wrong".


Hang out in the Philosophy sub-forum and general politics and you'll see much more of it.

----------


## Brett85

> A constitutionally elected sheriff is fully capable of providing for the needs of his county or he gets the boot.


Ok, then let me ask you the same question I asked pcosmor.  If a woman has someone break into her home and try to rape her, and she calls the Sheriff's office for help, should the Sheriff or one of the Sheriff's deputees come to the woman's house and try to prevent the rapist from raping her?

----------


## jllundqu

In the minarchism vs anarchism vein... thought this was interesting.  Posted by a friend of mine:




> 1. Minarchists - First of all, I'm a min-stater, not a minarchist. There is a great theory to support our limited role for the state. It's based on the idea of "Public Goods" theory, and it basically posits that certain necessary and sufficient conditions must be in place for liberty to exist. Things such as national defense, uniform and objective law (to the degree it can be), protecting our commons (which a free market can't protect) such as the environment and certain kinds of infrastructure and the provision toi all citizens a basic education. The last is supposedly controversial, but I'm with Jefferson - an educated populace is required for democracy to function. Do some web searches on Public Goods for more specifics. 
> 
> 2. Anarchy has never, ever worked anywhere. This is an obstacle which they cannot overcome. I believe anarchy and criticisms of the state are very interesting, as I do much of philosophy, but I don't wish to put many of those ideas into practice. This is actually a form of "scientism" which Hayek accused the socialists and progressives of, but the anarchists do the same. They give their theories the certainty of physical science, and then come to absurd conclusions. It's intellectually immature mental masturbation. Hence Ayn Rand's disgust with them, a disgust I share, fyi, because the Anarchists have marginalized libertarians for 40 years, and as a result our nation is in peril without a viable governing alternative. 
> 
> 3. Incentives - It's axiomatic to libertarians that people respond to incentives, but not perfectly rationally, and that individuals will act differently in the same circumstances. To assume that we would evolve towards compliance and belief in liberty/anarchy via some inexorable tug of the good (yes, some anarchists actually posit that "good" always wins, a laughable assertion) is simply more mental masturbation. Some folks will always choose coercion and force over non-aggression and voluntarism. It's axiomatic to any real study of human behavior. As well, any study of political science reveals quickly that a minority can exert meaningful control over a populace. In fact, if a relatively small group can assert positive control over 25% of a population, they can quite easily exert negative control over the rest due to factionalization. Anthropology, history, and sociology tell us this as well, but hey, lets not let reality slow these guys down. They seem to believe they are in possession of revealed truths, and in a conference room or lecture hall can quite readily ignore these arguments. Tell them that when the warlord armed to the teeth is at their door. Another way to look at it, as Nozick did, is that a state is an emergent property of anarchy, arising inexorably from it. Either way, it's an idea that flies in the face of much of what we know. 
> 
> 4. Evidence of the state enabling huge gains in wealth and living conditions - Much academic research has been done on the explosion of wealth and consequent dramatic improvement in living conditions over the past 500 years, versus the previous tens of thousands of years in which these measures barely budged in comparison. Many political scientists attribute this to very existence of states, but of states of a particular kind which protect civil liberties and contracts to a large extent. The causality is self evident. In the face of this evidence, anarchists instead ask me to believe that without the rise of the modern, liberal nation state, we would have an experience of real liberty anyway, in even greater abundance? Are you laughing yet? But see, the anarchists want to pretend history doesn't exist and think they can just start now with the existing conditions in liberal democracies and the beliefs folks hold in those societies and then ban the state. It's much like the equally fanciful beliefs of Marxists in this regard, and just as fantastic.
> 
> 5. Practical considerations - Let's just concede for a second that they are right, that I don't need uniform and guaranteed (and imperfect, you silly children) protection from your worst instincts, and that somehow, humanitie's good instincts will prevail. So, should I then advocate for something that has no chance of ever occurring in an actual reality? The reality is that the likes of Rothbard et al have marginalized libertarians, making common cause with anarchists (whose thought actually stem from a different epistemological background than libertarian thought), who most free people see as dangerous and destructive. Because I sort of like the ideas and agree with some of them, I'm to then doom the entire movement for liberty to irrelevance because anarchy is interesting? Again, I can only classify this as juvenile thinking. The libertarian movement has a great min-state platform that clearly and practically is workable, and can win real political gains in our system. The Rothbardian, anarchist Utopian, minority view of the libertarian movement has destroyed our credibility, by claiming the "truer" libertarian mantle. Instead of libertarians distancing themselves from anarchy, we will drown with the children who can't separate reality from fantasy. 
> ...

----------


## Brett85

> That said, are you even a basic minarchist?  Don't you support a little more government than minarchy would allow for?  (note that by asking this question I am not saying you are an authoritarian.)


I don't exactly know what a "minarchist" is or if there's a specific definition for it.  I would probably call myself a Constitutionalist; I believe that the federal government should only do the things that are authorized by the Constitution.  Although there can even be some disagreement among Constitutionalists about what the Constitution allows.

----------


## tod evans

> So your argument, without hyperbole, is that paying thugs with tax dollars and granting them immunity is the only way this woman can be assured of a response when she dials 911?
> 
> This is total and utter bull$#@!!
> 
> The 911 system could function *better* without the tax-ticks.





> Ok, can someone please explain how I'm possibly misinterpreting his remarks when he's being so clear in what he's saying?  How can I possibly interpret this comment as anything other than a statement that the police shouldn't help a woman that's getting raped, that she simply has to rely on herself and her neighbors to survive?


Okay........

Read the part of my post you chose to chop off.

Police, non-sheriff employees, are not the only ones capable of responding to a 911 call.

You're playing games for some reason and it's silly.

My opinion is that you are scared to stand up for yourself, your family or your neighbors and in that light you feel the need to be able to push 911 on your little phone and expect to be rescued by the heroes in blue, thereby absolving yourself of all responsibility to act.

----------


## Brett85

> So prove it. (And by "prove" I mean "demonstrate" - not merely "assert.")
> 
> Why is it impossible for some people to prevent some other people from "creating a new government?"
> 
> 
> 
> More assertion without evidence. (Beg the question, much?)
> 
> I repeat: Why is it impossible for some people to prevent some other people from "creating a new government?"
> ...


It seems like if anarchists are against using force, then they wouldn't have any way to stop a group of people who tried to create a new government.  If anarchists do believe in using force, then anarchism would simply lead to non stop civil war, as those who truly support anarchism would be fighting against those who actively try to create a new government.

----------


## silverhandorder

Ofcourse there should be police. Private police. I assume poll was talking about public police. So I voted for abolishing the police.

----------


## tod evans

> Ok, then let me ask you the same question I asked pcosmor.  If a woman has someone break into her home and try to rape her, and she calls the Sheriff's office for help, should the Sheriff or one of the Sheriff's deputees come to the woman's house and try to prevent the rapist from raping her?


Of course!

*BUT!* Much more expedient for neighbors or even passersby to offer assistance.

Notification via cell has been an option for several years now, it is the "professionals" who don't want citizens interfering with their paycheck.

----------


## Brett85

> Okay........
> 
> Read the part of my post you chose to chop off.
> 
> Police, non-sheriff employees, are not the only ones capable of responding to a 911 call.
> 
> You're playing games for some reason and it's silly.
> 
> My opinion is that you are scared to stand up for yourself, your family or your neighbors and in that light you feel the need to be able to push 911 on your little phone and expect to be rescued by the heroes in blue, thereby absolving yourself of all responsibility to act.


Then answer my question about what a county Sheriff should do if a woman calls 9-1-1 and asks for help because she's being raped.

Never mind:  Thanks for answering.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Honestly not trying to be rude here, but you may want to rethink your self-proclaimed anarchism if you fail to see how these are necessarily polar opposites--the distinction between the two is rather central to anarchism. Statism is the polar opposite of anti-statism, no matter how small a State you're talking about, by definition. Any centralized monopoly on the use of violence over a geographical region is a State, and is thus antithetical to anti-statism, aka "no State".


First of all, while I like your posts alot, I suspect that my anarchism is probably a little different from your anarchism.  For one thing, Christianity being true is absolutely central and essential to mine.

For better or worse, TC is asking valid questions here.  Why do you support Ron Paul?  As far as we know, he's a strict minarchist, but not an anarchist.  So if you really believe that minarchy is "The polar opposite" of anarchy, than you really shouldn't support Ron Paul.

Minarchists agree with anarchists on like 99% of the issues.  So I view them as inconsistent allies.

Your black and white view would put minarchists closer to the Nazis than to us, since they're both "Statist."

Which is absurd.  Rothbard (who you quote in your sig) never held to a dichotomy like that either, in fact he supported people that I couldn't even support at times.  And nobody could accuse Rothbard of being insufficiently libertarian

I still stand by what I said here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...11#post5254611



> Maybe she doesn't feel comfortable using guns herself?  Maybe she has some sort of religious belief or religious doctrine that says that it's wrong for her to use guns?


The first part would make sense, but if she has a religious belief or doctrine that says its wrong for her to use guns, but it doesn't also say she'd be wrong to ask an officer to do so for her, than that religious belief/doctrine is stupid.

----------


## Brett85

> Of course!
> 
> *BUT!* Much more expedient for neighbors or even passersby to offer assistance.
> 
> Notification via cell has been an option for several years now, it is the "professionals" who don't want citizens interfering with their paycheck.


What if she lives out in the country where there's no one else around?  What if she lives in a city where her neighbors are out of town or on vacation?  What if her neighbors are asleep and don't hear anything?  There are certainly situations where a county sheriff or his deputies would have to come to the aid of a woman being raped who asks for their help.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It seems like if anarchists are against using force, then they wouldn't have any way to stop a group of people who tried to create a new government.  If anarchists do believe in using force, then anarchism would simply lead to non stop civil war, as those who truly support anarchism would be fighting against those who actively try to create a new government.


TC, PLEASE learn what anarchism actually is before you try to respond to it.

Ugh.  Strawman alert.

Anarchism rejects all AGGRESSIVE force.  It does not necessarily reject defensive or retalitatory force.  It could, but that isn't a necessary feature of anarchism.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What if she lives out in the country where there's no one else around?  What if she lives in a city where her neighbors are out of town or own vacation?  What if her neighbors are asleep and don't hear anything?  There are certainly situations where a county sheriff or his deputies would have to come to the aid of a woman being raped who asks for their help.


I'm with you here.  I just don't see why it has to be a singular monopoly police force rather than competing free market police forces.

----------


## tod evans

> What if she lives out in the country where there's no one else around?  What if she lives in a city where her neighbors are out of town or on vacation?  What if her neighbors are asleep and don't hear anything?  There are certainly situations where a county sheriff or his deputies would have to come to the aid of a woman being raped who asks for their help.


And who exactly is arguing that they shouldn't?

----------


## Brett85

> TC, PLEASE learn what anarchism actually is before you try to respond to it.
> 
> Ugh.  Strawman alert.
> 
> Anarchism rejects all AGGRESSIVE force.  It does not necessarily reject defensive or retalitatory force.  It could, but that isn't a necessary feature of anarchism.


Then wouldn't anarchism just lead to civil war between anarchists and those who want to create a government?  For example, if you had a hypothetical situation where there was a 51-49 vote to abolish all government, and the government was abolished, you would still have about half of the population that would want to have a government, and those people would always be pushing to create a new government.

----------


## Brett85

> And who exactly is arguing that they shouldn't?


Good, then we agree.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then wouldn't anarchism just lead to civil war between anarchists and those who want to create a government?  For exampl,e if you had a hypothetical situation where there was a 51-49 vote to abolish all government, and the government was abolished, you would still have about half of the population that would want to have a government, and those people would always be pushing to create a new government.


I don't know if they'd always be pushing to do so.  We don't have civil wars between the Republicans and the Democrats every election.  And I seriously doubt anarchism would be instituted democratically anyway.

But is it possible?  Sure.  Its also possible that States can go to Civil War.  I don't see how that's relevant to the argument at all.  Should the American Revolution have not happened because it led to a civil war?  Should Hitler's government have been accepted because the alternative would be civil war?

I don't see why this hypothetical possibility is relevant to the moral argument against Statism.

----------


## tod evans

> Good, then we agree.


Do not make a blanket statement about me "agreeing" to any police force other than an elected sheriff.

And even the position of sheriff/deputy needs to be stripped of qualified immunity.

----------


## silverhandorder

> It seems like if anarchists are against using force, then they wouldn't have any way to stop a group of people who tried to create a new government.  If anarchists do believe in using force, then anarchism would simply lead to non stop civil war, as those who truly support anarchism would be fighting against those who actively try to create a new government.


