Where Do Cops Come From?...or...Why I do not support "private" cops.

[asurfaholic]

Sheriffs are an elected office. They are NOT police, (or, were not supposed to be)

So the distinction is that the Sheriff can be thrown out of office by the people he serves, while police can't.

I was curious because the sheriffs around here are getting pretty militarized, but are generally more respectable.

 

[pcosmar]

How is a private police on private property authoritarian? Are homeowners not private police while on their property?

Actually no,, I am not police. Here I am the King. Sovereign and and under authority of NO Man.
My word is law. And that ends at the border. Beyond that, there is simple diplomacy with other sovereign men (and women)

 

[Danan]

Well, outside of your house (your property), yes; however, I believe that someone's property is his/her castle and those who venture such venue are subject to that person's rules.

Everything should either be somebody's property, in which case it's ok to protect it (for the property owner as well as for everybody who protects it in their stead - with their permition or under reasonable assumption), or nobody's property, in which case there is nothing to protect.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Read the OP again...about company towns.

The root of your issue.

Also as far as the Pinkertons goes, like Blackwater they may be private, but they were supported by the Gov. They had to pass a bill making it illegal for the state to hire them.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I was curious because the sheriffs around here are getting pretty militarized, but are generally more respectable.

I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ME, SON.

I sentence you to 10 Years in the Pink Hotbox.
\\

(another example of democratic elections empowering authoritarians)

 

[pcosmar]

Maybe it's a problem of definitions.

Not so much definitions,, as concepts and principles.
Liberty is the opposite of Authoritarian. It bothers me some when people try to twist authoritarian concepts into liberty positions.

People are very capable of peaceful interactions without coercion. And most people are aware on Natural Law.
Don't Murder,, Don't steal, defraud or assault. Those are pretty universal and generally accepted.

And those natural Laws only need to be enforced rarely among civil society,, and can be enforced by all members of society.

It is hard to imagine only because the present system is so utterly corrupted.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Not so much definitions,, as concepts and principles.
Liberty is the opposite of Authoritarian. It bothers me some when people try to twist authoritarian concepts into liberty positions.

People are very capable of peaceful interactions without coercion. And most people are aware on Natural Law.
Don't Murder,, Don't steal, defraud or assault. Those are pretty universal and generally accepted.

And those natural Laws only need to be enforced rarely among civil society,, and can be enforced by all members of society.

It is hard to imagine only because the present system is so utterly corrupted.

True, but some people identify security agents as "police", hence the term "Mall Cop". They enforce a property owner's policies. "Public Police" are supposed to be "everyone's" security agents, enforcing "everyone's" policies (which have been established via their duly elected "representatives").

 

[ClydeCoulter]

In a company town, one could at least leave – and one could still lawfully defend oneself against an assault by a company goon. Even that is now denied us. To resist in any way – even if the costumed enforcer is acting illegally – is itself illegal. For example, the courts have ruled that a homeowner may not – legally – use force to defend his home or himself against a costumed enforcer who forces his way into the home, even if the break-in is utterly illegal. We are expected – required – to go limp, roll over, present our bellies and trust to the good offices of the “officer” that we won’t get kicked.

I think he may be referring to the case in Indiana Supreme Court. But, the legislature passed a law (and it was signed by the Governor) that overrides the court ruling and states that the Castle Doctrine allows for resistance, even with deadly force, against any illegal entry or act by law enforcement on a persons property.

edit: And, I'll just mention that I don't like the idea of private cops either. It's like hiring mercs.

 

[AFPVet]

True, but some people identify security agents as "police", hence the term "Mall Cop". They enforce a property owner's policies. "Public Police" are supposed to be "everyone's" security agents, enforcing "everyone's" policies (which have been established via their duly elected "representatives").

Well, that's what it has turned into, but not what it was supposed to be. In theory, such public 'police' are only supposed to have this power when protecting government property i.e., military bases, government buildings, and reciprocal jurisdiction such as military housing off base.

All else was supposed to fall upon a constitutional sheriff, marshal or constable, with the general population acting as the public force.

 

[pcosmar]

True, but some people identify security agents as "police", hence the term "Mall Cop". They enforce a property owner's policies. "Public Police" are supposed to be "everyone's" security agents, enforcing "everyone's" policies (which have been established via their duly elected "representatives").

And hence,

It is hard to imagine only because the present system is so utterly corrupted.

I suppose the concepts of Liberty were quite foreign when the founders penned the Declaration of Independence,, as people were quite used to the "Crown" and the Kings Enforcers.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ME, SON.

I sentence you to 10 Years in the Pink Hotbox.
\\

(another example of democratic elections empowering authoritarians)

Plus rep.

I think George Carlin summed it up best, "Think of how smart the average person is. Then realize the half of them are dumber than that."

People would still vote for someone to enforce their values. If you so happened to be the minority, tough luck. (I can hear it now from some members here, "Then MOVE!" It's not usually that simple)

Perhaps I am unaware of what the proper authority of the sheriff was supposed to have been. I know today it is twisted, or if not, I'd still not support the idea if they were elected. Maybe, assuming that laws were equal for all men, I could find myself seeing the argument. We are a far way from that being the case and as of now I see a sheriff as the stepping stone. A stepping stone to deputies, and eventually injustice. I'd very much like to be off of their list if they'd waive my fees. If they find me on the side of the road, they can leave me there. Sincerely. I want no contact whatsoever with someone who thinks they are of a higher breed. Especially one who thinks they are of a higher breed and are by and large immune from prosecution.

