What happened to Stefan Molyneux?

[helmuth_hubener]

He supports registering firearms?

Highly doubtful, but perhaps idiom thinks so and can explain.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You want no police overreach? Then how are you going to provide the same level of security?

Police do not provide security. They provide streams of revenue for the government and streams of warm bodies for the PIC.

Any "security" they provide from malum in se offenders is a purely incidental fig leaf for this ...

 

[silverhandorder]

Police do not provide security. They provide streams of revenue for the government and streams of warm bodies for the PIC.

Any "security" they provide from malum in se offenders is a purely incidental fig leaf for this ...

Yeah yeah and the mail man does not deliver mail he just collects welfare and votes for the government.

You do your self disservice by falling into denial.

Police is security by another name. A security firm is police by another name. What you said is not up to the level of discourse I am used to reading from you.

I can certainly see how any department of government whether it is police or regulators or utilities are running at bare minimum passable levels or not running at all. But that does not mean that they will not exist in free market.

I can assure you if we had anarchist paradise tomorrow you would still have to obey speed limits and traffic lights on your flying car.

 

[oyarde]

He supports registering firearms?

If so , that is even worse than I thought .

 

[Danke]

If so , that is even worse than I thought .

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, I don't think he ever mentioned tomahawks.

 

[oyarde]

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, I don't think he ever mentioned tomahawks.

True , I have nothing to worry about . The Govt White Eye will never get my arms , lol

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah yeah and the mail man does not deliver mail he just collects welfare and votes for the government.

You do your self disservice by falling into denial.

Police is security by another name. A security firm is police by another name. What you said is not up to the level of discourse I am used to reading from you.

I can certainly see how any department of government whether it is police or regulators or utilities are running at bare minimum passable levels or not running at all. But that does not mean that they will not exist in free market.

I can assure you if we had anarchist paradise tomorrow you would still have to obey speed limits and traffic lights on your flying car.

Bullshit. 1) See earlier posts for why "police" aren't security. Even SCOTUS says they aren't there for your security. 2) Meaningful "security" doesn't have the legal right to initiate force, harass, intimidate, stalk, or the many other tactics cops use to oppress and profiteer off the masses.

 

[Origanalist]

Yeah yeah and the mail man does not deliver mail he just collects welfare and votes for the government.

You do your self disservice by falling into denial.

Police is security by another name. A security firm is police by another name. What you said is not up to the level of discourse I am used to reading from you.

I can certainly see how any department of government whether it is police or regulators or utilities are running at bare minimum passable levels or not running at all. But that does not mean that they will not exist in free market.

I can assure you if we had anarchist paradise tomorrow you would still have to obey speed limits and traffic lights on your flying car.

What the hell are you talking about? The police have never provided me with security.

 

[Danke]

What the hell are you talking about? The police have never provided me with security.

They operates behind the scene, that is why you haven't noticed. They are that good, working for your security while you and your family sleep at night, etc.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

They operates behind the scene, that is why you haven't noticed. They are that good, working for your security while you and your family sleep at night, etc.

lolz

 

[idiom]

You wouldn't register your firearms with the "State" that would be statist. You register them with a DRO which is just like a state but totally not a state, because its anti-statist. The DRO's would heavily fine anyone with unregistered firearms and reward people who report them. Because liberty.

Well, wouldn't one have the choice of moving to a different community with different standards? Or subscribing to a different insurer with different standards?

Maybe I should move to Somalia.DRO?

Are you totally against all standards/rules/laws?

What liberties are most important to you, idiom? What does liberty look like to you?

Stefan simply highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of much of modern an-cap thought. The DRO's he spends so much time on differ from the state in only two respects, he never imagines they might purchase land, and second, membership is always explicit, he never imagines a DRO might allow implicit membership.

Basically the claim is that staying in a country doesn't amount to consent and that one shouldn't have to leave. These are apparently the two great injustices in the world and the source of coercion in the state.

However as long as a DRO owns the land and makes you sign a contract upon entering, they have absolutely no restrictions on what they can do to a citizen. It is a world without rights or responsibilities. A world where the state has no restrictions on its activities.

This sort of anarcho-capitalism amounts to min-archism without the minimalism. It simply changes the authority of where the state gets its power and unchains its brutal monopoly on power.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Yeah yeah and the mail man does not deliver mail he just collects welfare and votes for the government.

No, the mailman does deliver mail. But the policeman does not deliver security. That is not his purpose.

(They are both tax parasites, however - and I have no doubt that most of both groups do indeed "vote for the government," if they vote at all.)

You do your self disservice by falling into denial.

I did not deny anything that is actually true. Police do not provide security. That is not what they are for, and that is not what they do (except incidentally). As far as actual breaches or infringements of property or security go (as distinct from malum prohibitum violations), they show up afterwards and write reports. If the situation warrants, maybe they'll give you a report number to use with an insurance claim - but that's about it.

They occasionally round up some malum in se offenders (and significantly, note that they do not do this with the purpose of making whole the victims, to whatever extent that is possible) - but despite this being much vaunted as their greatest justification, it actually constitutes only a tiny fraction of their operations and actions. It is really just the "fig leaf" to which I referred in my previous post.