Not really. It's easier to defend then to attack. I would not advocate for open war if the supporters of government were numerous enough to threaten the system. Anarchists are not dumb. I don't think an anarchist system would find a lot of people who want a government. A government needs indoctrination and dependent people. 

Find me one anarchist that advocates civil war.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Then how am I "misinterpreting" your comments and others' comments when I say that you're saying that a woman who has a rapist break into her home should have to rely completely on herself for survival or depend on her neighbors?


Which part of the fact that "police *cannot* be 'completely relied' upon to help anyone because police have *absolutely no responsibility or obligation whatsover* to help anyone" do you not understand? To say that police might in some circumstances help someone in no way mitigates against this.

IOW: The police are NO different than any of the other things you reject. If you are going to dismiss the idea of people "completely relying" upon themselves, or neighbors, or passers-by, or private security services, or whatever - because any of those people are not obligated to help - then you have to reject the idea of the people relying upon the police for the very same reason.

What is more, in fact, is that private security services would actually have a contractual responsibility & obligation to help. Public police "services" DO NOT.

----------


## Brett85

> Do not make a blanket statement about me "agreeing" to any police force other than an elected sheriff.
> 
> And even the position of sheriff/deputy needs to be stripped of qualified immunity.


What if the system were reformed to make the police officers answer directly to the Sheriff, and the Sheriff had the authority to hire and fire police officers?  If that were the case, then the police officers wouldn't really be any different than deputees, and they would be more accountable to the people.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Then wouldn't anarchism just lead to civil war between anarchists and those who want to create a government?  For example, if you had a hypothetical situation where there was a 51-49 vote to abolish all government, and the government was abolished, you would still have about half of the population that would want to have a government, and those people would always be pushing to create a new government.


In my opinion, for libertarian "anarchism," probably better called a *private property society*, to come about, there would need to be a very broad agreement in that society on the sanctity of private property, the immorality (or at least inadvisability, for the utilitarians) of institutional theft, slaughter, and slavery, (taxes, war, and income taxes), and the inadvisability of having a central monopoly provide dispute resolution.

If 49% of the populace, or indeed 20% of the populace, were firmly in favor of a monopoly dispute resolver, then I believe it would be impossible to suddenly abolish the monopoly dispute resolver in that scenario, and have the abolition be stable and sustainable.  That would be an explosive situation.  Gradual movement towards non-monopolization, however, would be quite doable.

Once the non-monopoly system has been established and in place for a while, then it will be more resilient to large numbers of people within its borders opposing it and seeking to topple the system, just as it would be resilient to such opposition and attack from outside its borders.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I think if 80% of people had a principled opposition to government, than we could elect leaders who we know agree with our philosophy, and kill off any aggressors that refuse to stand down.  It might be bloody, but I think it would be doable at that point.  The only real question is how many aggressors would end up getting killed.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> (or at least inadvisability, for the utilitarians)


The deontology/utilitarian debate is also much more important than the anarchy/minarchy debate.  I'd take a deontological minarchist over a utilitarian anarchist any day.  I pretty much view all utilitarians of all stripes as being both useless and evil.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> The 911 system could function *better* without the tax-ticks.


"The one thing most everyone agrees that the government should provide is police. But ..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnPZ1yuoFIc

----------


## tod evans

> What if the system were reformed to make the police officers answer directly to the Sheriff, and the Sheriff had the authority to hire and fire police officers?  If that were the case, then the police officers wouldn't really be any different than deputees, and they would be more accountable to the people.


"More accountable doesn't equate to "accountable".

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> I think if 80% of people had a principled opposition to government, than we could elect leaders who we know agree with our philosophy, and kill off any aggressors that refuse to stand down.  It might be bloody, but I think it would be doable at that point.  The only real question is how many aggressors would end up getting killed.


I think if 80% of people had a principled opposition to socialism, then we could elect leaders who we know agree with our philosophy, and kill off any aggressors that refuse to stand down. It might be bloody, but I think it would be doable at that point. The only real question is how many aggressors would end up getting killed.

You really don't understand your own ideology, do you?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think if 80% of people had a principled opposition to socialism, then we could elect leaders who we know agree with our philosophy, and kill off any aggressors that refuse to stand down. It might be bloody, but I think it would be doable at that point. The only real question is how many aggressors would end up getting killed.
> 
> You really don't understand your own ideology, do you?


You really think 80% of Americans oppose "socialism"?  (In quotes because real socialism actually means something else that we actually don't have in this country, what we really have is more like fascism.)

Killing aggressors isn't opposed to my ideology, or Rothbard's.  I honestly don't know what ideology you support, or if its the same one as mine.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> You really think 80% of Americans oppose "socialism"?  (In quotes because real socialism actually means something else that we actually don't have in this country, what we really have is more like fascism.)
> 
> Killing aggressors isn't opposed to my ideology, or Rothbard's.  I honestly don't know what ideology you support, or if its the same one as mine.


The point I was trying to make is that your words have been said by just about every murderous authoritarian ever, just with different phraseology involved, depending on what the ideology _du jour_ is. 

While defensive force is legitimate and acceptable in a free society, there are situations where it can be misapplied. Killing someone because they support authoritarianism isn't justified by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, simply "supporting authoritarianism" isn't the same thing as presenting an imminent threat to someone's life against which deadly defensive force might be justified. Your statements completely neglect the fact that a lot of "aggressors" in government support "aggression" out of misguided altruism, rather than murderous intentions, like those that might actually justify deadly defensive force. This is probably especially true as time goes on and the dominant culture intensifies its grip on the populace. See this link for a brief explanation of what I'm getting at here.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It seems like if anarchists are against using force, then they wouldn't have any way to stop a group of people who tried to create a new government.


First: "it seems like" is NOT proof of anything. It is not even evidence of anything.

Second: anarchists are NOT against using force. NAP-based "voluntaryist" anarchists (such as anarcho-capitalists) are against the initiation of force. They are NOT opposed to the use of retaliatory force. Since ANY attempt to forcibly impose a "new government" upon them would in fact be an initiation of force against them, there is nothing in libertarian anarchist principles that would prohibit them from using force to protect themselves against the would-be "government imposers."




> If anarchists do believe in using force, then anarchism would simply  lead to non stop civil war, as those who truly support anarchism would  be fighting against those who actively try to create a new  government.


You have said that you are a Constitutionalist. You also believe in using force. Therefore:_
"If Constitutionalists believe in using force, then Constitutionalism would simply lead to non-stop civil war, as those who truly support the Constitution would be fighting against those who actively try to subvert or destroy the Constitution and Constitutional principles."_
Is this statement true or false?
If it is false, then it is just as invalid to apply it to anarchism (as you tried to do) as it is to apply it to Constitutionalism.
But if it is true, then it "disproves" Constitutionalism every bit as much as it does anarchism.

Given all this, I again ask: Why is it impossible for some people to prevent some other people from "creating a new government?"

----------


## tod evans

You guys with your labels for how to govern yourselves seem to beat yourselves up an awful lot.

This is permitted if you adhere to this doctrine but not if you adhere to another...

Doesn't it give you headaches?

----------


## Cabal

> First of all, while I like your posts alot, I suspect that my anarchism is probably a little different from your anarchism.


You cannot redefine terms to satisfy your individual whims, unfortunately.  By definition, anarchy is the absence of a State, minarchy is the presence of a State--the State being the operative factor; it is that simple. Thus, while you may argue that minarchy, relative to other theories of statism, is defined by some arbitrary size of the State in question, the State is still present, thereby making it antithetical to anarchy, which is defined by the lack of any State.




> Minarchists agree with anarchists on like 99% of the issues.  So I view them as inconsistent allies.


This is really irrelevant. The core of either philosophy is concerned with the absence or presence of the State, and that is the single largest, and most significant variable, because to anarchists, the State is entirely illegitimate, and the single greatest enemy of liberty there is. It is the root of the tree. Minarchists may want to prune some branches that extend from the trunk, here and there, but this isn't because 'they agree with anarchists' it's because anarchists would uproot the entire tree anyway, branches and all. 




> Your black and white view would put minarchists closer to the Nazis than to us, since they're both "Statist."


It's not about 'my view' it's about basic definitions, and accuracy; trying to obfuscate that by resorting to all manner of fallacies isn't going to change the facts.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In the minarchism vs anarchism vein... thought this was interesting.  Posted by a friend of mine:


Your friend doesn't know that Public Goods theory has been discredited for some time now? 

http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE10_1_1.pdf
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f...1/cj1n2-12.pdf

----------


## Occam's Banana

> You guys with your labels for how to govern yourselves seem to beat yourselves up an awful lot.
> 
> This is permitted if you adhere to this doctrine but not if you adhere to another...
> 
> Doesn't it give you headaches?


 Yeah, it does.  But for us "labelly-doctriny" types, those headaches don't hurt _anywhere near_ as much as confining ourselves to the limits for political discussion established by the mind-rotting, head-exploding pablum you'll find at places like the TV "news" channels (for just one example). So you gotta cut us some slack, 'coz places like RPFs are our only links to sanity. We got nowhere else to go ...

----------


## tod evans

> Yeah, it does.  But for us "labelly-doctriny" types, it doesn't hurt _anywhere near_ as much as confining ourselves to the limits for political discussion established by the mind-rotting pablum you'll find at places like the TV "news" channels (for just one example). You gotta cut us some slack, because places like RPFs are our only links to sanity ...


I suppose I'm just too stupid to even try and keep up.

Is there a "dumbassed hillbilly" label?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I suppose I'm just too stupid to even try and keep up.
> 
> Is there a "dumbassed hillbilly" label?


Hmmmm. Perhaps we need a new edition of the Nolan chart.

Let's see, here ... we've already got "dumbass hillbilly" ... so we should add something like "snooty urbanite" ... what else can we use?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think if 80% of people had a principled opposition to government, than we could elect leaders who we know agree with our philosophy, and kill off any aggressors that refuse to stand down.  It might be bloody, but I think it would be doable at that point.  The only real question is how many aggressors would end up getting killed.


 That doesn't really sound like a good idea to me.  At least, not very appealing.  With a slightly more gradualist approach, we could enact our vision for a more peaceful society in a more _peaceful_ way.  And it's important that we get off to the right start.  These things matter.  You start having violence, unintended consequences ensue.  Unintended consequences always ensue, that's life, but violence tend to make the consequences _really_ unintended, unpredictable, and volatile.

----------


## CaseyJones



----------


## bolil

So, having read through most of this thread it appears that minarchist or anarchist both would see the police in their current form altered.  Any alteration would be a de facto abolition, yes?, since the institution would be fundamentally changed?  The organization that currently carries on illegal activities under the auspices of "policing" needs to be abolished (think drug war, asset forfeiture, and rape cages).  Policing as a service needs to be altered.  And what better force for altering a good of service is their than the free market?

The free-market solution to security also includes individuals providing their own.  Where it gets sticky is retaliatory aspect of policing.  In other words suspicion leading to unjust retaliation by person A on person B, which would then lead to just retaliation against person A.  But what if A acts justly and is struck back regardless of this fact?

----------


## Origanalist

> Hmmmm. Perhaps we need a new edition of the Nolan chart.
> 
> Let's see, here ... we've already got "dumbass hillbilly" ... so we should add something like "snooty urbanite" ... what else can we use?


That seems to cover a lot of territory.

----------


## Origanalist

> So, having read through most of this thread it appears that minarchist or anarchist both would see the police in their current form altered.  Any alteration would be a de facto abolition, yes?, since the institution would be fundamentally changed?  The organization that currently carries on illegal activities under the auspices of "policing" needs to be abolished (think drug war, asset forfeiture, and rape cages).  Policing as a service needs to be altered.  And what better force for altering a good of service is their than the free market?
> 
> The free-market solution to security also includes individuals providing their own.  Where it gets sticky is retaliatory aspect of policing.  In other words suspicion leading to unjust retaliation by person A on person B, which would then lead to just retaliation against person A.  *But what if A acts justly and is struck back regardless of this fact?*


That happens. I have known a few "B's" to do just that. A couple of them are dead now. I never lived in the world where one depends on the state to provide justice.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You cannot redefine terms to satisfy your individual whims, unfortunately.  By definition, anarchy is the absence of a State, minarchy is the presence of a State--the State being the operative factor; it is that simple. Thus, while you may argue that minarchy, relative to other theories of statism, is defined by some arbitrary size of the State in question, the State is still present, thereby making it antithetical to anarchy, which is defined by the lack of any State.


 I didn't catch the beginning of your exchange, and so you may be correct in whatever context your exchange began in, but based on the last couple posts, I agree with FreedomFanatic.  A minarchist is very, very, very close to my own philosophy.  We differ only on details.  We both want a massive reduction in the size of government.  Huge tax cuts, NOW!  Huge spending cuts, NOW!  End the wars, NOW!  A balanced budget, NOW!  That's a platform I can get behind, whatever the person's position is on whether the state should ultimately exist at all, or not.

