It is time we abolish police forces

[dude58677]

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

They are unconstitutional.

[mport1]

Agreed, but we should go further than that and aim at abolishing the state completely. (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87) It is a violent monopoly that by its very nature violates the rights of individuals.

[RonPaulFever]

We NEED police. Who else is going to fill our prisons with lowlife marijuana users?

[MikeStanart]

I'm all for reducing police forces for silly things like speed tickets... but I honestly doubt you will find many Americans supporting an abolishment of police forces. I tend to admit; it would be anarchy. Some government is ok..... :D

[anaconda]

Very interesting read. Sounds like the early method of maintaining order was extremely effective. I am unclear as to how citizens had the time to pursue crime if they were working, however.

[NYgs23]

As the article points out, the establishment of modern police forces isn't as old as we think. Also, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police), "The first police force in the modern sense was created by the government of King Louis XIV [note: an absolute monarch] in 1667 to police the city of Paris, then the largest city in Europe."

In Britain, you had a few sheriffs, local juries, private watchman, and "thief-takers" (like bounty hunters, but hired by victims). But in 1737, "In 1737, George II began paying some London and Middlesex watchmen with tax moneys, beginning the shift to government control. In 1750, Henry Fielding began organizing a force of quasi-professional constables....The word "police" was borrowed from French into the English language in the 18th century....The word, and the concept of police itself, was 'disliked as a symbol of foreign oppression'....On June 30, 1800, the authorities of Glasgow, Scotland successfully petitioned the government to pass the Glasgow Police Act establishing the City of Glasgow Police. This was the first professional police service in the country and differed from previous law enforcement in that it was a preventive police force.....On September 29, 1829, the Metropolitan Police Act was passed by Parliament, allowing Sir Robert Peel, the then home secretary, to found the London Metropolitan Police....They became a model for the police forces in most countries, such as the United States, and most of the British Empire."

In colonial America, "policing was provided by elected sheriffs and local militias." This began to change in the late 18th century: "In 1789 the US Marshals Service was established, followed by other federal services such as the US Parks Police (1791) and US Mint Police (1791)....The first city police services were established in Boston in 1838, New York in 1844, and Philadelphia in 1854....The US Secret Service was founded in 1865 and was for some time it was the main investigative body for the federal government....After the civil war, policing became more para-military in character, with the increased use of uniforms and military ranks. Prior to this, sheriff's offices had been non-uniformed organizations without a para-military hierarchy."

Interesting how something so supposedly necessary, even according to most libertarians, is so very new, historically speaking...

[Chieftain1776]

Why is this in Grassroots Central?

[ClayTrainor]

We can organize our communities online, and instead of voting, we can have a forum of sorts to discuss the best options to keep our communities safe. Transparency is the key to a safe community, and the internet is the key to transparency.

Majority rule has to disappear forever. The internet is where we, the individuals, can voluntarily organize and truly have our say. Take the time to watch the movie in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=214724). You will feel empowered as though we may actually have a real way to expose and dismantle the police state :cool:

[UnReconstructed]

anarchy.... hmmmmm......

[pcosmar]

I am not an anarchist, though I am sometimes accused.
I favor the elimination of standing armies, as a lawful and Constitutional position.
I also believe that with the elimination of a great many laws we could get by with a Constitutional elected Sheriff and an armed citizenry.
The laws can be simplified.
Don't steal, rape, assault or murder.
I believe in law and order, just a whole lot less of it.

[UnReconstructed]

do no harm?

[Working Poor]

I am not an anarchist, though I am sometimes accused.
I favor the elimination of standing armies, as a lawful and Constitutional position.
I also believe that with the elimination of a great many laws we could get by with a Constitutional elected Sheriff and an armed citizenry.
The laws can be simplified.
Don't steal, rape, assault or murder.
I believe in law and order, just a whole lot less of it.


I think I might be an anarchist. I think we would be doing damn good to be able to enforce the 10 commandments all the rest of the laws are worthless. I can't believe there are laws that try to make me buy car insurance and maybe soon even health insurance. grumble, mumble, grumble ect...

[Carson]

If you disband them who is going to arrest them for aiding and abetting?


Here is my two-step plan.

We may have to kiss the keisters of the illegal invaders, it is still a felony to aid and abet them.

If some honest men and women in law enforcement, would go after the lowlifes in the government, business and the general population that have been aiding and abetting them, by the time they had enough of a handle on the job to raise their heads and look around, I don’t think many illegal aliens would still be left.

We don’t need any new laws to do this either. Just some honest men and women that take their oaths of office seriously!


Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

[LDA]

This is a key difference between libertarianism and anarchism. The anarchist believes that there should be no government. We already know that's a bad idea, though. Without government, there's no protection of rights. Isn't that the point of government, after all? To protect the rights of the individual?

Without police, a thief can steal an old woman's purse, and she has no legal recourse. She just has to take the loss. That's a problem. Government (police included) are there for the specific purpose of keeping people from doing wrong to other people. That's not to say that the police don't overstep their bounds often, because they do. They have a legitimate purpose, though.

[brandon]

Without police, a thief can steal an old woman's purse, and she has no legal recourse.

Even with police, the woman often has no legal recourse.

The idea is to get rid of police and replace them with private security forces. The free market competition will give us something much much better than what we have now.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think I might be an anarchist. I think we would be doing damn good to be able to enforce the 10 commandments all the rest of the laws are worthless. I can't believe there are laws that try to make me buy car insurance and maybe soon even health insurance. grumble, mumble, grumble ect...

Nice to see you standing up for what's right! :D:cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

Even with police, the woman often has no legal recourse.

The idea is to get rid of police and replace them with private security forces. The free market competition will give us something much much better than what we have now.

QFT!:cool::)

[heavenlyboy34]

We can organize our communities online, and instead of voting, we can have a forum of sorts to discuss the best options to keep our communities safe. Transparency is the key to a safe community, and the internet is the key to transparency.

Majority rule has to disappear forever. The internet is where we, the individuals, can voluntarily organize and truly have our say. Take the time to watch the movie in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=214724). You will feel empowered as though we may actually have a real way to expose and dismantle the police state :cool:

Glad to see freedom is taking root in RPFs as well! :D:):cool:

[ronpaulhawaii]

Glad to see freedom is taking root in RPFs as well! :D:):cool:

O pashah, freedom is maximized here and always has been. I see arrogance in your statement and is another reason for my rejection of anarchist theories as the best vehicle to better society.

As far as police, sadly, I don't see humanity ready for policing themselves. I have seen too much evidence of people unable to control themselves due to emotion. (The worst thing was seeing so many of the proponents of "self-government through no government" unable to abide by their own tenets...)