In other words, as far as "security" is concerned, the police don't do anything that others (or those they might have hired for the purpose) could not have done for themselves* - if those others were permitted to do so by the very rules that police are employed by the state to enforce. It is the enforcement of those rules that is the purpose of the police, not anyone's "security" (unless it is the "security" of the rule makers ...).

* and far more often than not, the police do a good deal less than that, even

Police is security by another name.

No, it isn't. Police are priveleged enforcers of malum prohibitum edicts decreed by a third party (namely, the state) - most of which most people almost certainly would not agree to if they had any say in the matter.

A security firm is police by another name.

No, it isn't. A security firm is an unpriveleged provider of private property protection.

Unlike police, security guards do not have any authorities, priveleges or immunities that any other citizen does not have.

(Proper training at a private security firm stresses this fact strongly. I know, because I used to work for one, way back in the day.)

What you said is not up to the level of discourse I am used to reading from you.

What I said is true. Police do not exist to provide security. They do not exist to "serve and protect." Private security firms do.

That is why the distinction between "police" and "security guards" exists in the first place - they are different terms denoting very different things.

I can certainly see how any department of government whether it is police or regulators or utilities are running at bare minimum passable levels or not running at all. But that does not mean that they will not exist in free market.

Priveleged enforcers of unconsented-to malum prohibitum rules (i.e., police) will not exist in a genuinely free market.

By definition, the two are contradictory and entirely incompatible with one another.

I can assure you if we had anarchist paradise tomorrow you would still have to obey speed limits and traffic lights on your flying car.

Indeed, I would. And whatever you might want to call them, the enforcers of such rules (rules decreed by property owners and agreed to by users of that property) would merely be unpriveleged employees of yet another private business concern, just like anyone else - and not at all like what are called "police" today.

 

[silverhandorder]

This is too complicated for simple me. I define police as a guy you pay to patrol and shoot bad guys if they come for you. What you think police is and what government/supreme court think police is, is not my problem.

If we are to follow my definition all I am saying is that in free society there will be guys who you will pay to shoot people coming for you or to man the gate. It would obviously get complicated fast if you have someone with a billion dollars hiring security.

Either way I promise to come back to this and TRY to understand what you guys are talking about. But as I said I think we are talking about different things. Hence why I gave my definition.

edit: Ok I read the response. I don't see where we disagree. Or more precise why you disagreed with me originally. Obviously we both do not view current status quo as just. You can call police private security employees of property owners. But know when I say police I mean that. If that breaks your brain I am sorry. I am willing to entertain an argument why I should stop calling police that.

edit2: Also I would argue even with current fucked up state that security is provided it still is provided by police. Otherwise how do you explain the furguson effect. Cops are more afraid to go into troubled neighborhoods and now crime is going up.

 

[idiom]

Bear in mind anyone using American examples is strawmanning pretty fucking hard.

 

[Origanalist]

This is too complicated for simple me. I define police as a guy you pay to patrol and shoot bad guys if they come for you. What you think police is and what government/supreme court think police is, is not my problem.

If we are to follow my definition all I am saying is that in free society there will be guys who you will pay to shoot people coming for you or to man the gate. It would obviously get complicated fast if you have someone with a billion dollars hiring security.

Either way I promise to come back to this and TRY to understand what you guys are talking about. But as I said I think we are talking about different things. Hence why I gave my definition.

edit: Ok I read the response. I don't see where we disagree. Or more precise why you disagreed with me originally. Obviously we both do not view current status quo as just. You can call police private security employees of property owners. But know when I say police I mean that. If that breaks your brain I am sorry. I am willing to entertain an argument why I should stop calling police that.

edit2: Also I would argue even with current fucked up state that security is provided it still is provided by police. Otherwise how do you explain the furguson effect. Cops are more afraid to go into troubled neighborhoods and now crime is going up.

You should have stopped at the first sentence. By the way, wtf happened to you? Did you get a head injury or something? I don't remember you being this ...er...obtuse.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Bear in mind anyone using American examples is strawmanning pretty fucking hard.

RPFs is an Amero-centric forum, bto.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Stefan simply highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of much of modern an-cap thought.

Stef doesn't represent much of modern anarchist thought beyond his own. Lots of ancaps disagree with him.

 

[Origanalist]

They operates behind the scene, that is why you haven't noticed. They are that good, working for your security while you and your family sleep at night, etc.

Thanks, I feel a lot better now. All warm and fuzzy like.

 

[Danke]

Thanks, I feel a lot better now. All warm and fuzzy like.

Don't worry, it is all under control. The NSA has your back, sleep well.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Basically the claim is that staying in a country doesn't amount to consent and that one shouldn't have to leave. These are apparently the two great injustices in the world and the source of coercion in the state.

However as long as a DRO owns the land and makes you sign a contract upon entering, they have absolutely no restrictions on what they can do to a citizen. It is a world without rights or responsibilities. A world where the state has no restrictions on its activities.

Yes, yes, right-o. Well-expressed. You have explained your line of thinking on this before, though, repeatedly. You and I, we've been around here a long time, idiom! So I already understand all that. I understand your criticisms of other people's ideas of liberty. But what I am interested in is what your conception of liberty is.