In some scholarly sense, in philosophy class or whatnot, perhaps they are antithetical.  But what a private property society libertarian and a minarchist libertarian are striving for is not antithetical.  Their political goals are compatible and virtually synonymous in the current state of affairs.  And so I see them as friends, not enemies.

----------


## Brett85

"So, having read through most of this thread it appears that minarchist or anarchist both would see the police in their current form altered."

Sure.  Altered, not abolished.  Our entire criminal justice system should be reformed to focus on criminals who are actually a threat to society, rather than putting such a large number of people in prison who never harmed anyone else.  Law enforcement only has a certain amount of resources, and every dollar that goes to arrest a non violent drug user is a dollar that isn't being used to catch a murderer, rapist, thief, etc.  The view that I take is that I'm tough on "actual crime" and believe in bringing criminals to justice, but don't believe in this distraction known as the war on drugs, where we place people in prison for crimes that aren't in any way actual crime.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Where it gets sticky is retaliatory aspect of policing.  In other words suspicion leading to unjust retaliation by person A on person B, which would then lead to just retaliation against person A.  But what if A acts justly and is struck back regardless of this fact?


This is a conundrum which any socio-political system must find a way to deal with. Retailiation of any kind comes with costs. So it is a matter of making unjust retaliation more "expensive" than just retaliation (or no retaliation at all) - and of ensuring that the costs are borne by those who actually incur them.

Ultimately, in other words, it is a matter of incentives and disincentives.

And what better mechanism for creatively generating and enforcing (dis)incentives than the free market? In this regard, the State is able to do nothing except impose a single, static, "pre-designed," one-size-fits-all "solution" (note the singular) - and once that "solution" is in place, we are pretty much stuck with it, no matter how flawed or inadequate it turns out to be. These statist "solutions" always turn out to be fixed and nigh unreformable, having to be torn down and replaced _in toto_ when they become intolerable. The market, on the other hand, is able to dynamically generate numerous possible "solutions" (note the plural) - and if any of those solutions (most of which we will not even be able to anticipate, let alone "pre-design") should prove to be flawed or inadequate, then at least we will NOT find ourselves stuck with them in seeming perpetuity.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Ofcourse there should be police. Private police. I assume poll was talking about public police. So I voted for abolishing the police.


As long as I'm my own sheriff, whatever floats your boat.

Just keep your private pigs away from me and that would be great.

Authoritarians by their nature annoy me. I don't like bullies or auras of superiority of which even a private variety of swine would develop the complex. Looking at me menacingly, attempting to stop me or ask what my business is; it really wouldn't work out for me.

Unfortunately I feel that the people are who ultimately need to change. Gossiping, nosy, petty $#@!s - The lot of them. I've never understood it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> As long as I'm my own sheriff, whatever floats your boat.
> 
> Just keep your private pigs away from me and that would be great.
> 
> Authoritarians by their nature annoy me. I don't like bullies or auras of superiority of which even a private variety of swine would develop the complex. Looking at me menacingly, attempting to stop me or ask what my business is; it really wouldn't work out for me.
> 
> Unfortunately I feel that the people are who ultimately need to change. Gossiping, nosy, petty $#@!s - The lot of them.* I've never understood it.*


It's the corruption by State influence.  The Ring Of Power is irresistibly tempting-even if if used in a roundabout sort of way (appealing to the holder of The Ring to use it for some horrid cause or another).

----------


## Cabal

> I didn't catch the beginning of your exchange, and so you may be correct in whatever context your exchange began in, but based on the last couple posts, I agree with FreedomFanatic.  A minarchist is very, very, very close to my own philosophy.  We differ only on details.  We both want a massive reduction in the size of government.  Huge tax cuts, NOW!  Huge spending cuts, NOW!  End the wars, NOW!  A balanced budget, NOW!  That's a platform I can get behind, whatever the person's position is on whether the state should ultimately exist at all, or not.
> 
> In some scholarly sense, in philosophy class or whatnot, perhaps they are antithetical.  But what a private property society libertarian and a minarchist libertarian are striving for is not antithetical.  Their political goals are compatible and virtually synonymous in the current state of affairs.  And so I see them as friends, not enemies.


In the short term, would some arbitrarily smaller State be preferable to a much larger State? Sure. But that's not what's being debated.

The existence of the State versus the absence of the State is not a mere detail. It is not a superficial variable. It is not a footnote. It is big, bold capitalized letters stamped in thick, bright red ink over ALL of the other finer print beneath it, because where anarchist philosophy is concerned, it is paramount. It is definitively central to the philosophy. And to ignore this fact is to be in gross disregard of what anarchism is all about--justice. Thus, the claim of 'similarity' based on lesser evils is missing the point entirely.

This isn't about some arcane, abstracted 'scholarly' thought experiment in a classroom setting. This is about the literal meaning, and the accurate understanding of the terminology, ideology and the philosophy which follows. A minarchist is NOT striving for that which an anarchist strives for because a minarchist is striving for the _preservation_ of the State, which necessarily puts them at odds with the anarchist's end goal. A minarchist _must_ fundamentally reject the theory of justice an anarchist ascribes to.

Does this make them friends, enemies, or neither? Well, that's up to the individuals, I suppose--it's certainly not my place to tell you who your friends or enemies are, or aren't. Does this mean you cannot work together for more immediate, common, short-term goals? No, not necessarily. But to describe the ideologies as similar is not only flagrantly incorrect according to that which matters most, but also, I would argue, unrepresentative of anarchism to such a degree as to do it a disservice. What you're effectively doing is ignoring the centrally significant components of the State and justice, and instead directing the attention to its various symptoms, as if it were those that are the crux of the issue, rather than identifying them as the symptoms, and consequences of statism.

If it is true that the culture must evolve intellectually to reject statism for anarchism to ever be ideally realized and sustained, it is then inherently counterproductive for the anarchist to not always identify the State as the fundamental disease--for which there is only one real treatment--due to its inherently violent, brutal, parasitic, and predatory nature. Any distraction from this does nothing to further the anarchist's prime cause, and serves only to enable the perpetuation of statism.

So support lower taxes, spending cuts, and smaller government all you like, if that's what you think is best--I'm not necessarily saying you should, or shouldn't. Again, that's not the point.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That doesn't really sound like a good idea to me.  At least, not very appealing.  With a slightly more gradualist approach, we could enact our vision for a more peaceful society in a more _peaceful_ way.  And it's important that we get off to the right start.  These things matter.  You start having violence, unintended consequences ensue.  Unintended consequences always ensue, that's life, but violence tend to make the consequences _really_ unintended, unpredictable, and volatile.


I said it would be *possible* not that it would be desirable.

That said, what do we do at that point?  Let the 20% rule over us?  I think at that point, if it got to that point, it would probably be logical to start defending ourselves against aggressors that the 20% send after us.  I wasn't suggesting to kill every single person who doesn't agree with us, as Rothbardian Girl wrongly assumed.  But if we had 80% support, I think we could easily organize ourselves into armed communities where we made clear that statist aggressors would not be welcomed, and that any who attempted to attack us would face an armed community featuring defensive violence.

You're NEVER going to get everyone to agree with us.  If your theory for creating anarchy requires universal agreement, than we might as well just be minarchists.




> The point I was trying to make is that your words have been said by just about every murderous authoritarian ever, just with different phraseology involved, depending on what the ideology _du jour_ is. 
> 
> While defensive force is legitimate and acceptable in a free society, there are situations where it can be misapplied. Killing someone because they support authoritarianism isn't justified by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, simply "supporting authoritarianism" isn't the same thing as presenting an imminent threat to someone's life against which deadly defensive force might be justified. Your statements completely neglect the fact that a lot of "aggressors" in government support "aggression" out of misguided altruism, rather than murderous intentions, like those that might actually justify deadly defensive force. This is probably especially true as time goes on and the dominant culture intensifies its grip on the populace. See this link for a brief explanation of what I'm getting at here.


I'll read it, but I think my comments about corrected your misinterpretation.  I think you thought I meant "Kill everyone who disagrees with us," whereas I meant more something like "declare our independence and kill anyone who tries to use lethal violence to force us to comply with them."  I'm pretty sure the vast, vast majority of statists would not personally fight to maintain their dominion.  But in a hypothetical world where all of them did, THEN your comment might apply.  But I don't think that would happen.




> You cannot redefine terms to satisfy your individual whims, unfortunately.  By definition, anarchy is the absence of a State, minarchy is the presence of a State--the State being the operative factor; it is that simple. Thus, while you may argue that minarchy, relative to other theories of statism, is defined by some arbitrary size of the State in question, the State is still present, thereby making it antithetical to anarchy, which is defined by the lack of any State.


OK, I understand that.  But I don't think supporting a tiny state is the opposite of supporting no state.  I think supporting a leviathan state is the opposite of supporting no state.  




> This is really irrelevant. The core of either philosophy is concerned with the absence or presence of the State, and that is the single largest, and most significant variable, because to anarchists, the State is entirely illegitimate, and the single greatest enemy of liberty there is. It is the root of the tree. Minarchists may want to prune some branches that extend from the trunk, here and there, but this isn't because 'they agree with anarchists' it's because anarchists would uproot the entire tree anyway, branches and all.


Its more like, anarchists would pull out the whole trunk, while minarchists would cut off 95% of the trunk.  I don't think your analogy is accurate.  I think you're confusing genuine minarchists with conservatives that maybe want to cut a little here and a little there but ultimately support a strong state in general.




> It's not about 'my view' it's about basic definitions, and accuracy; trying to obfuscate that by resorting to all manner of fallacies isn't going to change the facts.


I view minarchists as my inconistent allies in dramatically reducing state power.  Although, I'm going to add some nuance to this in a second when I respond to Helmuth (Or whatever the name is, I honestly can't remember)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I didn't catch the beginning of your exchange, and so you may be correct in whatever context your exchange began in, but based on the last couple posts, I agree with FreedomFanatic. A minarchist is very, very, very close to my own philosophy. We differ only on details. We both want a massive reduction in the size of government.* Huge tax cuts, NOW! Huge spending cuts, NOW! End the wars, NOW! A balanced budget, NOW!* That's a platform I can get behind, whatever the person's position is on whether the state should ultimately exist at all, or not.
> 
> In some scholarly sense, in philosophy class or whatnot, perhaps they are antithetical. But what a private property society libertarian and a minarchist libertarian are striving for is not antithetical. Their political goals are compatible and virtually synonymous in the current state of affairs. And so I see them as friends, not enemies.


I bolded something that I felt was important.  Ultimately, your use of the all-caps NOW denotates what I'm going for, and something Rothbard mentions.  The most important quality of someone who is mostly anti-state is not whether he is a minarchist or an anarchist, but whether he is RADICAL.  Namely, does he view States that go beyond whatever arbitrary (Of course, this limit has to be really small, the bigger it is the less common ground you have) limit he sets as being EVIL, or is he simply willing to respectfully disagree with them?  

I honestly haven't seen many radical minarchists.  Even Ron Paul is ultimately "Moderate" in the sense that he wanted to do some of that stuff slowly, although he was more "radical" on foreign policy and Federal law enforcement related issues.

However, I myself was a radical minarchist before I became a radical ancap.  I viewed any States as being evil unless they limited themselves to policing, courts, and defense.  So while I wasn't perfectly consistent, I mostly agreed with the ancaps moralistic arguments, with a couple of arbitrary exceptions.

I agree that the State is the problem and that it should be exposed as such, but that doesn't mean the minarchists are in a different movement as us.  Honestly, more than anything else, I think we need radical deontologists, regardless of the particular details of what liberty-leaning philosophy they hold.  I find utilitarians to be useless because they'll give up their ideology the minute something else seems to "work better" to them, and they're only objection to the whole "numbers game" is pragmatism, if even that.  I could never knowingly support a utilitarian in anything, even if he somehow accepted every single distinctive political position that I take if he did so simply because he thought it was pragmatic or that it would lead to the greatest marginal utility.  On the other hand, I could EASILY support a radical constituitionalist, not even necessarily a strict minarchist, if he held a complete, *moral* aversion to the status quo.

Radicalism, and absolute ethics, are more important to me than absolute consistency.  I seriously doubt I myself am 100% consistent, although I try.

----------


## pcosmar

> This thread has devolved into a mental masturbation thread basically arguing whether anarchism is better than minarchism.


I do not argue for either,,nor against them. I am not an anarchist,,and do not even believe that anarchy could even exist for any length of time..

I do argue against Authoritarianism.. and the opposite of authoritarianism is not anarchy,, it is Liberty.

You can have Liberty  without anarchy. This country had Law and Order,, and courts,, without police for half a Century before police were invented. 
It took another half century for the police institution to evolve into the horrible institution that they have become. 
It has taken less than 2 decades for them to become fully militarized.