Further, regarding comments in this thread about Police Forces being a relatively new concept. We can start here with the Persians, and there are plenty others to draw from

http://www.farvardyn.com/laws1.php


The police were a well-organized and efficient force in the ancient Persian Empire. In every place of importance a force existed under a competent officer. In the cities each ward was under a Superintendent of Police, known as Kuipan. he was responsible for the good behaviour of the people in his ward, and was expected to trace the criminal promptly whenever any crime occured in it. He was expected to command implicit obedience in his subordinates.
The police officer was required to know the court procedure for the prosecution of the cases and for advancing accusations and was expected to carry out the court's orders promptly. He had to be prompt in recognizing things necessary for proving a guilt, and was expected to be able to show how a stolen thing came to be with the thief. He was expected to be very careful in the charges he might advance against the accused and about his exact identity.

The Judge or Magistrate, as the case might be, was bound to examine with care circumstances associated with the accusation of a person by the police, such as the time of the act, the time of arrest, the time for which one was kept in custody, and the time when was produced in court, so that if anything unusual or wrong appeared the police might be asked to account for it, and an innocent person might be promptly and honorably discharged if the accusations were found groundless.

Thus while crime was suppressed assiduously, no slackness was shown in seeing that an innocent man did not appear in the dock.

HTH ;)

[Bman]

Don't steal, rape, assault or murder.
I believe in law and order, just a whole lot less of it.

If we are to have a social contract you pretty much nailed the extent of what it should entail.

[brandon]

As far as police, sadly, I don't see humanity ready for policing themselves.

So you think we should abolish the police then?

[UnReconstructed]

This is a key difference between libertarianism and anarchism. The anarchist believes that there should be no government. We already know that's a bad idea, though. Without government, there's no protection of rights. Isn't that the point of government, after all? To protect the rights of the individual?

Without police, a thief can steal an old woman's purse, and she has no legal recourse. She just has to take the loss. That's a problem. Government (police included) are there for the specific purpose of keeping people from doing wrong to other people. That's not to say that the police don't overstep their bounds often, because they do. They have a legitimate purpose, though.

with government there is no protection of rights

[ronpaulhawaii]

So you think we should abolish the police then?

That angle is an endless loop. Yes I agree a utopia would have no need for police, till then I see a need for balance...

[pcosmar]

Even with police, the woman often has no legal recourse.

The idea is to get rid of police and replace them with private security forces. The free market competition will give us something much much better than what we have now.

Sorry, but no.
There have been Private Police forces. Owned and operated by big business.
Not good at all, some are still in place today.

You will see it get worse, The UN has plans for Private Police. They already have a plan.
Again, not good at all.
http://www.civilianpolice.com/


In support of the U. S. Department of State, Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, CPI recruits, selects, trains, and deploys U. S. police officers to participate in international police development programs around the world. These civilian police (CIVPOL) programs are an important component of international peacekeeping missions. By joining the CPI Team, you are representing our country's ideals of tolerance, fairness, respect, and opportunity.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS277246+13-Feb-2009+BW20090213
Former CIVPOL Employee with DynCorp International Receives DoD Defense of Freedom Medal

https://www.paecivpol.com/civ_main.asp?pg=aboutpae.html&mnu=4

[ClayTrainor]

As far as police, sadly, I don't see humanity ready for policing themselves.

What does this even mean? Is the government not supposed of the people, by the people, for the people?

You don't think communities are capable of finding a way besides Majority Rule, to enforce laws? I'm not sure what your'e getting at here :o

I think Police is one of the most important things to keep government away from. You obviously disagree?

YouTube - Apr 01 2009 Riot Police Charge G20 Summit, London, G20 London, G20 Protests, G20 Demonstrations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7fnez25AHg&feature=PlayList&p=EC4C76DDF0452478&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=28)

YouTube - Police Brutality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSwITK4jjQ)

YouTube - Police Brutality: Woman Beaten Off Camera (graphic) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KM1ukwBGv4)


No more ENFORCED MONOPOLIES on policing!!!



I have seen too much evidence of people unable to control themselves due to emotion.
All the more reason to have everyone looking out for the safety of the community and having a way to report in, instead of a democratically elected few calling the shots and making the laws. Would you not agree?


(The worst thing was seeing so many of the proponents of "self-government through no government" unable to abide by their own tenets...)

No government doesn't mean no "law". That seems to be what you're implying.

You should have an open community online, looking after their own district / mass of land, collaborating and reporting on everything. This community can choose to have men in uniforms with guns, if they feel their community would benefit from them and work out a payment plan amongst their peers. These men in uniforms with guns, would be held under the rule of those who pay them, not elected leaders.

Let the free-market do it's job, man! :)

[ronpaulhawaii]

What does this even mean? Is the government not supposed of the people, by the people, for the people?

You don't think communities are capable of finding a way besides Majority Rule, to enforce laws? I'm not sure what your'e getting at here :o

I think Police is one of the most important things to keep government away from. You obviously disagree?

Semantics, even in a true anarchy the people would police themselves and would be the "police."


No more ENFORCED MONOPOLIES on policing!!!


Good luck


All the more reason to have everyone looking out for the safety of the community and having a way to report in, instead of a democratically elected few calling the shots and making the laws. Would you not agree?

Again, if everyone policed themselves, they would be the "police". Sadly my experience is that man is not ready for anarcho-utopia and I find much of the discussion a waste of time. I basically stopped in to point out the error of the premise and respond to a dig at our forum


No government doesn't mean no "law". That seems to be what you're implying.

More semantics, the law of the jungle will never disappear


You should have an open community online, looking after their own district / mass of land, collaborating and reporting on everything. This community can choose to have men in uniforms with guns, if they feel their community would benefit from them and work out a payment plan amongst their peers. These men in uniforms with guns, would be held under the rule of those who pay them, not elected leaders.

Let the free-market do it's job, man! :)

I am, and the mass of people reject the concept of anarchy at this time.

[heavenlyboy34]

O pashah, freedom is maximized here and always has been. I see arrogance in your statement and is another reason for my rejection of anarchist theories as the best vehicle to better society.

As far as police, sadly, I don't see humanity ready for policing themselves. I have seen too much evidence of people unable to control themselves due to emotion. (The worst thing was seeing so many of the proponents of "self-government through no government" unable to abide by their own tenets...)

Further, regarding comments in this thread about Police Forces being a relatively new concept. We can start here with the Persians, and there are plenty others to draw from

http://www.farvardyn.com/laws1.php (http://www.farvardyn.com/laws1.php)



HTH ;)

You mistake my confidence for arrogance, sorry. Frankly, archists here and elsewhere are FAR more arrogant than me. I don't have any faith in mankind to govern each other whatsoever-even moreso than Jefferson. Anarchism (specifically anarcho-capitalism) is the only moral and sustainable path mankind can take (so far-that is until some mega-genius invents a way to control the State).

