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

[Zippyjuan]

Cops come from their mommie's tummies. When a mommy cop and a daddy cop like each other they get together and kiss each other and stuff and later you get a baby cop the stork drops off! (Or go ask you mother how it happens).

 

[Anti Federalist]

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.

Exactly...which is why I am always and will remain skeptical of any "collective authority".

 

[Anti Federalist]

Cops come from their mommie's tummies. When a mommy cop and a daddy cop like each other they get together and kiss each other and stuff and later you get a baby cop the stork drops off! (Or go ask you mother how it happens).

Smart ass...LOL

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Exactly...which is why I am always and will remain skeptical of any "collective authority".

As you should be. It doesn't exist in the sense that "grouping together" somehow transcends individual rights and allows to group to infringe on them.

It's only legitimate to collectively defend individual rights, and infringing on them in order to defend them is a paradox.

 

[Acala]

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

My hired hands can "maraud" all they want on my property. They can also patrol my property and look out beyond the borders. If you don't want visual images from your property to be visible offsite, build a freaking fence or plant some bamboo. You don't get to tell me what I can look at.

 

[Anti Federalist]

My hired hands can "maraud" all they want on my property. They can also patrol my property and look out beyond the borders. If you don't want visual images from your property to be visible offsite, build a freaking fence or plant some bamboo. You don't get to tell me what I can look at.

If it belongs to me, I most certainly do.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Was going to repost this, but I knew I had read before.

 

[Proph]

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.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/william-norman-grigg/call-the-anti-police/

 

[pcosmar]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/william-norman-grigg/call-the-anti-police/

Private security is not and never has been POLICE..(except within very specific boundaries)

Private security does not have power to arrest outside of private property.

Police are an authoritarian construct,, foreign to the concept of Liberty this country was formed under.
It was imported from Authoritarian Europe. (England and Prussia predominantly)

The duty of an elected Sheriff is to insure Liberty,, and to protect the rights of any accused of crimes in his jurisdiction.

The world I live in is backwards.

 

[Proph]

I imagine a private police officer whatever would have to respect property rights unlike cops today who are protected under the state.

Back then, slaves -- people -- were treated as property. Even to this day, really, they still are. Contrary to popular belief, the 13th amendment never abolished slavery; it merely changed the criteria for enslavement. The enigmatic "State" purports to be your owner; or more accurately, "its" enforcers do on "its" behalf.

At what point can those incarcerated invoke their 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment? Isn't any punishment for a "victimless crime" -- an oxymoron -- cruel, if not unusual?

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

The arm of the Leviathan only extends as far as the conscience of its enforcers. Most of the people who perpetuate this broken system actually, honestly, believe they are helping. They think they are the "good" guys.

 

[PierzStyx]

Private "police" are still Police.
The very concept is Authoritarian. The Polar opposite of Liberty.
It should not exist in a free society. in any form. Period.
The very concept that people need to be controlled,, and that unnatural laws need to be enforced is offensive.

A free people are capable of policing themselves. Police should not exist.

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

I think you have the quotation marks on the wrong part. It should be "private" police. I think in a fully anarchist society you would have communities that would hire armed guards to protect their areas, perhaps on a level even as large as cities or towns. Those armed guards would essentially be police. They wouldn't have the power to violate individual rights and if they did then people could legally defend themselves.

 

[PierzStyx]

It (the concept) should not exist in a free society. It is only necessary in an Authoritarian society.

Read the link I gave. Please.
the very concept of police is anti-liberty.

That link is very long. I doubt anyone will read it any time soon. Could you provide some especially insightful quotations that demonstrate your point?

 

[Anti Federalist]

I think you have the quotation marks on the wrong part. It should be "private" police. I think in a fully anarchist society you would have communities that would hire armed guards to protect their areas, perhaps on a level even as large as cities or towns. Those armed guards would essentially be police. They wouldn't have the power to violate individual rights and if they did then people could legally defend themselves.

Their areas?

You mean clearly defined lines of demarcation, indicating the boundaries of a defined space occupied by similar peoples in mutual agreement?

Patrolled by armed guards to turn away those who are not wanted within that defined space?

Sounds like a nation and a border and border guards.

Albeit with the unwanted incentive of monetary gain for locking people up and busting heads.

 

[pcosmar]

They wouldn't have the power to violate individual rights and if they did then people could legally defend themselves.

So then,, the people Police(control) themselves.

as it should be.
There is no need for a caste or profession.. each individual is responsible for law enforcement.

 

[pcosmar]

That link is very long. I doubt anyone will read it any time soon. Could you provide some especially insightful quotations that demonstrate your point?

It is not very long nor a difficult read.

Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen.32 Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand."33 Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one,34 and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department.35 The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed.

And there is much quotable.. Following up on the research may take longer.

 

[Proph]

Listening to this right now. (I was looking for a quote about worldviews that lies somewhere in there, supposedly.)

I had been writing this, but wasn't quite finished, and couldn't determine where/how/if to release it:

Can governments exist in anarchy? At first glance, this question seems rhetorical and rather insignificant. Semantically, of course not! "Anarchy" by definition is the absence of government, after all. However, people are free to associate with whom they like; groups form; and some of these collectives may eventually resemble or morph into governments. Does this inevitable emergence then mean that anarchy simply cannot exist? Not necessarily.

What makes a government, anyway? Generally, governments consist of laws enforced by invidividuals; but without coercion, any decreed legislation is for naught. People or businesses who particpate in sanctions -– or other types of financial manipulation or control -– are just one of the many layers of coercion; but, would they still participate, if they themselves weren’t under duress? Viewing government through this lens helps to clarify the original inquiry, how governments can -- and do -- exist within anarchy. The reach of governments is only as far as the proximity of their enforcers; thus, "Theye" -- osan! -- rule proximally not regionally.

I say all of that to say this: Words have meaning, but concepts are more important. Peaceful, civil disobedience in the present should be associated with anarchy, not a chaotic dystopia run by monopolies in the future.
;tldr Consent separates communes from governments. Taxation is theft.​

One medium is just as good as another, I suppose. Releasing this now also motivated me to finish the thought.

Herding libertarians really is like herding cats: Everyone likes to think they're their own leader, and that they don't need anyone else.

Spoiler

You do.

[SPOIL]RPF doesn't spoil![/SPOIL]

 

[Proph]

I try to avoid double posting, but I never got around to linking this yesterday.



Mark Passio is great.

"Who is more culpable [for this broken status quo]: the order-giver, or the order-follower?"