I don't like the direction this is going. That does not make me an anarchist.
I may possibly be a minarchist,, But my argument is against Authoritarianism and against enforcers of Authoritarianism..

----------


## phill4paul

> I do not argue for either,,nor against them. I am not an anarchist,,and do not even believe that anarchy could even exist for any length of time..
> 
> I do argue against Authoritarianism.. and the opposite of authoritarianism is not anarchy,, it is Liberty.
> 
> You can have Liberty  without anarchy. This country had Law and Order,, and courts,, without police for half a Century before police were invented. 
> It took another half century for the police institution to evolve into the horrible institution that they have become. 
> It has taken less than 2 decades for them to become fully militarized.
> 
> I don't like the direction this is going. That does not make me an anarchist.
> I may possibly be a minarchist,, But my argument is against Authoritarianism and against enforcers of Authoritarianism..


  Well said.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> I do not argue for either,,nor against them. I am not an anarchist,,and do not even believe that anarchy could even exist for any length of time..
> 
> I do argue against Authoritarianism.. and the opposite of authoritarianism is not anarchy,, it is Liberty.
> 
> You can have Liberty  without anarchy. This country had Law and Order,, and courts,, without police for half a Century before police were invented. 
> It took another half century for the police institution to evolve into the horrible institution that they have become. 
> It has taken less than 2 decades for them to become fully militarized.
> 
> I don't like the direction this is going. That does not make me an anarchist.
> I may possibly be a minarchist,, But my argument is against Authoritarianism and against enforcers of Authoritarianism..


Yes, Rothbard said that "Do you hate the state?" is the key question, not "anarchy vs. minarchy":  




> I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: *anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government*, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they dont really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.
> 
> Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty and David Friedmans Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedmans amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too. *In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers*. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State  any State  is a predatory gang of criminals.
> 
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html


I'll take 1 state hating minarchist over 1000 anarchist David Friedmans.

The great thing about the issue of "the cops" is you don't have to get sidetracked on the anarchy/minarchy issue.

----------


## Brett85

> I do not argue for either,,nor against them. I am not an anarchist,,and do not even believe that anarchy could even exist for any length of time..
> 
> I do argue against Authoritarianism.. and the opposite of authoritarianism is not anarchy,, it is Liberty.
> 
> You can have Liberty  without anarchy. This country had Law and Order,, and courts,, without police for half a Century before police were invented. 
> It took another half century for the police institution to evolve into the horrible institution that they have become. 
> It has taken less than 2 decades for them to become fully militarized.
> 
> I don't like the direction this is going. That does not make me an anarchist.
> I may possibly be a minarchist,, But my argument is against Authoritarianism and against enforcers of Authoritarianism..


How exactly do you define "authoritarianism?"  It seems to me that that term is very relative with no specific meaning.  It just depends on who or what you're being compared to.  There are probably some anarchists who believe that you're an authoritarian since you believe in having a state, since you don't want to abolish the state.  You believe in having some form of authority since you're not against the existence of the state.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> ...There are probably some anarchists who believe that you're an authoritarian since you believe in having a state, since you don't want to abolish the state.  You believe in having some form of authority since you're not against the existence of the state.


He doesn't have to worry about _those_ anarchists.  He's got Rothbard, me, and all the good anarchists who don't think he's authoritarian even though he's not anarchist.  We don't care.

More from Murray's "Do You Hate the State?":




> Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

----------


## Cabal

> Yes, Rothbard said that "Do you hate the state?" is the key question, not "anarchy vs. minarchy":  
> 
> I'll take 1 state hating minarchist over 1000 anarchist David Friedmans.
> 
> The great thing about the issue of "the cops" is you don't have to get sidetracked on the anarchy/minarchy issue.


I don't think you're understanding Rothbard here. He's not saying you can hate the State and be a minarchist, he's ragging on utilitarianism.




> There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind.


Rothbard's was always a passionate argument from morality--about justice. Yes, he used argument from effect too, in many ways, because statism is very much susceptible to that. But that was just icing on the cake for him, as the core of his anti-statism was about justice.




> In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative.


His criticism of Friedman is about utilitarianism, and that lack of hatred, that lack of passion, that lack of regard for justice.

This is the exact same thing I was speaking of in my post above that fundamentally separates minarchists and anarchists.

I'm not sure what you think you mean by a State hating minarchist. That seems contradictory. How can you hate the State and want to preserve it? If you truly hated the State, as Rothbard did, it follows that you'd want to abolish it, thereby making you an anarchist at heart. Now, you may very well want to take a gradualist approach, perhaps. But that doesn't make you a minarchist, that just makes you an anarchist who has chosen a method of gradualism.

----------


## Brett85

> He doesn't have to worry about _those_ anarchists.  He's got Rothbard, me, and all the good anarchists who don't think he's authoritarian even though he's not anarchist.  We don't care.
> 
> More from Murray's "Do You Hate the State?":


But he thinks that anyone who doesn't support abolishing the police is an "authoritarian," even though he supports having County Sheriffs with deputees, which is a form of authority over the people.  So I'm not sure where he gets his definition of "authoritarianism" from.  Apparently he just gives that label to anyone who doesn't agree 100% with his views, unless that person's views are even more libertarian than his.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> I'm not sure what you think you mean by a State hating minarchist.


In the quote above Rothbard cites the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden as hating "statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion", although they "never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism"

I think he would include von Mises in that group also.

----------


## tod evans

> But he thinks that anyone who doesn't support abolishing the police is an "authoritarian," even though he supports having County Sheriffs with deputees, which is a form of authority over the people.  So I'm not sure where he gets his definition of "authoritarianism" from.  Apparently he just gives that label to anyone who doesn't agree 100% with his views, unless that person's views are even more libertarian than his.


An elected sheriff paid for with local taxes is exactly the same thing as the private contractors some talk about.

Get the feds out of it! Cut off all federal funding and people will vote in a cost effective constabulary that can be held accountable.

Eliminate any for of qualified immunity for all sheriffs department personal and it's possible that the will of the people could be followed..

The idea is certainly better that what's currently ruling over the populace unchecked.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> But he thinks that anyone who doesn't support abolishing the police is an "authoritarian,"


I can see how one might attribute self described conservatives' reluctance to open their minds to our tradition of an un-armed government to a latent "authoritarian" outlook.  Much more so certainly, than say, someone's not being convinced that a non-monopolistic system of police is practical.

----------


## Cabal

> In the quote above Rothbard cites the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden as hating "statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion", although they "never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism"
> 
> I think he would include von Mises in that group also.


That's nice for Rothbard.

So, can you logically explain how a State hating minarchist isn't contradictory? Do you often support that which you have come to hate, let alone that which you have come to hate with a deep passion?

----------


## phill4paul

> But he thinks that anyone who doesn't support abolishing the police is an "authoritarian," even though he supports having County Sheriffs with deputees, which is a form of authority over the people.  So I'm not sure where he gets his definition of "authoritarianism" from.  Apparently he just gives that label to anyone who doesn't agree 100% with his views, unless that person's views are even more libertarian than his.


  On being an anti-authoritarian: "Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subbordination. " Mikhail Bakunin

  An elected Sheriff is not a fixed and constant authority. A continual police state is. At least I think that may clear up what you are asking?

----------


## Brett85

> An elected Sheriff is not a fixed and constant authority. A continual police state is. At least I think that may clear up what you are asking?


Yeah, I guess so.  Is it your view that anyone who opposes abolishing the police supports a "police state," even if I'm opposed to the war on drugs, warrentless searches that violate the 4th amendment, warrentless wiretapping of people's phones, etc?  I thought that people who support a "police state" basically want to allow the police to do anything they want to do, even violate the Constitution.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> That's nice for Rothbard.
> 
> So, can you logically explain how a State hating minarchist isn't contradictory? Do you often support that which you have come to hate, let alone that which you have come to hate with a deep passion?


I'd say the contradictions are on finer points that are less important.  And it makes sense to educate others and ourselves about the anti-authoritarian traditions that were necessary pre-cursors before people like Rothbard developed it further and put the whole thing together into a logically consistent pure anarchist framework.

----------


## Cabal

> Yeah, I guess so.  Is it your view that anyone who opposes abolishing the police supports a "police state," even if I'm opposed to the war on drugs, warrentless searches that violate the 4th amendment, warrentless wiretapping of people's phones, etc?


You seem very concerned with how what you don't support somehow excuses you from supporting statism--here and in your sig, for example. What you're basically saying is that you don't support masters beating their slaves, but you still think slavery should exist. Setting aside the more blatant problem of supporting slavery... What you don't seem to be grasping is that for slavery to exist, masters _must_ beat their slaves. Those things that you claim to not support are necessarily symptoms and consequences of what you continue to support.

----------


## Cabal

> I'd say the contradictions are on finer points that are less important.


I'll take that as a no.

----------


## Brett85

> You seem very concerned with how what you don't support somehow excuses you from supporting statism--here and in your sig, for example. What you're basically saying is that you don't support masters beating their slaves, but you still think slavery should exist. Setting aside the more blatant problem of supporting slavery... What you don't seem to be grasping is that for slavery to exist, masters _must_ beat their slaves. Those things that you claim to not support are necessarily symptoms and consequences of what you continue to support.


1)  You would still have slavery in an anarchist society; the slavery just wouldn't be done by the government.  You would just have individuals taking away life, liberty, and property from others with no repurcussions.

2)  You also seem to be arguing that anyone who isn't an anarchist supports "statism" or "authoritarianism" or whatever you want to call it, which proves my point that it's ridiculous for someone like Pcosmar to give me that label, since he also receives those labels from some anarchists.

----------


## Cabal

> 1)  You would still have slavery in an anarchist society; the slavery just wouldn't be done by the government.  You would just have individuals taking away life, liberty, and property from others with no repurcussions.


I don't think you can really comment on what repercussions would or wouldn't follow, at least not with any certainty. And yet... what you wouldn't have is an entire centralized monopoly doing this en masse.




> 2)  You also seem to be arguing that anyone who isn't an anarchist supports "statism" or "authoritarianism" or whatever you want to call it, which proves my point that it's ridiculous for someone like Pcosmar to give me that label, since he also receives those labels from some anarchists.


I'm arguing that anyone who supports the State is a statist. I don't see how this is difficult to understand. It's fairly simple. I guess the only caveat I'd apply here is that I don't think gradualism qualifies as statism.

But... none of this^ really addresses the observation I made above. How do you reconcile that?

----------


## phill4paul

> Yeah, I guess so.  Is it your view that anyone who opposes abolishing the police supports a "police state," even if I'm opposed to the war on drugs, warrentless searches that violate the 4th amendment, warrentless wiretapping of people's phones, etc?  I thought that people who support a "police state" basically want to allow the police to do anything they want to do, even violate the Constitution.


    Perhaps some clarification of the term "police state" first. You state that you are "opposed to the war on drugs, warrentless searches that violate the 4th amendment, warrentless wiretapping of people's phones, etc." Yet, that is what is currently the law in America. Nationwide. Enforced by...police. Either Fed, State or local all these police departments participate under the onus of Federal law.

  A Sheriff originally had three functions. To oversee jails, court houses and serve warrants. Do you see the difference in the two? The police actively seek out lawbreakers. No matter if the law id just or not. A Sheriff, originally, only served warrants in which to bring in a individual to the court to answer against a charge by another citizen. 

  I don't know if I'm making the distinction clear, so put another way. There is a marked difference between the Sheriffs department of today and what it originally functioned as. The lines today have blurred to the point that, to myself, they are one and the same. However, there is a better chance at reform on a local level through elections.

----------


## Brett85

> But... none of this^ really addresses the observation I made above. How do you reconcile that?


Because I just don't agree with your analogy of the government being a slave owner.  I don't believe that having a limited, Constitutional government would be "tyranical" or an example of "slavery."  It doesn't seem to me like there would be any way to punish aggression and defend life, liberty, and property in an anarchist society.  I just don't understand the whole concept of "private law" and how "private law" could ever be set or ever be enforced.  I just don't think that it would be possible to have laws and have law enforcement without having a government.  There has to be some mechanism in place to protect basic rights, like the right to private property.

----------


## Brett85

> Perhaps some clarification of the term "police state" first. You state that you are "opposed to the war on drugs, warrentless searches that violate the 4th amendment, warrentless wiretapping of people's phones, etc." Yet, that is what is currently the law in America. Nationwide. Enforced by...police. Either Fed, State or local all these police departments participate under the onus of Federal law.