"… as some physicians say every animal body brings into the world among its original stamina the seeds of that disease that shall finally produce its dissolution, so the political body of a … government contains those convulsive principles that will at length destroy it." - Benjamin Franklin, “Cool Thoughts on the Present Situation of Public Affairs, 1763

[heavenlyboy34]

I am, and the mass of people reject the concept of anarchy at this time.

So the majority of people get to dictate the fate of everyone? Looks like you've illustrated the folly of your own philosophy. Thanks! :cool:

[ClayTrainor]

Semantics, even in a true anarchy the people would police themselves and would be the "police."


Semantics? That's your argument? Semantics + a straw man?

This is the dilemma, of "who watches the watchers?". Do you know what the solution to that is, on every single level? THE FREE MARKET! . If you are offering a service for security or protection.. are your competitors not going to be watching what you are doing? ahhhh like all businesses do these days?

Do you REALLY think people policing themselves means every individual is armed to the teeth and nervous about their neighbor? Is the government not a form of people policing themselves?

Seriously, i really want to know where you're coming from here :confused:



Good luck


It's awfully hard when even good liberty minded folks like yourself can't see the obvious expansion and oppression of yet another government monopoly. Perhaps an old quote can win you over to the side of liberty, on this issue.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Fraknlin




Sadly my experience is that man is not ready for anarcho-utopia and I find much of the discussion a waste of time.

Volutnariysm / anarcho-capatalism does not require a change in human nature. Therefore, it is not utopian. Forget about the labels for a second though RPH. Do you think you're perhaps turned off by the word "anarcho / anarchy" itself and perhaps, you're a little bias'd towards a certain form of majority rule and political enforcement?



I basically stopped in to point out the error of the premise and respond to a dig at our forum


I still don't see the error. all i see is an argument for the tyranny of the majority... am i wrong?



More semantics, the law of the jungle will never disappear


Law of the jungle? You're starting to sound like George Bush Sr, presenting his UN argument. :( Just listen to a few seconds, you'll see what I mean.
YouTube - Bush reveals plans for a New World Order (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbRp7xlhgbo)

He's essentially arguing for more government police too... Why is your argument different than his, on principle?



I am, and the mass of people reject the concept of anarchy at this time.
So, you are willing to use a group to enforce the will of the majority on the minority?

I'm looking for some consistency here RPH... please give it to me, i'm concerned about what you're advocating here... What specific aspects of the free-market do you oppose?

[ronpaulhawaii]

So the majority of people get to dictate the fate of everyone? Looks like you've illustrated the folly of your own philosophy. Thanks! :cool:

And I don't expect I have a philosophy that you will understand. It is based on experience and pragmatism... :p

[ronpaulhawaii]

Semantics? That's your argument? Semantics + a straw man?

This is the dilemma, of "who watches the watchers?". Do you know what the solution to that is, on every single level? THE FREE MARKET! . If you are offering a service for security or protection.. are your competitors not going to be watching what you are doing? ahhhh like all businesses do these days?

Do you REALLY think people policing themselves means every individual is armed to the teeth and nervous about their neighbor? Is the government not a form of people policing themselves?

Seriously, i really want to know where you're coming from here :confused:



It's awfully hard when even good liberty minded folks like yourself can't see the obvious expansion and oppression of yet another government monopoly. Perhaps an old quote can win you over to the side of liberty, on this issue.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Fraknlin



Volutnariysm / anarcho-capatalism does not require a change in human nature. Therefore, it is not utopian. Forget about the labels for a second though RPH. Do you think you're perhaps turned off by the word "anarcho / anarchy" itself and perhaps, you're a little bias'd towards a certain form of majority rule and political enforcement?



I still don't see the error. all i see is an argument for the tyranny of the majority... am i wrong?



Law of the jungle? You're starting to sound like George Bush Sr, presenting his UN argument. :( Just listen to a few seconds, you'll see what I mean.
YouTube - Bush reveals plans for a New World Order (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbRp7xlhgbo)

He's essentially arguing for more government police too... Why is your argument different than his, on principle?


So, you are willing to use a group to enforce the will of the majority on the minority?

I'm looking for some consistency here RPH... please give it to me, i'm concerned about what you're advocating here... What specific aspects of the free-market do you oppose?

Why look for answers from me? you guys seem to have it all figured out :rolleyes:

[ClayTrainor]

And I don't expect I have a philosophy that you will understand. It is based on experience and pragmatism... :p

So in your experience, does a monopoly on security services, make a community safer?

[ClayTrainor]

Why look for answers from me? you guys seem to have it all figured out :rolleyes:

I'm just curious why you support a government monopoly is all. I cannot justify the morality or effectiveness of it, under my principles.

I'm here to learn from you, not teach you :)

[ronpaulhawaii]

I'm just curious why you support a government monopoly is all. I cannot justify the morality or effectiveness of it, under my principles.

I'm here to learn from you, not teach you :)

I don't "support" a government monopoly. I accept its existance and try to minimize the damage it causes, making it safer for intellectuals to debate anarchy. I just wish they would do it with respect. This topic should have been posted in HT in consideration of our Mission Statement and the recent episode, but no, again the disrespect by those who think people can govern themselves :rollseyes:

[ClayTrainor]

Interesting turn of events.

I won't push this any further, I think I've made my case. :)

[ronpaulhawaii]

Interesting turn of events.

I won't push this any further, I think I've made my case. :)


And what would your case be? That I don't give a shit what people think about me? That all I care about is moving us towards liberty at the fastest rate possible and find that those who want to debate philosophy in the wrong venue hinder that process? That I would rather just poke fun than waste time debating? What case have you proven? That you can win an argument with someone on the internet that really doesn't care about winning arguments on the internet? I stopped in to make a point that Police Forces are not a modern invention and that this forum is not "coming around to freedom" I notice no one has argued that ;)

[ClayTrainor]

And what would your case be? That I don't give a shit what people think about me?
No, that you support a form of monopoly, and oppose the free-market, at least to a degree.

I'm trying to help you see the error, but I also accept that I may be the one who is wrong, and want you to point out my error.



That all I care about is moving us towards liberty at the fastest rate possible and find that those who want to debate philosophy in the wrong venue hinder that process?