It's funny that the people who genuinely are for law enforcement are the ones who aren't harrassed by the agents they lobby to employ. The "law and order" crowd who are usually invested in the system themselves. They simply go to and from work and probably have their get out of jail cards readily available. Not realizing all they are advocating is for an unlawful racket to strangle the actually productive members of society. (literally or figuratively) They hire people who don't produce anything but debt so they can harrass more people to hire more unproductivity. It's insane.

In the city where I was born you couldn't drive down some roads the potholes were so deep. But I'd bet you anything I had that if you happened to get a flat going through one of the 8 inch holes, the police would be there in moments to ticket you for anything they could. And once they illegally searched your car because of the 'strong smell of marijuana' they'd leave. Assuming you didn't get uppity and they determined you to be obstructing or disorderly.

A racket.

 

[Philhelm]

By what authority do costumed men presume to have lordship over me? Death to tyrants.

 

[bolil]

By what authority do costumed men presume to have lordship over me? Death to tyrants.

Authority as specious as a carved pumpkin.

I subscribe to Rothbard's promulgation of private security. A monopoly of sanctioned force is the worst kind of monopoly. Well, maybe a monopoly over food production or water. The thing is, or so I believe, a free market detests a monopoly with the same vigour with which nature abhors a vacuum.

 

[Michigan11]

Very good write up. I like the "company town" concept he is using to describe today's world. That is a perfect analogy, excellent in fact!!! This should be sent around in emails to everyone each of us knows.

 

[kathy88]

Exactly! Put the power back in the hands of the people and a duly elected sheriff. Now about private security, that's fine because they are agents who work for you... enforcing your rules on your property in addition to providing safety and security. However, asserting power of others outside of private property is something very serious.

We had a candidate for Sheriff proposing just that. I was so excited and we worked hard to get him elected. But the entrenched establishment won with the help of the older than dirt OMG the Sheriff needs LE experience crowd. I'm still mad.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

This article is Utopian.

Whether we like it or not Tyranny is inside all of us. The desire to control others is inside all of us. Do you think you are immune? You are not. You are just the enlightened few.

Private security is by far the preferable way to organize a free society, over the jackboot lawless government thugs we have today.

 

[Danan]

Private security is by far the preferable way to organize a free society, over the jackboot lawless government thugs we have today.

I tend to agree. It's a very delicate issue. No matter how security and rights enforcement is organized, either by a state or by private entities, there is always the danger of organized coercion against private property. The big question is: In what system is it less likely that this is going to happen, or in which system will it happen to a lesser degree?

As we see today, government officers are constantly killing innocent people, putting them in jail for non-crimes and seizing and damaging private property. That itself does not mean that a truely private alternative (in an overall more or less free society) wouldn't do that, or be any better. But there are strong reasons to believe that this alternative may be better.

First of all, private security and rights enforcement wouldn't have the "halo" of being legitimized by the consent of "the people". So if they go ahead and randomly shoot people's dogs, throw their kids in prison for non-violent "crimes" or start to "tax" people, i.e. forcing people to pay for their service, the public would object to their actions. And they might go to a competitor to protect themselves against this violent organization. Which is the second big advantage: Competition in the field of security and rights enforcement would be seen as the norm, as something usefull to preserve any organization from taking over and starting to tramble our rights. While today anybody trying to start competition to the police force, trying to protect people from the unjust use of force by the state would be seen as a terrorist. Not only would the current police force want to destroy this organization (this might also be the case in a private setting), but they would have the public's blessing in doing so.

It's now even the generally accepted theory that the "European Mirracle" (the sudden economic and cultural rise of the continent in medieval times) was only possible because of its patchwork of small, competing principalities and kingdoms. This was the only reason that allowed a culture of private property and capitalism to develop. But still, there was generally a monopoly of force over a given geographic territory. Enabling competition of security agencies also within a given territory, I believe, would result in an even freer society.

 

[Acala]

I have a right to defend myself and my property using whatever force is necessary. I have the right to hire people to help me with that. They are my agents and I can delegate to them any powers or rights I have. So my contractor can use whatever force is necessary to protect me and my property. I can band together with other property owners and jointly hire agents to protect our lives and property. Those agents can use the same force as my neighbors and I could. Hence, private police arise out of my property rights. If you don't like my rules or the agents I hire to police my property, the solution is easy: stay the hell off my property and you will have no problems at all.

The problems with the corporate business form and other government-created crony-capitalist mechanisms that have resulted in excessive concentrations of wealth and land has nothing to do with the right of private people and communities to police their property.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I can band together with other property owners and jointly hire agents to protect our lives and property.

And if I'm stuck in between you all, with marauding bands of private cops and sweeping surveillance, what then?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

And if I'm stuck in between you all, with marauding bands of private cops and sweeping surveillance, what then?

As long as their security actions doesn't infringe on your rights and is merely for the security of their own property then it's irrelevant.

If it does then you're a victim of an unlibertarian mob, no different from a governmental authority or a gang of private home invaders who don't respect your rights.

This is why the ideas people hold about social organization are so important to a free society. If society at large accepts infringement on rights in the name of "authority" that's what they'll get. If most people want a king, or to kill the jews, or whatever and you're "stuck" there, you're fucked too.