But if the Bill of Rights was actually enforced, you could still have police forces that operated within the confines of the Constitution and obeyed the Bill of Rights.  If the Bill of Rights was actually enforced, police officers who violated the Bill of Rights would be fired or prosecuted.  It seems like the main problem has been with the courts, the fact that we have judges who either don't understand the Bill of Rights or refuse to enforce the Bill of Rights, particularly at the Supreme Court level.

----------


## Cabal

> Because I just don't agree with your analogy of the government being a slave owner.


And this goes directly back to the point about justice.

If you can't accept the argument from morality, for whatever reason, then why can't you accept the argument from effect. In the analogy, I set aside the argument from morality...




> Setting aside the more blatant problem of supporting slavery...


And instead communicated the argument from effect.




> What you don't seem to be grasping is that for slavery to exist, masters must beat their slaves. Those things that you claim to not support are necessarily symptoms and consequences of what you continue to support.


Forget about anarchy. Forget about me. Forget about ideology.

How do you reconcile, in your head, the fact that what you support (the State) necessarily produces that which you do not support?

----------


## Brett85

> How do you reconcile, in your head, the fact that what you support (the State) necessarily produces that which you do not support?


Because no matter what form of government we have, or whether we have government at all, there are going to be certain things in society that I don't like or don't support.  It's always about choosing the least bad system, because there is no perfect system.  There is no system of government, or system that doesn't involve government, that is perfect and would have no problems.  Our current system isn't perfect, because as you said, it has been hard throughout history to limit or stop the growth of government.  But, that still doesn't mean that a system that involves government is worse than a theoretical anarchist society.  Regardless of the arguments that people make, I don't believe that an anarchist society would ever work for a sustained period of time.  I don't think that having some theoretical notion of "private law" enforced by private police forces would ever work or ever be able to function.  So it's about choosing the type of system that is the least bad, because no system is anywhere close to perfect.

----------


## phill4paul

> But if the Bill of Rights was actually enforced, you could still have police forces that operated within the confines of the Constitution and obeyed the Bill of Rights.  If the Bill of Rights was actually enforced, police officers who violated the Bill of Rights would be fired or prosecuted.  It seems like the main problem has been with the courts, the fact that we have judges who either don't understand the Bill of Rights or refuse to enforce the Bill of Rights, particularly at the Supreme Court level.


  But it is not enforced. Or enforced only as currently interpreted. 

  The point being, I suppose I am not getting this out correctly, a Sheriff was not originally intended to go out and "serve and protect", or in my view "enforce and incarcerate", they were there to bring someone to court to answer charges by another. There would have to be a breaking of the 'peace' for them to get involved. They would not have the power to actively enforce laws. The people would police themselves and when there was a dispute it would be taken up by the courts and therefore the Sheriffs.

----------


## Brett85

> *The people would police themselves* and when there was a dispute it would be taken up by the courts and therefore the Sheriffs.


Yeah, I just don't think that would be possible.  I think that our society is too evil for people to be able to police themselves.  If anything, the anarchist idea of having private police forces would actually be more realistic than having people police themselves, and would be more realistic than having the only form of law enforcement be a county sheriff.  (Not that I support it, but it would be more realistic, in my opinion)  But, to each his own.

----------


## Brett85

Edit:  Duplicate post.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yeah, I just don't think that would be possible.  I think that our society is too evil for people to be able to police themselves.  If anything, the anarchist idea of having private police forces would actually be more realistic than having people police themselves, and would be more realistic than having the only form of law enforcement be a county sheriff.  (Not that I support it, but it would be more realistic, in my opinion)  But, to each his own.


  Well, it seems to me, that if you believe that a society of people are *"too evil"* to police themselves then a government "Of the people, by the people and for the people" is.................................

----------


## Cabal

> Because no matter what form of government we have, or whether we have government at all, there are going to be certain things in society that I don't like or don't support.  It's always about choosing the least bad system, because there is no perfect system.


So, because you think there will always be bad elements, it makes sense to you to centrally organize those elements to create a monopoly that rules over everyone else? This is your 'less bad' system?

As phill pointed out, how can you trust the State if you have no faith in people anyway?

Setting aside what does or doesn't qualify as 'least bad'... You say there is no perfect system, and that the 'least bad' system is the best we can hope for. So, are you saying that you think this 'least bad' system was conceived of hundreds of years ago by a select few individuals, and nothing could ever be 'less bad' than what they were able to come up with? Do you still think horses are the best form of ground transportation as well?

How do you know that you're right? Isn't that a bit presumptuous, and arrogant? I mean, if you're proposing to know how to best organize society through some kind of system, don't you think you ought to be 100% certain before presuming to demand that others submit to this system? How much 'bad' are you willing to tolerate before you finally admit that maybe you were wrong from the get-go? How much further down the road are you prepared to kick the can, and at what cost to other people's lives, including the unborn?




> Our current system isn't perfect, because as you said, it has been hard throughout history to limit or stop the growth of government.


Hard? To say that it has been hard is to imply that you have succeeded in limiting or stopping the growth of government. This is categorically false, especially over the long term--government has been growing quite steadily, despite such efforts. But that should be expected.

----------


## Cabal

> But if the Bill of Rights was actually enforced, you could still have police forces that operated within the confines of the Constitution and obeyed the Bill of Rights.  If the Bill of Rights was actually enforced, police officers who violated the Bill of Rights would be fired or prosecuted.  It seems like the main problem has been with the courts, the fact that we have judges who either don't understand the Bill of Rights or refuse to enforce the Bill of Rights, particularly at the Supreme Court level.


Why not support a dictatorship then? That way you'd only have one person determining what legislation should be enforced, and what legislation shouldn't, and how it is enforced, and how the constitution is interpreted and applied. All you have to do is find ONE person to do this, hell... it could even be you... and then no one who disagrees with you would matter because your ideas would be in control, and all would be wonderful, right?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why not support a dictatorship then? That way you'd only have one person determining what legislation should be enforced, and what legislation shouldn't, and how it is enforced, and how the constitution is interpreted and applied. All you have to do is find ONE person to do this, hell... it could even be you... and then no one who disagrees with you would matter because your ideas would be in control, and all would be wonderful, right?


That^^  Let us try (George) Washington's ideal of a "Constitutional Monarchy".

----------


## Brett85

I think that having limited government is the best system, because it would provide a basic order that we need through the courts, defense, police, and a few other things, while we wouldn't have a big unconstitutional government that spends us into bankruptcy and starts unnecessary wars overseas.  And of course your argument is that "limited government" ultimately doesn't stay limited and continues to grow.  Well, that may be true, but I've made the case that you could still easily end up with a government in an anarchist society.  Despite what people say, you would not have some kind of neat, orderly society with no government at all.  It would be exactly as we've seen throughout history in countries like Afghanistan and Somalia.  You would just have chaos and non stop civil wars throughout the country.  Ultimately, a large number of people in the country would get tired of this and would attempt to set up a new government, which would simply cause more internal tension and would start a civil war between those who support creating a new government and those who resist.  Ultimately, you would either wind up with non stop civil war in such a society, or you would end up with a new government, possibly worse than the one we have now.  Note that I'm simply giving my opinion about the way I think things would be.  It doesn't have anything to do with arrogance.  It's my opinion, just like you have your own opinions.

----------


## Cabal

> And of course your argument is that "limited government" ultimately doesn't stay limited and continues to grow. Well, that may be true, but I've made the case that you could still easily end up with a government in an anarchist society.


Not "may be." Is. It is true. It has been true over and over. And it continues to be true every passing day.

You haven't really made a case for anything, either; and you can't seem to reconcile any of the inconsistencies and problems brought up with your logic. You keep getting stuck on some ambiguous alternative Stateless scenario you've concocted in your head, presupposing that it will inevitably give birth to another arbitrarily defined State of some kind, and then acting like this is a 'reason' to continue supporting statism. 

"Man, what will happen to all the black people when we free the slaves? I dunno man, seems like they could just be forced into slavery again. We should just continue with slavery as it is now, because... reasons."




> It would be exactly as we've seen throughout history in countries like Afghanistan and Somalia.


Lol. 




> You would just have chaos and non stop civil wars throughout the country.


Oh, yeah? Tell me more...






> Note that I'm simply giving my opinion about the way I think things would be.  It doesn't have anything to do with arrogance.  It's my opinion, just like you have your own opinions.


Except your opinions on the subject aren't really supported by anything, and in the meantime your opinions help to prop up a system of violence. It is absolutely arrogant, if not outright bat$#@! insane, to presume yourself so omniscient as to know what is best for hundreds of millions of individual people.

----------


## presence

Everything that the cops need to do could be accomplished with citizen's arrests and an armed populous.  


ABOLISH

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Because I just don't agree with your analogy of the government being a slave owner.  I don't believe that having a limited, Constitutional government would be "tyranical" or an example of "slavery."  It doesn't seem to me like there would be any way to punish aggression and defend life, liberty, and property in an anarchist society.  I just don't understand the whole concept of "private law" and how "private law" could ever be set or ever be enforced.


TC have you seen this yet?







> I just don't think that it would be possible to have laws and have law enforcement without having a government.  There has to be some mechanism in place to protect basic rights, like the right to private property.


But just because you can't comprehend how something might work, doesn't mean that it's not possible.

An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms. You can't really say you protect property when your method of funding the service is stealing.

The state isn't a special organization that can produce things that the market can't, it simply monopolizes on production of certain services that it can get away with due to the beliefs people hold about it, and it does so to it's own advantage.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> The deontology/utilitarian debate is also much more important than the anarchy/minarchy debate.  I'd take a deontological minarchist over a utilitarian anarchist any day.  I pretty much view all utilitarians of all stripes as being both useless and evil.


Ludwig von Mises was a utilitarian, does that make him "useless and evil" in your book?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> 1)  You would still have slavery in an anarchist society; the slavery just wouldn't be done by the government.  You would just have individuals taking away life, liberty, and property from others with no repurcussions.
> 
> 2)  You also seem to be arguing that anyone who isn't an anarchist supports "statism" or "authoritarianism" or whatever you want to call it, which proves my point that it's ridiculous for someone like Pcosmar to give me that label, since he also receives those labels from some anarchists.


First of all, for better or worse he's technically correct.  Anarchism is defined by opposing statism.  Being a statist is defined by opposing anarchy.  So technically the word "Statist" would apply.

The problem is that some people use that word that way, while others limit the word "statist" to authoritarians that go beyond a particular arbitrary level of State, so we're confused.

Second of all, I don't see why its intrinsically wrong for Pcosmar to call you an authoritarian (even if they're wrong) just  because someone else's definition would cause him to be an authoritarian.  

I've been guilty of using the wrong defiinitions before, but ultimately "Statist" is the correct term (even if sometimes used as a derogatory one) to describe anyone who supports a State of any kind... while "authoritarian" is a more subjective term to describe people who support big, oppressive government.  So ultimately I'd consider you a (relatively mild) statist, but not an authoritarian.




> Because I just don't agree with your analogy of the government being a slave owner.  I don't believe that having a limited, Constitutional government would be "tyranical" or an example of "slavery."


What I find interesting about this is we have a Christian relativist (You) on one side, and an agnostic absolutist (Cabal) on the other side.  I'd like to ask Cabal why exactly he thinks murder or theft are wrong, or how he can logically defend the immorality of such, without first presupposing the existence of God.  And as a Christian, who does  accept the existence of the God who says "Thou shall not Steal", I'm curious how in the world you can justify taxation of any kind.



> It doesn't seem to me like there would be any way to punish aggression and defend life, liberty, and property in an anarchist society.  I just don't understand the whole concept of "private law" and how "private law" could ever be set or ever be enforced.  I just don't think that it would be possible to have laws and have law enforcement without having a government.  There has to be some mechanism in place to protect basic rights, like the right to private property.


If you don't understand it, learning more about it would probably be a better idea than just rejecting it out of hand.  But let's say it wouldn't work.  So what?  How is that a moral argument in any way?




> Yeah, I just don't think that would be possible.  I think that our society is too evil for people to be able to police themselves.  If anything, the anarchist idea of having private police forces would actually be more realistic than having people police themselves, and would be more realistic than having the only form of law enforcement be a county sheriff.  (Not that I support it, but it would be more realistic, in my opinion)  But, to each his own.


Waiit, so if people are too evil to police themselves, why does putting some evil people in charge of others make this problem better?  It seems to me that it would be just the opposite.