I agree with the bolded above, and that is my goal as well. I'll admit, i'm nowhere near you in terms of activism, you are a true asset to liberty. This is why this issue concerns me a bit. You don't have to participate in this thread, but if you do, i would like for us to stay on topic, if possible. I'm not in this thread to challenge you as a person, but debate the forum topic and my views on it, with whoever. :)



That I would rather just poke fun than waste time debating? What case have you proven?
I think i've proven that a free-market solution is possible, and we don't have to depend on an enforced monopoly. I would like for you to prove me wrong...


That you can win an argument with someone on the internet that really doesn't care about winning arguments on the internet?
If you don't care, than why are you here? This thread isn't hurting anybody, and it's directly related to "Civil Liberties", which is the appropriate subforum.

Do you think the founders debated stuff like this, or no?



I stopped in to make a point that Police Forces are not a modern invention and that this forum is not "coming around to freedom" I notice no one has argued that ;)

:(

I mean no disrespect.

[ronpaulhawaii]

No, that you support a form of monopoly, and oppose the free-market, at least to a degree.

Working in a system does not mean one supports it philosophically. The degrees are a matter of endless debate


I'm trying to help you see the error, but I also accept that I may be the one who is wrong, and want you to point out my error.

I don't care. I am so sick and tired of intellectual purists hampering advancement of our mission that I am incredibly flippant and unconcerned with anything an anarchist might say. You guys have definitely lost someone who used to give you credence. Just face it, I'm lost to you, stop trying to convince me of anything.



I agree with the bolded above, and that is my goal as well. I'll admit, i'm nowhere near you in terms of activism, you are a true asset to liberty. This is why this issue concerns me a bit. You don't have to participate in this thread, but if you do, i would like for us to stay on topic, if possible. I'm not in this thread to challenge you as a person, but debate the forum topic and my views on it, with whoever. :)


The forum topic does nothing to advance our mission


I think i've proven that a free-market solution is possible, and we don't have to depend on an enforced monopoly.


Possible yes, probable in the next millennium, I doubt it


If you don't care, than why are you here? This thread isn't hurting anybody, and it's directly related to "Civil Liberties".

It certainly hurts my ability to send anyone here who might actually be willing to help with our mission. Get that through your head, I can't refer anyone here because of threads like this. Just try to understand that.

And I moved it here from GP... :rolleyes:


Do you think the founders debated stuff like this, or no?

In the proper venue, sure



I mean no disrespect.

wasn't you.

[ClayTrainor]

A thread that presents a Constitutional argument based on the protection of civil rights is no longer a discussion belonging in the "Civil Rights" forum?

Well, holy shit! And that's about all i have to say on this. Can I expect the forum statement to be flashed in my face, in some way shape or form now? This thread is proving that i have no idea what that thing means anymore. And no, i'm not challenging it, i'm just saying i don't get it.... I support constitutional limitations on Government... I just want to make sure my words don't get misinterpreted here.

Is this thread not based on making a constitutional argument that the founders would've GLADLY debated as a CIVIL RIGHTS issue??? Simple yes or no, please!

I don't want to push this much further. My Spidey sense is tingling, i should probably back off...

[ronpaulhawaii]

What part of "it was posted in GP" don't you understand? The thread states "Is it time to abolish Police?" which would make the avg person stumbling in here say, "these guys are nuts" - IME


A thread that presents a Constitutional argument based on the protection of civil rights is no longer a discussion belonging in the "Civil Rights" forum?

Well, holy shit! And that's about all i have to say on this. Can I expect the forum statement to be flashed in my face, in some way shape or form now? This thread is proving that i have no idea what that thing means anymore. And no, i'm not challenging it, i'm just saying i don't get it.... I support constitutional limitations on Government... I just want to make sure my words don't get misinterpreted here.

Is this thread not based on making a constitutional argument that the founders would've GLADLY debated as a CIVIL RIGHTS issue??? Simple yes or no, please!

I don't want to push this much further. My Spidey sense is tingling, i should probably back off...

[ClayTrainor]

What part of "it was posted in GP" don't you understand? The thread states "Is it time to abolish Police?" which would make the avg person stumbling in here say, "these guys are nuts" - IME
Well i get it was posted in GP, and that's wrong. It's clearly a civil rights discussion, and obviously a mod must agree with me somewhere. That's where they moved it!

So the thread title is the only reason?

[ronpaulhawaii]

Well i get it was posted in GP, and that's wrong. It's clearly a civil rights discussion, and obviously a mod must agree with me somewhere. That's where they moved it!

So the thread title is the only reason?

I moved it from GP. Yes the title is the primary objection and the debate seems a waste of time anyway

[ClayTrainor]

I moved it from GP. Yes the title is the primary objection
Why wasn't it an objection when you first moved it?


and the debate seems a waste of time anyway

So embrace the monopoly and move on? Should we do this with the fed as well? Move all arguments against the FED to philosophy? Another monopoly we should oppose for the EXACT SAME REASONS! The Free Fucking Market! :mad:

Excuse my ventilation there... all better :o

[ronpaulhawaii]

Why wasn't it an objection when you first moved it?


So embrace the monopoly and move on? Should we do this with the fed as well? Move all arguments against the FED to philosophy? Another monopoly we should oppose for the EXACT SAME REASONS! The Free Fucking Market! :mad:

Excuse my ventilation there... all better :o

At the time I didn't really have a suitable venue to move it to. HT is more for heavy conspiracy...

At the end of the day a lot depends on the framing. To frame my tactics for dealing with the same beast we all fight as "embracing a monopoly" is unfair

[ClayTrainor]

At the end of the day a lot depends on the framing.

I agree... I try to frame my arguments around Natural Law and Austrian economics :)


To frame my tactics for dealing with the same beast we all fight as "embracing a monopoly" is unfair


I don't "support" a government monopoly. I accept its existance and try to minimize the damage it causes, making it safer for intellectuals to debate anarchy.

Perhaps i should've used the word "accept" instead of embrace? Same meaning, to me, at least in this context... Is accept different than embrace, in this context, to you? if so, how? Sorry for twisting your words ;)

[brandon]

Sorry, but no.
There have been Private Police forces. Owned and operated by big business.
Not good at all, some are still in place today.

You will see it get worse, The UN has plans for Private Police. They already have a plan.
Again, not good at all.
http://www.civilianpolice.com/


http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS277246+13-Feb-2009+BW20090213
Former CIVPOL Employee with DynCorp International Receives DoD Defense of Freedom Medal

https://www.paecivpol.com/civ_main.asp?pg=aboutpae.html&mnu=4

I should have clarified. By private police force I mean security guards paid for by individuals. Examples, Brinks armored car, mall security guards, etc. I don't mean the government should pay for or subsidize any policing effort.

And I would be fine with retaining the public court system. We would just need to change the rules about who can bring criminal charges against an individual. Perhaps only the victim of a crime or the victims family should be able to file criminal charges. Note that in the case of a victimless crime there would be no one that could fie charges.

[Pericles]

Note that in the case of a victimless crime there would be no one that could fie charges.

Or, if there were no survivors of the crime ....

[pcosmar]

I should have clarified. By private police force I mean security guards paid for by individuals. Examples, Brinks armored car, mall security guards, etc. I don't mean the government should pay for or subsidize any policing effort.

.

Are you talking about for example The Pinkerton?
Or perhaps Regulators?

Or maybe The American Police Force, Xe, Blackwater etc.

[pcosmar]

I do not ever expect to see the changes I would like.
A simple Constitutional law enforcement.
I expect just the opposite. It will get worse.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=215522

[ClayTrainor]

Or maybe The American Police Force, Xe, Blackwater etc.

These are Corporations, not free-market entities... I'm sure you know this, i just wasn't sure if you made the distinction based on how you posted it... :o


I do not ever expect to see the changes I would like.
A simple Constitutional law enforcement.
I expect just the opposite. It will get worse.

Until you destroy the enforced monopoly on security services, you bet your ass it will :(

[brandon]

Or maybe The American Police Force, Xe, Blackwater etc.

These are corporations that are almost entirely funded by government contracts...

[pcosmar]

I am not sure "Abolish" is the right term for the debate or the question.
I certainly would like to see a radical reform of our "criminal justice system"

I would like to see it Rethought,Repaired, Reformed. But I don't think abolished is quite correct.


"criminal justice system" Now that is a concept that needs to be redefined.

[pcosmar]

These are corporations that are almost entirely funded by government contracts...

No, Those were private companies that got government contracts.
The Pinkertons were also a private company, hired by business to strong-arm citizens into compliance.
They worked for the Railroads and firebombed people that did not want to sell their land.
They beat and shot striking workers.

What you are proposing has been done before.

[ClayTrainor]

No, Those were private companies that got government contracts.

They were / are corporations! The state is the monopoly that controls the competition, how can you not see this?

Corporation:

"a business firm whose articles of incorporation have been approved in some state" - Princeton Dictionary.



The Pinkertons were also a private company, hired by business to strong-arm citizens into compliance.

I don't know enough about American history to debate this, and i don't have time to research at the moment.



They beat and shot striking workers.


Sounds like an enforced monopoly to me. Do you really think government had nothing to do with the Pinkertons, whatsoever? Are you sure if i research this, I won't have a case, at all?



What you are proposing has been done before.

No offense, but you don't understand what i'm proposing, i don't think. What is it you think i'm proposing? Be specific.

To what degree do you think the free-market has failed / is a failed philosophy? You obviously blame the free-market for some of America's failures, which ones? Just police?

I'm simply arguing against enforced monopolies in the free-market... what are you arguing against?

[pcosmar]

The discussion has included "Private Police", and I am showing that it has been done.
And that it has been a bad idea. Human nature has not changed.
From the wiki , but you can research it further.

In the 1850s, Allan Pinkerton partnered with Chicago attorney Edward Rucker, in forming the North-Western Police Agency, later known as the Pinkerton Agency. [1][2][3]

Historian Frank Morn writes: "By the mid-1850s a few businessmen saw the need for greater control over their employees; their solution was to sponsor a private detective system. In February 1855, Allan Pinkerton, after consulting with six midwestern railroads, created such an agency in Chicago."


In the late 1990s, Erik Prince spent part of his inherited wealth to purchase about 6,000 acres (24 km2) of the Great Dismal Swamp, a vast swamp on the North Carolina/Virginia border, now mostly a National Wildlife Refuge. Here he created his state-of-the-art private training facility, and his contracting company—Blackwater—is named for the peat-colored water of the swamp.[18] Blackwater USA was formed in 1990 to provide training support to military and law enforcement organizations. In 2002 Blackwater Security Consulting (BSC) was formed. It was one of several private security firms employed following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. BSC is one of over 60 private security firms employed during the Iraq War to guard officials and installations, train Iraq's new army and police, and provide other support for occupation forces

Private companies. Later under government contracts. But still Private Companies.

A bad idea.

[ClayTrainor]

The discussion has included "Private Police", and I am showing that it has been done.

I don't agree that it has been done, in the sense we're talking about. Although there are aspects of the free-market that already handle private security rather well.

I could say Government police has been done, therefore it doesn't work... do you think that's a valid argument? I think it's at least as vaid as yours, if not moreso!

YouTube - Wearechange schools Pittsburgh police on constitution @ g20 9/24/09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akwjAjcQnqM)



And that it has been a bad idea. Human nature has not changed.
From the wiki b but you can research it further.


So the free-market is not the answer? History is proving the free-market a failure on this issue, is that what you're saying? The free-market is responsible for at least SOME of the current mess? At least be intellectually honest with me on this...

Human beings cannot be trusted, and we must trust the enforced majority rule, on the issue of Civil Rights and security? Sounds an awful lot like the arguments i hear in support of the FED, i have to say. to what degree do you believe Democracy should be enforced?




Private companies. Later under government contracts. But still Private Companies.


And when did they become a serious problem?


A bad idea.

To ignore the free-market as a possible solution? I agree, it's a terrible and dangerous idea and I think Ron Paul would too... Do you honestly think Ron Paul would have your back right now, in support of a government monopoly on policing, arguing against the free-market?

[pcosmar]

I am not ignoring the free market. I am saying that the Constitution is the answer.
It limits ( if it were followed) the intrusion of government. It would protect (if it were followed) the rights of individuals.
I have no problem with private security, or even with company security. I have a problem with private POLICE.
I have a problem with standing armies. whether a private company or a government arm.
History has shown them to be Anti-Liberty.

[ClayTrainor]

I am not ignoring the free market. I am saying that the Constitution is the answer.
Why is the constitution the answer? Is it because of the original intent and the respect for natural law, perhaps?

I hear Hamiltonian's and neo-cons saying the constitution is the answer, as well, but I cannot support the 16th or the Iraq war no matter how constitutional they say it is. I know there are valid constitutional arguments against it, but they aren't as valid as the natural law and property rights arguments.

The only reason the constitution matters is because the founders tried their very best to respect natural law. (well... some of them... the ones i admire :))

Do you sympathize with the feds or the anti-feds? I clearly sympathize with the anti-feds.



It limits ( if it were followed) the intrusion of government. It would protect (if it were followed) the rights of individuals.
And how did that work out? Is it being followed? What does ron paul say happens to power, absolutely?