----------


## Origanalist

Think about the children. What kind of world would they grow up in without the police shooting their dogs, throwing their parents in jail and letting them know that if they don't do as they are told by the authorities they will end up in a rape cage?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think that having limited government is the best system, because it would provide a basic order that we need through the courts, defense, police, *and a few other things*, while we wouldn't have a big unconstitutional government that spends us into bankruptcy and starts unnecessary wars overseas.  And of course your argument is that "limited government" ultimately doesn't stay limited and continues to grow.  Well, that may be true, but I've made the case that you could still easily end up with a government in an anarchist society.  Despite what people say, you would not have some kind of neat, orderly society with no government at all.  It would be exactly as we've seen throughout history in countries like Afghanistan and Somalia.  You would just have chaos and non stop civil wars throughout the country.  Ultimately, a large number of people in the country would get tired of this and would attempt to set up a new government, which would simply cause more internal tension and would start a civil war between those who support creating a new government and those who resist.  Ultimately, you would either wind up with non stop civil war in such a society, or you would end up with a new government, possibly worse than the one we have now.  Note that I'm simply giving my opinion about the way I think things would be.  It doesn't have anything to do with arrogance.  It's my opinion, just like you have your own opinions.


BTW: The part I bolded separates you  from minarchists.  A true minarchist would stop with the three things you specifically mentioned, or possibly only a subset of those three (Although its usually all three.)  I think Walter Block would probably still consider you a third tier libertarian (With anarchists being the first tier and minarchists the second) which is probably accurate.



> Ludwig von Mises was a utilitarian, does that make him "useless and evil" in your book?


Well, the man was an economist, so his economics may be useful, but I honestly don't see why anarchists or even minarchists in our movement admire him so much, or why Rothbard liked him.  The man supported slavery (the draft.)  How much more anti-liberty can you get?

I know very, very little of Mises and I still know that most of his "followers" are far more libertarian than he was.

I was more thinking in the political realm than the economic though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Think about the children. What kind of world would they grow up in without the police shooting their dogs, throwing their parents in jail and letting them know that if they don't do as they are told by the authorities they will end up in a rape cage?


And how can the utilitarians among us possibly object to this kind of legal tyranny?  After all, "it saves lives"?  Absolute morality is REQUIRED to understand that MANDATING someone wear a safety belt, even to save his life, is wrong.

----------


## Brett85

> BTW: The part I bolded separates you  from minarchists.  A true minarchist would stop with the three things you specifically mentioned, or possibly only a subset of those three (Although its usually all three.)


Would a minarchist be opposed to having the government maintain a national system of currency, like we have now?

----------


## Brett85

> And as a Christian, who does  accept the existence of the God who says "Thou shall not Steal", I'm curious how in the world you can justify taxation of any kind.


How do you interpret Jesus' comment when he said "give back to Caesar's what is Caesar's?"

----------


## Cabal

> Well, the man was an economist, so his economics may be useful, but I honestly don't see why anarchists or even minarchists in our movement admire him so much, or why Rothbard liked him.  The man supported slavery (the draft.)  How much more anti-liberty can you get?
> 
> *I know very, very little of Mises*...


That's quite obvious.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Well, the man was an economist, so his economics may be useful, but I honestly don't see why anarchists or even minarchists in our movement admire him so much, or why Rothbard liked him.  The man supported slavery (the draft.)  How much more anti-liberty can you get?
> 
> I know very, very little of Mises and I still know that most of his "followers" are far more libertarian than he was.
> 
> I was more thinking in the political realm than the economic though.


I really just wanted you to think a bit about what you were saying, really. You're very passionate, which is great, but don't let it blind you either. Just because someone is a "utilitarian" doesn't make them "useless" or "evil". That statement itself is really not useful for much other than instigating conflict. Also, the political realm and the economic realm are intertwined.

I'm not really trying to rag on you, I'm nowhere close to perfect myself, but I try to grow out of things I recognize as detrimental to my development. 

Mises had an interesting life, and essentially single-handedly brought the Austrian School back to life. He's got a lot of admirers due to his life story and his profound academic contributions. You might get more clarity in understanding others perspective of him by learning about him yourself. If you look at the world through the context of "utilitarians of all stripes are useless and evil" and dismissed what he brought to the table then it would be exceedingly difficult to understand more positive perspectives of him.

I didn't really want to make this about Mises, the same thing applies to a lot of what you say about retaliation from my perspective, but this conversation reminded me of this video, and I figured you may find it interesting if you were inclined to learn more.

----------


## Brett85

> TC have you seen this yet?


I have now.  Thanks.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Would a minarchist be opposed to having the government maintain a national system of currency, like we have now?


It seems like Ron Paul is, based on things that he's said.  Based on most definitions I've seen, it seems like that would be the case (That they would oppose such.)  But there might be people who use definitions of minarchy that would include that too.  Not sure.




> How do you interpret Jesus' comment when he said "give back to Caesar's what is Caesar's?"



Declining the gambit to answer a trick question.

What's interesting about his answer is that he really makes absolutely no comment about what Caesar owns and what he doesn't.  Common sense would tell us that if Caesar is trying to take your property by violent force, it isn't actually his.

Most Christians seem to take this passage in a manner that isn't contradictory with itself.  They say that Jesus is condoning the power of taxation, and that he is saying that whatever Caesar demands should be paid, but he won't say that if Caesar demands more than half your income that he actually owns all of that and that it isn't wrong.  So ultimately, I think they contradict themselves.

Mind you, I'm addressing the assertion that Caesar actually has any legitimate right to tax here (And denying it), not the question of civil disobedience to taxes that do exist, which is a different question entirely.




> That's quite obvious.


Considering the fact that you're willing to call minarchy and anarchy opposites, I think  you're basically being a hypocrite by defending Mises.  Mises supported a freaking draft.  He was much more anti-libertarian than anyone in this thread.



> I really just wanted you to think a bit about what you were saying, really. You're very passionate, which is great, but don't let it blind you either. Just because someone is a "utilitarian" doesn't make them "useless" or "evil". That statement itself is really not useful for much other than instigating conflict. Also, the political realm and the economic realm are intertwined.


OK, I agree that they are related.  I guess this brings us to an interesting question: should deontological libertarians even address the assertions of the left that libertarian economics would result in poverty at all?  I think its fine to do so, but ultimately, the reason I support libertarianism is because it is RIGHT, not because it "works."  




> I'm not really trying to rag on you, I'm nowhere close to perfect myself, but I try to grow out of things I recognize as detrimental to my development.


No problem.



> Mises had an interesting life, and essentially single-handedly brought the Austrian School back to life. He's got a lot of admirers due to his life story and his profound academic contributions. You might get more clarity in understanding others perspective of him by learning about him yourself. If you look at the world through the context of "utilitarians of all stripes are useless and evil" and dismissed what he brought to the table then it would be exceedingly difficult to understand more positive perspectives of him.
> I didn't really want to make this about Mises, the same thing applies to a lot of what you say about retaliation from my perspective, but this conversation reminded me of this video, and I figured you may find it interesting if you were inclined to learn more.


I'll take a look at it.

----------


## Cabal

> Considering the fact that you're willing to call minarchy and anarchy opposites, I think  you're basically being a hypocrite by defending Mises.  Mises supported a freaking draft.  He was much more anti-libertarian than anyone in this thread.


By definition, statism is the opposite of anti-statism. By definition, minarchy is statism. By definition, anarchy is anti-statism. Therefore, minarchy is opposite anarchy. This isn't as difficult as you're making it.

Also, I haven't defended Mises--I've merely agreed that you obviously know very, very little of Mises. That was my not so kind way of suggesting you make the effort to know what you're talking about before presuming to talk and make judgments about it; not so kind because it should go without saying.

As for Mises...




> No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.





> The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.





> If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.





> The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest.





> Compulsory military service thus leads to compulsory labor service of all citizens who are able to work, male and female. . . . Mobilization has become total; the nation and the state have been transformed into an army; war socialism has replaced the market economy.


Mises on Conscription

----------


## Brett85

> Declining the gambit to answer a trick question.
> 
> What's interesting about his answer is that he really makes absolutely no comment about what Caesar owns and what he doesn't.  Common sense would tell us that if Caesar is trying to take your property by violent force, it isn't actually his.
> 
> Most Christians seem to take this passage in a manner that isn't contradictory with itself.  They say that Jesus is condoning the power of taxation, and that he is saying that whatever Caesar demands should be paid, but he won't say that if Caesar demands more than half your income that he actually owns all of that and that it isn't wrong.  So ultimately, I think they contradict themselves.
> 
> Mind you, I'm addressing the assertion that Caesar actually has any legitimate right to tax here (And denying it), not the question of civil disobedience to taxes that do exist, which is a different question entirely.


I'm not exactly sure what it means either, but I just don't see any verse in the Bible that says that taxes are wrong or that it's wrong to have a government.  I think that often times it's not a good idea to mix the Bible with politics, regardless of whether it's the argument you're making, or liberals who argue that Jesus supported big government and socialism.  I don't personally base my political views off of the Bible.  I base my personal views and the way I live my life off of the Bible.

And I don't consider all taxes to be theft, although I consider the income tax to be theft and support abolishing the income tax.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I have now.  Thanks.


What was your take?

----------


## Brett85

> What was your take?


I didn't think the video addressed what would happen if the two people who were having a dispute didn't actually want to have a 3rd party arbitrator, or if the two people having a dispute asked for a 3rd party arbitrator to settle the dispute, but then didn't agree with the arbitrator's decision and chose not to follow the decision.  I don't see how the 3rd party arbitrator would have any kind of enforcement mechanism to enforce any of his decisions.  It just seems like he would basically be giving advice to two people who were having a dispute, when he was asked to give advice.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not exactly sure what it means either, but I just don't see any verse in the Bible that says that taxes are wrong or that it's wrong to have a government.


"Government" is a very tricky term, and can mean a lot of different things.  

Taxes are pretty clear though.  Exodus 20:15.  And as for those who would say the State is an exception for some arbitrary reason that they can't possibly defend, Isaiah 5:20.




> I think that often times it's not a good idea to mix the Bible with politics, regardless of whether it's the argument you're making,


I disagree with you.  I used to agree, but I don't anymore.  Rights cannot rationally exist unless they are imputed by God.  God reveals Himself through his Word.  Thus, the Bible does indeed tell us everything we need to know about politics.  Although of course, its not a political  textbook, and the "religious right" ignores scripture (read 1 Corinthians 5).




> or liberals who argue that Jesus supported big government and socialism.


\

And they get that from Jesus' command to help the poor.  This is a classic example of taking the Bible out of context.  The Bible NEVER says that wealth should be redistributed by force, in fact, Acts 5:4 completely refutes this accusation.  Not to  mention Christ's command to the Rich Young RULER not to Steal.  

Also, see Here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-In-Government




> I don't personally base my political views off of the Bible.  I base my personal views and the way I live my life off of the Bible.


This is paradoxical, because politics ultimately deal with morals and how people live.  If you believe that you shouldn't murder because the Bible tells you not to, but you wouldn't base your opinion on whether a certain city should be carpet bombed on that belief that it is wrong to murder (Note that I'm not saying "killing" in generic here, I'm talking about the carpet bombing of a city which will destroy INNOCENT lives) than your position is paradoxical.

I don't see anything in the Bible that says you have one set of rules for people who call themselves "government" and another set of rules for other people.  Thus, I would maintain that the Bible teaches that a stateless society is the only moral society.




> And I don't consider all taxes to be theft, although I consider the income tax to be theft and support abolishing the income tax.


Wait, so some forms of involuntary plunder of wealth are theft, but others are not?  Where are you gettng this from?  Can you defend it Biblically OR logically?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I didn't think the video addressed what would happen if the two people who were having a dispute didn't actually want to have a 3rd party arbitrator,


It did. The same thing as if there were only 2 people on the island. Their options are to settle it peacefully between themselves or to resort to violence.

That part doesn't change whether a state is involved or not. People can choose to settle disputes out of court, or they may resort to using violence even with a state monopoly.




> or if the two people having a dispute asked for a 3rd party arbitrator to settle the dispute, but then didn't agree with the arbitrator's decision and chose not to follow the decision.


This was also addressed in the video. It puts you right back into the position of having to settle between themselves or resorting to violence. And again adding the state to the mix doesn't change any of this.




> I don't see how the 3rd party arbitrator would have any kind of enforcement mechanism to enforce any of his decisions.  It just seems like he would basically be giving advice to two people who were having a dispute, when he was asked to give advice.


This wasn't addressed because it's beyond the scope of the video. It was introducing the production of law. There are actually more parts of the video that do discuss this though. Here's part 2:




But, in the most fundamental aspect, it's true that he was basically asked to give advice. That was his role in the situation. An impartial judge who gives advice on how the dispute should be resolved fairly.