What's more important to you, a specific form of political structure or respect for natural law?


I have no problem with private security, or even with company security. I have a problem with private POLICE.
No you have a problem with Corporate police... not the free-market.


I have a problem with standing armies. whether a private company or a government arm.
Corporations are a government arm, you understand this, right?

Private != corporation, you are using these words interchangeably.



History has shown them to be Anti-Liberty.

Shown what? The corporations, i agree. I think history has shown the constitution to be the seed that grew into the powers we see today. I do support constitutional limitations on government, don't get me wrong.

You have to admit your principles stem from a natural source, not a politcal one if you are a true liberty revolutionary. Put your faith back in God and his Natural Law first, and the constitution 2nd. That's how the founders did it, that's how Ron Paul does it! :)

[ClayTrainor]

Food for thought. I don't like to use the word anarchy, since people like to twist the meaning of it around, but even some the founders had to be honest...


"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us."
~ Benjamin Franklin

[RedStripe]

Calling for police forces to be abolished isn't that much more controversial than Ron Paul's argument that the CIA and FBI should be effectively abolished.

I agree with all of the above suggestions.

[ClayTrainor]

Calling for police forces to be abolished isn't that much more controversial than Ron Paul's argument that the CIA and FBI should be effectively abolished.


Exactly!

The Free-Market and Natural Law is the consistent argument we need to fall back on, and I think this thread proves my case in a BIG way. Constitutional limitations are good, we need to fight for those as well, but it's silly to base our core principles on a political document! I'm not Christian, but i really don't understand how a Christian could justify such behavior! We are better than that!

Perhaps i'm just being arrogant :o

What principles did Jesus stand on, if he was a man who existed?

[RedStripe]

Exactly!

The Free-Market and Natural Law is the consistent argument we need to fall back on, and I think this thread proves my case in a BIG way. Constitutional limitations are good, we need to fight for those as well, but it's silly to base our core principles on a political document! I'm not Christian, but i really don't understand how a Christian could justify such behavior! We are better than that!

Perhaps i'm just being arrogant :o

I'm pretty skeptical of appeals to "natural law" - I think that the most effective arguments shy away from appeals to moral absolutes or abstract concepts such as "the free market," which require a lot more context and explanation to make them meaningful.

[ClayTrainor]

I'm pretty skeptical of appeals to "natural law" - I think that the most effective arguments shy away from appeals to moral absolutes or abstract concepts such as "the free market," which require a lot more context and explanation to make them meaningful.

Fair enough on your skepticism to anything regarding "law". Law is an important concept and must always be greeted with strict criticism, to assure quality. I feel I interpret Natural Law in a way that i think is fair to both you and me, and everyone else on this forum. :o

Are you in effect saying core principles are not effective, or even possible to establish?

[RedStripe]

Fair enough on your skepticism to anything regarding "law". Law is an important concept and must always be greeted with strict criticism, to assure quality. I feel I interpret Natural Law in a way that i think is fair to both you and me, and everyone else on this forum. :o

Are you in effect saying core principles are not effective, or even possible to establish?

Core principles are useful as "rules of thumb" in that they are useful for day-to-day decision making and such, but they are not absolutes.

It's important to define "natural law", but in general I think that "natural law" is just an artificial construct that evolved out of a religious mentality, and as such, it proved useful in a time when that mentality was prevalent.

I don't really believe that "natural law" exists as anything other than something we've made up to explain our preference for a certain code of conduct - a preference which has biological, sociological, economic and/or psychological causes, and which changes and adapts over time due to a multitude of factors.

[heavenlyboy34]

Exactly!

The Free-Market and Natural Law is the consistent argument we need to fall back on, and I think this thread proves my case in a BIG way. Constitutional limitations are good, we need to fight for those as well, but it's silly to base our core principles on a political document! I'm not Christian, but i really don't understand how a Christian could justify such behavior! We are better than that!

Perhaps i'm just being arrogant :o

What principles did Jesus stand on, if he was a man who existed?


w00t! :cool:

[ClayTrainor]

Core principles are useful as "rules of thumb" in that they are useful for day-to-day decision making and such, but they are not absolutes.


So why is murder wrong? Is there no core principle to stand on there? Individuals right to life?



It's important to define "natural law", but in general I think that "natural law" is just an artificial construct that evolved out of a religious mentality, and as such, it proved useful in a time when that mentality was prevalent.
I don't really believe that "natural law" exists as anything other than something we've made up to explain our preference for a certain code of conduct

Natural law is based on observations in nature. You have a right to freedom of speech because you have a flappy piece of meat in your mouth that makes unique noises when your neck chords vibrate. Your creator (whatever you accept this to be) is where your rights come from. Others can infringe on your ability to use that right, but it does exist as a NATURAL RIGHT!



- a preference which has biological, sociological, economic and/or psychological causes, and which changes and adapts over time due to a multitude of factors.

i don't think Natural Law is a preference at all.


Natural Law is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.


this video explains natural law, on the most fundamental, not political level.

YouTube - Overview of Natural Law - Stop Animation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb7r592NypY)

[RedStripe]

So why is murder wrong? Is there no core principle to stand on there? Individuals right to life?


Well, murder is usually defined as a "wrongful killing of another," so the smartass answer is that murder is wrong by definition. The serious answer is that we perceive murder as "wrong" because it violates a rule of behavior that we have deeply internalized. Perhaps our perception of "wrongness" also stems from some basic innate capacity for empathy grounded in our evolution as a social species, but it is certainly also influenced by our social environment.

There are many reasons that societies would develop complex sets of rules governing the killing of one person by another, and most have done so even though they are differ to some degree. At the same time, individuals have evolved with an innate capacity for understanding and internalizing rules (to a degree that is evolutionary advantageous), psychopaths excepted.

Just as we are born with the ability to learn any language, we are born with the ability to adopt and understand rules both formal (written ten commandments, verbal rules we learn in school and in our family, etc), and informal (shake hands when you meet someone, tip waitresses, pretend to be interested in what your coworker did last weekend, etc).

Morality, in my opinion, is a psychological and emotional phenomenon wherein certain rules, combined with instincts (fear, love, empathy, anger, etc), are given an important mental status. When these rules are broken (murder), we have a strong emotional response, whereas other rules just aren't as important (drug use) and don't illicit this response. Of course this varies by person and depends on a multitude of factors.



Natural law is based on observations in nature. You have a right to freedom of speech because you have a flappy piece of meat in your mouth that makes unique noises when your neck chords vibrate. Your creator (whatever you accept this to be) is where your rights come from. Others can infringe on your ability to use that right, but it does exist as a NATURAL RIGHT!

The fact that we have a natural (biological) physical ability to perform some act is just a fact of reality - not of morals and rights. Morals and rights are constructs of our society and our minds - just as a person born a mute may be recognized by society to have a right to speech even though he has no physical capacity to speak, a person born with the physical ability to murder, steal, or cheat others isn't usually granted the right to do so by society (unless he wears a special badge, of course!).



i don't think Natural Law is a preference at all.

Why not? Doesn't it represent a preference for a certain code of conduct?



this video explains natural law, on the most fundamental, not political level.

YouTube - Overview of Natural Law - Stop Animation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb7r592NypY)

I think it's important to understand the distinction between means and ends, but the video wasn't very convincing. It's one thing to claim that God is responsible for the creation of the laws of the universe, because they are present everywhere and cannot be violated. But attempting to parallel this with rules of human behavior is destined to fail, because it's obvious that humans don't follow so-called "natural law," whereas the universe does follow the laws of physics (for the sake of argument). If anything, the law that "might makes right" or the law that "societies will create their own rules in response to a variety of internal and external circumstances" would be better natural laws because they seem to be the ones we can, to some degree, observe empirically.

[teacherone]

Natural law is based on observations in nature. You have a right to freedom of speech because you have a flappy piece of meat in your mouth that makes unique noises when your neck chords vibrate. Your creator (whatever you accept this to be) is where your rights come from. Others can infringe on your ability to use that right, but it does exist as a NATURAL RIGHT!


saying you have the right to free speech because you have a tongue is like saying you have the right to free love because you have a dick. if a girl rejects you she is not violating any rights, just protecting her person. if someone throws you in jail for ranting or screaming on their private property, they are not violating your rights, just protecting what is theirs.

rights are inherent, they cannot be given nor taken away. freedom of speech is not a right, it is a privilege granted in our constitution. you have no right to speak on someone's private property, if they ask you to shut up or leave, then you must do so. this does not mean they have violated any rights.

what it does mean, is that you must respect THEIR person and property. that is what natural law posits--that there are only TWO inherent rights, the rights to your person (no one can agress against it) and by extrapolation your property (no one can rob/ trespass your property).

freedom of speech, privacy, and the right to bear arms are really only privileges, thankfully given to americans by their constitution-- privileges that many in other nations do not have!

thank god for the constitution!

[tremendoustie]

saying you have the right to free speech because you have a tongue is like saying you have the right to free love because you have a dick. if a girl rejects you she is not violating any rights, just protecting her person. if someone throws you in jail for ranting or screaming on their private property, they are not violating your rights, just protecting what is theirs.

rights are inherent, they cannot be given nor taken away. freedom of speech is not a right, it is a privilege granted in our constitution. you have no right to speak on someone's private property, if they ask you to shut up or leave, then you must do so. this does not mean they have violated any rights.

what it does mean, is that you must respect THEIR person and property. that is what natural law posits--that there are only TWO inherent rights, the rights to your person (no one can agress against it) and by extrapolation your property (no one can rob/ trespass your property).

freedom of speech, privacy, and the right to bear arms are really only privileges, thankfully given to americans by their constitution-- privileges that many in other nations do not have!

thank god for the constitution!

I think you were exactly right for about 90% of that. You have a right to your person, and to your property -- and so, when on another person's property, you must obey their rules.

What about this does the constitution change? Nothing. If a person wants to kick you off their property for any reason, they have a right to do so -- and should have that right. The constitution is a set of rules for government -- not restricting what rules they can place on their property, but restricting what rules they can unjustly place on yours.

Thus, it is not a statement of privileges granted by the government, it is a list of rights they supposedly promise not to violate -- but they will and do violate others.

For example, neither the government, nor any person, has the right to say you cannot bear arms on your property, or enjoy free speech. If the government, or any person, were to forbid these things on your property they would be violating your rights. The fact that the constitution lists these things does not make them privileges -- it only means that the government promises not to violate those rights.

You also have a right to keep the product of your labor. And, you have a right to engage in free, voluntary trade with your neighbors, without outside interference. These rights are not listed in the constitution, and so, the government violates them.

If the constitution listed all natural, god given rights, and the government abided by it, then the government would be a moral organization. Instead, they list a few, and violate the rest. We should not be thankful that they do not violate a few rights, we should be outraged that they violate the rest. After all, you do not thank a mugger that he did not also kidnap you, or thank a kidnapper that he did not also burn your house.

[ClayTrainor]

saying you have the right to free speech because you have a tongue is like saying you have the right to free love because you have a dick.


You do, if it is voluntary.... This doesn't give you the right to rape someone against their will. ;)



rights are inherent, they cannot be given nor taken away.

Technically, your life can be taken away. Is it not a right?


freedom of speech is not a right , it is a privilege granted in our constitution.
Wow... good to see you finally admitted to the core of your positions...

What gives me, a Canadian, freedom of speech? Some other form of political document? Certainly it's not a natural right of mine, right?

The Bill of Rights was meant to protect Natural Rights, not grant them as priveledges. ;)

If Freedom of speech is not a right, than neither is your life. All natural rights stem from the natural right to life, and Freedom of speech is one of them. It is part of your nature, your freedom of expression. It is truly saddening to me that you feel Freedom of speech is a political right not a natural right.




you have no right to speak on someone's private property, if they ask you to shut up or leave, then you must do so. this does not mean they have violated any rights.

Property rights. Another natural right stemmed from the right to life. The right to life is essentially a property right, the property of your life is yours. They have no right to stop you from speaking on your own property, or someone else's property where it is permitted. They do have a right to their own property.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You do, if it is voluntary.... This doesn't give you the right to rape someone against their will. ;)



Technically, your life can be taken away. Is it not a right?

Wow... good to see you finally admitted to the core of your positions...

What gives me, a Canadian, freedom of speech? Some other form of political document? Certainly it's not a natural right of mine, right?

The Bill of Rights was meant to protect Natural Rights, not grant them as priveledges. ;)

If Freedom of speech is not a right, than neither is your life. All natural rights stem from the natural right to life, and Freedom of speech is one of them. It is part of your nature, your freedom of expression. It is truly saddening to me that you feel Freedom of speech is a political right not a natural right.





Property rights. Another natural right stemmed from the right to life. The right to life is essentially a property right, the property of your life is yours. They have no right to stop you from speaking on your own property, or someone else's property where it is permitted. They do have a right to their own property.

There is a more succinct precise explanation: Self-Ownership. Self-Ownership is inherent in humanity. We are born as free individuals. Our bodies our own, and no one elses. This is Natural Law. Every right stems from this principle. It is very simple.