----------


## Brett85

I was making the point that I oppose direct taxes but don't oppose indirect taxes.  I view a tax like the income tax to be a direct tax, while a tax like the sales tax is more of an indirect tax.  You don't really have any choice at all how much in taxes you pay with an income tax, you have to pay taxes no matter what.  With a sales tax, you don't have to pay any taxes at all if you don't buy anything.  I realize that's not possible, but some states don't even tax the essential things that people have to buy in order to survive.  Then if you save money and don't spend like crazy, you won't end up paying any taxes at all, or at least very, very minimal taxes.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I was making the point that I oppose direct taxes but don't oppose indirect taxes.  I view a tax like the income tax to be a direct tax, while a tax like the sales tax is more of an indirect tax.  You don't really have any choice at all how much in taxes you pay with an income tax, you have to pay taxes no matter what.  With a sales tax, you don't have to pay any taxes at all if you don't buy anything.  I realize that's not possible, but some states don't even tax the essential things that people have to buy in order to survive.  Then if you save money and don't spend like crazy, you won't end up paying any taxes at all, or at least very, very minimal taxes.


Except it's still stealing because you're butting into a private trade of property between two (or more) private individuals and demanding "protection money" whether your services were asked for or not. There's hardly any difference from the protection rackets run by the mafia other than the perception of legitimacy.

----------


## Brett85

> Except it's still stealing because you're butting into a private trade of property between two (or more) private individuals and demanding "protection money" whether your services were asked for or not. There's hardly any difference from the protection rackets run by the mafia other than the perception of legitimacy.


What about funding the government through a national lottery?  That wouldn't be theft.  It would basically just be an optional tax.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> What about funding the government through a national lottery?  That wouldn't be theft.  It would basically just be an optional tax.


It's only optional if you can opt out of it entirely.

If it's a voluntary form of government then it's not a state. It would be a governing institution in a stateless society.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It seems like if anarchists are against using force, then they wouldn't have any way to stop a group of people who tried to create a new government.  If anarchists do believe in using force, then anarchism would simply lead to non stop civil war, as those who truly support anarchism would be fighting against those who actively try to create a new government.


You are being disingenuous to the point of *dishonesty*.  It has been explained to you on more than one occasion (and you always seem to not respond to those explanations, by the way) that we anarchists are NOT against the use of force.  STOP SAYING THIS.  

We are against the use of preemptive/unprovoked/coercive force.  If you punch me in the face, I have the right to defend myself from you.

This is freaking basic.  This is like "founding documents" type of stuff that you SHOULD understand.  

It's like Travlyr is back or something.  Sheesh.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> 1. Minarchists - First of all, I'm a min-stater, not a minarchist. There is a great theory to support our limited role for the state. It's based on the idea of "Public Goods" theory, and it basically posits that certain necessary and sufficient conditions must be in place for liberty to exist. Things such as national defense, uniform and objective law (to the degree it can be), protecting our commons (which a free market can't protect) such as the environment and certain kinds of infrastructure and the provision toi all citizens a basic education. The last is supposedly controversial, but I'm with Jefferson - an educated populace is required for democracy to function. Do some web searches on Public Goods for more specifics.


National defense?  What's a nation but a group of individuals.  Cannot those individuals provide defense services voluntarily through mutual cooperation?  Why is it taken as given that "national defense" must be provided through violence and coercion?  When it is, how exactly can liberty exist?  

ETA:  I read this paragraph a little closer and just had to come back and comment further.

The state does NOT provide a "uniform and objective law", at least not that we've ever seen.  This is a fact in evidence.  

Protection of the environment is _obviously_ - to anyone with a fairly basic understanding of private property and human behavior - far better achieved through private property; identifying untapped natural resources such as land mass or ocean and declaring that it belongs to "everyone" and then charging the state with its oversight is a well-documented recipe for disaster.

Lastly - regarding education... I think your friend who sent you this is very likely a socialist, or a hyper-statist of some sort.  There is almost _no one_ in the liberty movement who argues on behalf of state-directed education.  That is "liberty 101", really.  In fact, there may be nothing so obviously to blame for the 'state' we're in (pardon the pun) than "public education".  




> 2. Anarchy has never, ever worked anywhere. This is an obstacle which they cannot overcome. I believe anarchy and criticisms of the state are very interesting, as I do much of philosophy, but I don't wish to put many of those ideas into practice. This is actually a form of "scientism" which Hayek accused the socialists and progressives of, but the anarchists do the same. They give their theories the certainty of physical science, and then come to absurd conclusions. It's intellectually immature mental masturbation. Hence Ayn Rand's disgust with them, a disgust I share, fyi, because the Anarchists have marginalized libertarians for 40 years, and as a result our nation is in peril without a viable governing alternative.


Well, since none of the "absurd conclusions" are addressed, I guess I can't really respond to them so I'll just leave this big ad hominem of a paragraph alone.  




> 3. Incentives - It's axiomatic to libertarians that people respond to incentives, but not perfectly rationally, and that individuals will act differently in the same circumstances. To assume that we would evolve towards compliance and belief in liberty/anarchy via some inexorable tug of the good (yes, some anarchists actually posit that "good" always wins, a laughable assertion) is simply more mental masturbation. *Some folks will always choose coercion and force over non-aggression and voluntarism. It's axiomatic to any real study of human behavior.*


I agree with the bolded entirely.  That is why I object to creating in society with a monopoly on violence, as those folks amongst us who choose coercion and force over non-aggression and voluntaryism will be drawn to it as moths to a flame.  




> As well, any study of political science reveals quickly that a minority can exert meaningful control over a populace. In fact, if a relatively small group can assert positive control over 25% of a population, they can quite easily exert negative control over the rest due to factionalization. Anthropology, history, and sociology tell us this as well, but hey, lets not let reality slow these guys down.


Laughable.  A minority of people can exert control over a populace, therefore, let us institute an entity over that populace to make their desires so much more easily attained and utterly complete!  BRILLIANT!  




> They seem to believe they are in possession of revealed truths


Objective truths, actually, and fairly easily deduced, in the absence of pro-state indoctrination, with not too awful much effort.  




> and in a conference room or lecture hall can quite readily ignore these arguments. Tell them that when the warlord armed to the teeth is at their door. Another way to look at it, as Nozick did, is that a state is an emergent property of anarchy, arising inexorably from it. Either way, it's an idea that flies in the face of much of what we know.
> 
> 4. Evidence of the state enabling huge gains in wealth and living conditions - Much academic research has been done on the explosion of wealth and consequent dramatic improvement in living conditions over the past 500 years, versus the previous tens of thousands of years in which these measures barely budged in comparison.


Ah yes, the utilitarian argument.  "Come to the candy man, little child.  I'll give you everything you want."  




> Many political scientists attribute this to very existence of states, but of states of a particular kind which protect civil liberties and contracts to a large extent. The causality is self evident. In the face of this evidence, anarchists instead ask me to believe that without the rise of the modern, liberal nation state, we would have an experience of real liberty anyway, in even greater abundance? Are you laughing yet? But see, the anarchists want to pretend history doesn't exist


Smug little comments like this do nothing to further the discussion, and this bit of text is rife with them.  I respond in kind.  

Those who advocate a "particular kind" of state "which protects civil liberties and contracts" have a few hurdles of their own to clear.  How about the one state created in human history with the explicit intention of protecting civil liberties and contracts, and claiming authority over little else?  How about that one?  It was still in swaddling clothes when it started making laws about what you were allowed to say, and to who.  It didn't make it out of adolescence before it made war on it's own people and killed probably a million of them.  Shortly after that, it perverted the currency of the people, made "illegal" the production and ownership of a certain type of beverage, engaged in imperialistic overseas wars... and on and on and on.

Are you laughing yet?  But see, "minarchists" want to pretend history doesn't exist.  




> and think they can just start now with the existing conditions in liberal democracies and the beliefs folks hold in those societies and then ban the state. It's much like the equally fanciful beliefs of Marxists in this regard, and just as fantastic.


But "going back" to a "constitutionally limited government" is well rooted in good sense?  




> 5. Practical considerations - Let's just concede for a second that they are right, that I don't need uniform and guaranteed (and imperfect, you silly children) protection from your worst instincts, and that somehow, humanitie's good instincts will prevail. So, should I then advocate for something that has no chance of ever occurring in an actual reality?


Leaving aside the non sequitur that uniform and guaranteed protections is impossible without a state (or that it is possible with a state - which is far, far, FAR more laughable, through simple observation of the state we now have), statelessness has *as much* of a chance of being the choice of our society as a "constitutionally limited government" does.




> The reality is that the likes of Rothbard et al have marginalized libertarians, making common cause with anarchists (whose thought actually stem from a different epistemological background than libertarian thought), who most free people see as dangerous and destructive.


Appeal to popularity.  I don't care what most people see as dangerous and destructive.  Most people see al Qaeda as the biggest threat to their security, rather than the existing US state.  Therefore most people are idiots.  What I care about is holding a logically consistent philosophy, guiding my thoughts and actions by it, and convincing others of it.  The rest - since I am not a fortune teller - will take care of itself.  "...drink the wine; let the world be the world."




> Because I sort of like the ideas and agree with some of them, I'm to then doom the entire movement for liberty to irrelevance because anarchy is interesting? Again, I can only classify this as juvenile thinking. The libertarian movement has a great min-state platform that clearly and practically is workable, and can win real political gains in our system. The Rothbardian, anarchist Utopian, minority view of the libertarian movement has destroyed our credibility, by claiming the "truer" libertarian mantle. Instead of libertarians distancing themselves from anarchy, we will drown with the children who can't separate reality from fantasy.


Getting in bed with the GOP will be far more destructive to the "liberty movement" than allowing a few anarchist blowhards to show up at your functions.  Control your bladder for heaven's sake.  




> 6. Anarchy in it's truest sense isn't a political system - Anarchy has much deeper philosophical implications with respect to human existence than just whether we govern ourselves via a state of some sort. To reduce it to it's mere political implications misses most of what it has to say about human desire and will. One point is that in anarchy, you wouldn't have any "right" to property or liberty, yeah?


Did Travlyr write this nonsense?  

I've addressed this all earlier, so moving on... 




> I won't go on, but really, it's a very large difference. Accordingly, why don't you freaking anarchists stop hiding behind the libertarian movement and identify yourselves as anarchists - period? Then you wouldn't drag us down and we wouldn't be locked in an unresolvable argument. You could then exist as the tiny, absurd minority that you are instead of free-riding on the political work we libertarians are doing. If we weren't being dragged down by you, we might already be in the midst of redesigning our state, with popular support from most Americans.
> 
> I hope this helps you. If you want a real dissection of anarchy, read Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia. In the meantime, don't be confused, your instincts and common sense are spot on. Anarchy is absurd.


"Anarchy is absurd."  Welp, this is an assertion without basis, isn't it?  One certainly wasn't provided in this dull bit of text, that's for sure.  We may not stand much of a chance of achieving statelessness, sure, but something that is absurd is baseless, unsubstantiated, and foolish.  "Anarchism" has been proven time and again to be rooted in a very sound, logical set of objective, observable principles.  Statism, a philosophical framework which must take as a given that some men are endowed with certain powers that others do not, or are not allowed to possess, is obviously what is absurd.

----------


## fisharmor

> NOBODY says that.  Wow...
> 
> What we're saying is that that's what happens, not that that's what should happen.
> 
> @Fisharmor- I think Stephan Kinsella makes a pretty compelling case that the death penalty can be completely libertarian.



Fwiw the examples of stateless law I've been exposed to (including the Lakota example) don't discount the idea of judicial killing.  The difference is that it is used as a last resort.  The true meaning of 'outlaw' is someone whom the law no longer protects.  Thus, if a judgment is passed requiring someone to pay restitution, and he doesn't, then he is branded outlaw and anyone encountering him can bring him to justice.  So if a family isn't paid for the death of one of its mwembers, they can hunt down the aggressor and kill him.

Note, however, that *they* are the ones taking vengeance.  Not the state.  And its a last resort, not a primary judgment.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was making the point that I oppose direct taxes but don't oppose indirect taxes.  I view a tax like the income tax to be a direct tax, while a tax like the sales tax is more of an indirect tax.  You don't really have any choice at all how much in taxes you pay with an income tax, you have to pay taxes no matter what.  With a sales tax, you don't have to pay any taxes at all if you don't buy anything.  I realize that's not possible, but some states don't even tax the essential things that people have to buy in order to survive.  Then if you save money and don't spend like crazy, you won't end up paying any taxes at all, or at least very, very minimal taxes.


OK, I can see the practical reasons for doing this, because it limits how much the government can take.  But in the purely theoretical I honestly fail to see the difference.  Would there really be any difference if the mafia stole 20% of each of your paychecks, or if they stole 20% of the value of each item you buy each time you buy it?  

I could be convinced otherwise here, but I actually feel likee a flat income tax might be less evil than a flat  sales tax (Note that I still believe that both are absolutely evil) (Presuming the revenue stolen by each is equal)  because the flat income tax would at least target everyone equally, and thus tick everyone off equally, whereas the sales tax disproportionately targets the poor.  I guess this is kind of like aying would you reather the mafia steal 10% from everyone, or would I rather them steal more than 10% from the poorest Americans and less than 10% from the richest, but it would still add up to an average of 10%.  I mean, I'd rather take the 3rd option of "Put all the mafia to death", but if I had to pick between those two theft schemes, I think the one that is proportional is marginally preferable considering the same amount of money is taken.

On the other hand, if there was a choice between stealing 10% from everyone, or only stealing 10% from the bottom 50%, the latter would be preferable, because even those the latter theft scheme is "regressive" it actually involves outright less theft than the first one.  So ultimately my biggest concern is how MUCH is being stolen, not how its distributed.  I would also argue that its an act of aggression to deliberately tweak the tax code in way that would increase the amount stolen from some Americans even if it would decrease the amount stolen for Americans.  I know liberty minded politicians will still stretch this a little, which is why I'm not suited for politics, because I couldn't, but this is essentially why I reject fairtax and every other "tax fairness" scheme even though I also reject what we have. 




> Except it's still stealing because you're butting into a private trade of property between two (or more) private individuals and demanding "protection money" whether your services were asked for or not. There's hardly any difference from the protection rackets run by the mafia other than the perception of legitimacy.


Yep.  See my post above.



> What about funding the government through a national lottery?  That wouldn't be theft.  It would basically just be an optional tax.


Massive, massive improvement.  Not perfect, because it seems like in this system competing governments, competing police, etc. would be banned, but its a HUGE step in the right direction.




> Fwiw the examples of stateless law I've been exposed to (including the Lakota example) don't discount the idea of judicial killing.  The difference is that it is used as a last resort.  The true meaning of 'outlaw' is someone whom the law no longer protects.  Thus, if a judgment is passed requiring someone to pay restitution, and he doesn't, then he is branded outlaw and anyone encountering him can bring him to justice.  So if a family isn't paid for the death of one of its mwembers, they can hunt down the aggressor and kill him.
> 
> Note, however, that *they* are the ones taking vengeance.  Not the state.  And its a last resort, not a primary judgment.


OK, first of all, I'd like to start this conversation by saying my knowledge of voluntarism is fairly limited.  Most of the little I do have, other than the snippets hinted at by Ron Paul (Who I do not believe is himself a voluntarist although I do believe he is sympathetic) has primarily come from  Rothbard, Block, Vance, Tom Woods, and I have seen the "Law Without Government" videos, but that's mostly it.  I know that David Friedman's anarchy is very different than Rothbard's anarchy, but I'm not well versed in the differences between them.

Murder is a unique case because the victim himself is dead, so unless he left specific instructions in a will, we're left with either exacting the "default" punishment, or leaving the option to his heirs, either of which is a "Least bad" scenario.  To make it simple, let's say Person A says in his will that if he is murdered, his brother, Person B has the right to decide for him what punishment is exacted.  Let's say the murderer is identified as Person Z, he is put on trial, and convicted.

The way I see it, Person Z now owes his life to Person B.  Person B would have the right to kill Person Z.  Now, he might not want to, put Person Z to death.  Perhaps they would strike some sort of deal.  But the way I see it, Person B does have the  right to kill Person Z.  He could also hire someone else to do it for him.

Regarding States, I do not believe States should exist, but as long as they do, I see no reason they shouldn't be able to exercise punishment against legitimate criminals, provided that the punishment actually fits the crime.  If someone commits murder, I see no reason, at least in theory, that the State could not rightfully execute them, at least in theory.  They shouldn't have a monopoly on the use of force, but as long as they do, I see nothing wrong with them using it against an actual murderer.  Now, if the murdered individual was a pacifist, and wrote in his will that he didn't want any punishment to be exercised against anyone who killed him, than that wish should be respected.  

Now, assuming the person murdered did NOT write anything in his will, murder is honestly a tricky case.  I could see an argument that says that the murderer can be justifiably killed no matter what (after conviction, of course) and I could also see a case for allowing the heirs to decide.  

Other crimes are relatively simple though.  In the case of assault, for example, the victim is still alive, so all of this would be much easier to figure out.  Although in that case, the maximum penalty would be proportional to assault, probably flogging.  And as with murder, the victim and assailant could work out some other type of penalty if desired.

Are you getting what I'm trying to say here?

Now, I would have to say a serial killer should pretty much receive the death penalty by definition, unless ALL of his victim's heirs agreed that he shouldn't, which is unlikely.  

Punishment theory is kind of tricky though.  Even among anarchists there's plenty of disagreement on it.

----------


## fisharmor

Sorry I'm just catching up....




> Then answer my question about  what a county Sheriff should do if a woman calls 9-1-1 and asks for help  because she's being raped.


 


> Which part of the fact that "police *cannot* be 'completely relied' upon to help anyone because police have *absolutely no responsibility or obligation whatsover* to help anyone" do you not understand?


 TC, did you actually read about Warren V. DC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia

   The first Supreme Court case we already used to debunk the protection argument is specifically about RAPE.




> I'm not exactly sure what it  means either, but I just don't see any verse in the Bible that says that  taxes are wrong or that it's wrong to have a government.


 Then it's time to cast off this illegitimate state and go back to being British subjects.
 If  you believe in this state, then you fundamentally believe in the words  of the DOI, which state that when a state becomes destructive to  liberty, it is the right of the people to alter _or abolish it._

 If we're talking Scripture here, to which Caesar do I owe my loyalty?
 The British crown, or the DOI?  If it's the British, then every Christian needs to subject himself to the crown.
 If it's the DOI, then we have the right to call for scrapping this system.




> I didn't think the video  addressed what would happen if the two people who were having a dispute  didn't actually want to have a 3rd party arbitrator, or if the two  people having a dispute asked for a 3rd party arbitrator to settle the  dispute, but then didn't agree with the arbitrator's decision and chose  not to follow the decision.  I don't see how the 3rd party arbitrator  would have any kind of enforcement mechanism to enforce any of his  decisions.  It just seems like he would basically be giving advice to  two people who were having a dispute, when he was asked to give  advice.


Yeah I don't know why this is TC but other advocates of statelessness abjectly refuse to offer historical examples of this.
They DO exist.
In  the "backward" celtic world, prior to what Osan calls "empire"  spreading throughout Europe, there were often professional judges tasked  with hearing cases.  They competed with each other, and judges known  for passing wise judgments were sought after.
When they passed a  judgment against someone, that person more often than not paid  restitution or did what was required.  This is because despite what the  state brainwashes us into believing, most people are peaceful by nature  and just want to get along with life.  (How else would you explain their  tendency to put up with the state's abuses?)

As I already  indicated, those who refuse a judgment can be named outlaw - meaning  they have no protection from the law.  Other judges would not assist  such a person, and anyone can administer justice on that outlaw as they  see fit.  This is one way that it was dealt with in Western Europe.

The specifics would get filled in as people go.  The reason why I subscribe to this idea is because it is fundamentally _mutable._  Just as with other markets, the justice market would adapt itself to people's needs.

I  don't see how people would be brought to justice, because I don't have  the ultimate answer.  I think I'm going to be writing this out weekly at  this point: _the fact that we don't have an answer is not an indicator it won't work._
If  you believe there is a market for justice, it follows that a monopoly  on it is a bad thing, and it follows that the state has no business  providing it.
If you don't believe there is a market for justice,  then you fundamentally believe that nobody is interested in it - meaning  the state has no business providing it anyway.




> What about funding the  government through a national lottery?  That wouldn't be theft.  It  would basically just be an optional tax.


The problem with this is that the state will always fail to provide goods and services better than the market.
The only way the state can look like it's doing a good job is if it criminalizes competition.
The amount of profit they get from lotteries is absolutely sickening - and they're engaging in false advertising to boot.
If the state allowed other people to run lotteries, then the state's lotteries would fold within weeks.

----------


## Brett85

> TC, did you actually read about Warren V. DC?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia
> 
>    The first Supreme Court case we already used to debunk the protection argument is specifically about RAPE.


Yeah, that's an absolutely outrageous court decision.  I definitely agree with the 3 judges who dissented.  The three police officers who failed to stop the rapists are as much to blame for what happened to these women as the rapists were.

----------


## Cabal



----------


## noneedtoaggress

> It did. The same thing as if there were only 2 people on the island. Their options are to settle it peacefully between themselves or to resort to violence.
> 
> That part doesn't change whether a state is involved or not. People can choose to settle disputes out of court, or they may resort to using violence even with a state monopoly.
> 
> 
> 
> This was also addressed in the video. It puts you right back into the position of having to settle between themselves or resorting to violence. And again adding the state to the mix doesn't change any of this.
> 
> 
> ...


TC, did you get a chance to watch that 2nd video?

----------


## Brett85

> TC, did you get a chance to watch that 2nd video?


Yeah, it was very interesting.  The thing is that there have been countries throughout history that have had anarchy, and nothing like what was shown in the video was ever organized by private individuals.  It's possible that what's described in the video could theoretically work.  The problem is that something like that would likely never get organized, because different people would have all kinds of different ideas about the way that law and order would work.  I'm just not going to buy into this idea of anarchism until I actually see it work in practice.  I've never seen any country that doesn't have a central government have any kind of success.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Yeah, it was very interesting.  The thing is that there have been countries throughout history that have had anarchy, and nothing like what was shown in the video was ever organized by private individuals.  It's possible that what's described in the video could theoretically work.  The problem is that something like that would likely never get organized, because different people would have all kinds of different ideas about the way that law and order would work.  I'm just not going to buy into this idea of anarchism until I actually see it work in practice.  I've never seen any country that doesn't have a central government have any kind of success.


Other than the issue you have with competing ideas of law and order, those same arguments were made about the abolition of slavery and that radical experiment at it's construction - these United States.

As far as competing ideas of law and order, that leads into the third video:




You should also keep in mind that this is just one guy's interpretation of how the market could function.

----------


## Cabal



----------


## Origanalist

> 


I will be eagerly awaiting an answer to that question.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


Micro-secession FTW!  This is something the Rothbardians and Misesians agree on.

----------


## Cabal



----------


## Anti Federalist

Yes.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Anarchy is absurd.


Not as absurd as a minimal state staying minimal. It will grow, it will murder, it will steal...and the true absurdity is the suggestion that life will be better if we only legalize those crimes for some minority group of parasitical priests in the Cult of Nationalism. Everyone agrees murder and theft should be illegal for almost everyone...it's only the anarchists who say it should be illegal for all of us, including the people calling themselves "politicians", "soldiers", "police", "prison guards", "IRS agents", and any other label used by members of the state. The other side of the debate seems to be a defense on any number of grounds for murder and theft to be legal for some minority of people, on the pretense this carries with it some benefit overall for the rest of us. I see how it benefits the rulers, but I can't see the benefit for all of us; the ruled. Seems to me that if it should be illegal to steal and murder generally, that it should always be illegal for anyone. This notion of universality in ethics and law is called absurdity by those who still cling somewhat, or in total, to the Cult of Nationalism, the god of the state, and its Priest Caste. I think the absurdity is the lack of universality in statist ethics, whether totalitarians, authoritarians, or minarchists/"min-stater".

Enough with changing the labels..."min-stater" and "minarchist" are functionally equivalent in a debate with an anarchist. If you advocate for the ethical and/or pragmatic legitimacy of the state, you are statist....the rest is not a difference of principle, but a difference of degree (and too often, very arbitrary).

----------


## osan

> Sheriffs can be just as crooked as Policemen. It's just a label. There are bad apples in any position.


You miss the point.  Sheriffs are neither "hired" nor "appointed".  They are elected and are, therefore, impeachable and may be otherwise held accountable.  Note also I specified in an earlier post that there would be few or even zero full-time salaried deputies.  The sheriff would be completely dependent upon the good will of his constituents to perform certain aspects of his job.  If he needs a posse and nobody bellies up, he is going to be in some real poo.

----------


## osan

> I disagree


Please elaborate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I really can't answer your question because I am both for and against abolishing police. It just depends on what level of government that police has jurisdiction over. For national police, yes, I am for abolishing it. For local/state police, I am against abolishing it. Police are useful because I can't guard my home and possessions all day while I am away at work. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with deputizing law enforcement, on a local or state level, with the task of maintaining order and upholding laws that protect life and property. The police should not have a "monopoly" on protection services, but still, they can serve and protect in the public's trust.


Government cops are USELESS:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/r...f-street-cops/

I think one of the biggest moral failings of the church today is that being a cop isn't considered morally equivalent to being a prostitute.

----------


## tod evans

> I think one of the biggest moral failings of the church today is that being a cop isn't considered morally equivalent to being a prostitute.


Then work to change that in your congregation.

Please understand that cops are only the tip of the phallus raping America.

----------


## Anti Federalist

"Progressives"...humbug.

"We" were out in front of this issue, and did it with reason and liberty for all.

----------