If we know that our body is our private property and this right is inherent in humanity then everything we produce is also our own. This is called a priori. It is an axiomatic statement. Therefore, the ability to say whatever we want for any reason, is inherently our right.

This is the crowning glory of Classical Liberalism. They failed however to connect this with the State. That is their error. Murray Rothbard merely continued this principle to it's logical ending.


Sometimes I have to tell myself this over and over to keep me sane: The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good. - Thomas Jefferson

Hehe. It is my first quote for a reason :p

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well, murder is usually defined as a "wrongful killing of another," so the smartass answer is that murder is wrong by definition. The serious answer is that we perceive murder as "wrong" because it violates a rule of behavior that we have deeply internalized. Perhaps our perception of "wrongness" also stems from some basic innate capacity for empathy grounded in our evolution as a social species, but it is certainly also influenced by our social environment.

There are many reasons that societies would develop complex sets of rules governing the killing of one person by another, and most have done so even though they are differ to some degree. At the same time, individuals have evolved with an innate capacity for understanding and internalizing rules (to a degree that is evolutionary advantageous), psychopaths excepted.

Just as we are born with the ability to learn any language, we are born with the ability to adopt and understand rules both formal (written ten commandments, verbal rules we learn in school and in our family, etc), and informal (shake hands when you meet someone, tip waitresses, pretend to be interested in what your coworker did last weekend, etc).

Morality, in my opinion, is a psychological and emotional phenomenon wherein certain rules, combined with instincts (fear, love, empathy, anger, etc), are given an important mental status. When these rules are broken (murder), we have a strong emotional response, whereas other rules just aren't as important (drug use) and don't illicit this response. Of course this varies by person and depends on a multitude of factors.



The fact that we have a natural (biological) physical ability to perform some act is just a fact of reality - not of morals and rights. Morals and rights are constructs of our society and our minds - just as a person born a mute may be recognized by society to have a right to speech even though he has no physical capacity to speak, a person born with the physical ability to murder, steal, or cheat others isn't usually granted the right to do so by society (unless he wears a special badge, of course!).



Why not? Doesn't it represent a preference for a certain code of conduct?



I think it's important to understand the distinction between means and ends, but the video wasn't very convincing. It's one thing to claim that God is responsible for the creation of the laws of the universe, because they are present everywhere and cannot be violated. But attempting to parallel this with rules of human behavior is destined to fail, because it's obvious that humans don't follow so-called "natural law," whereas the universe does follow the laws of physics (for the sake of argument). If anything, the law that "might makes right" or the law that "societies will create their own rules in response to a variety of internal and external circumstances" would be better natural laws because they seem to be the ones we can, to some degree, observe empirically.

Read my post above.

[ClayTrainor]

There is a more succinct precise explanation: Self-Ownership. Self-Ownership is inherent in humanity. We are born as free individuals. Our bodies our own, and no one elses. This is Natural Law. Every right stems from this principle. It is very simple.

If we know that our body is our private property and this right is inherent in humanity then everything we produce is also our own. This is called a priori. It is an axiomatic statement. Therefore, the ability to say whatever we want for any reason, is inherently our right.

This is the crowning glory of Classical Liberalism. They failed however to connect this with the State. That is their error. Murray Rothbard merely continued this principle to it's logical ending.


Sometimes I have to tell myself this over and over to keep me sane: The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good. - Thomas Jefferson

Hehe. It is my first quote for a reason :p

Excellent insight, thanks! :)

[teacherone]

[QUOTE]Technically, your life can be taken away. Is it not a right?

someone can take your life-- but not your right to life. someone can steal your property, but not your right to private property.

this is why people get hung on natural law-- your rights can and will and very often are violated. this does not mean that they do not exist/are removed or destroyed.



What gives me, a Canadian, freedom of speech? Some other form of political document? Certainly it's not a natural right of mine, right?

freedom of speech refers to PUBLIC LAND-- land owned by the public and administered by the government. No one has ever denied your right to say whatever you want in your own home, or in your neighbor's home given permission.

But on PUBLIC LAND, in some countries (including the totalitarian states of the USA and Canada) freedom of speech is protected (of course up to a limit). In many countries citizens DO NOT have the privilege of speaking/ gathering to protest on PUBLIC land.

Today of course, the government is slowly eroding this privilege. The way to get it back is to elect constitutionalists who recognize the right to gather and protest on public land (a fantastical utopian fantasy would be to privatize all land but this belongs in another thread).


If Freedom of speech is not a right, than neither is your life. All natural rights stem from the natural right to life, and Freedom of speech is one of them. It is part of your nature, your freedom of expression. It is truly saddening to me that you feel Freedom of speech is a political right not a natural right.


As long as there is public land administered by the government (and neither of us will ever see the day when this won't be the case) then the privilege to congregate and protest on this land will be granted by the government. Just because you can do something on your private property, doesn't mean you can do so on public. Note- the bill of rights does not guarantee your right to have intercourse on a public sidewalk-- might want to keep that in mind.
;)

[ClayTrainor]

someone can take your life-- but not your right to life. someone can steal your property, but not your right to private property.

Someone can threaten you, or use force to stop you from speaking, but can't take away your right to free speech ;)

Freedom of speech is a natural right... you actually don't agree with this?



this is why people get hung on natural law-- your rights can and will and very often are violated. this does not mean that they do not exist/are removed or destroyed.

Government is the main source of rights violations, in my life. How do you suggest i protect myself from them?




But on PUBLIC LAND, in some countries (including the totalitarian states of the USA and Canada) freedom of speech is protected (of course up to a limit). In many countries citizens DO NOT have the privilege of speaking/ gathering to protest on PUBLIC land.


That's because public land isn't really public. It's owned by an entity that ignores rules on ink and paper, and is granted the ability to tax. ;)



Today of course, the government is slowly eroding this privilege.
:eek:

What a suprise!! They didn't follow the constitution? why?



The way to get it back is to elect constitutionalists who recognize the right to gather and protest on public land
The solution is to allow individuals to own the land. Would you rather swim in a public pool or a private pool?



(a fantastical utopian fantasy would be to privatize all land but this belongs in another thread).


A constitutional republic is The utopian fantasy. Limited government, is the fantasy. It's like limited cancer. ;)



As long as there is public land administered by the government (and neither of us will ever see the day when this won't be the case) then the privilege to congregate and protest on this land will be granted by the government.

And I must grant permission for people to protest on property that I own. The problem is governments have the power to tax, and accumulate more property that they do not earn. Individuals don't have that power, and they shouldn't be able to delegate that power to a group (government)



Just because you can do something on your private property, doesn't mean you can do so on public. Note- the bill of rights does not guarantee your right to have intercourse on a public sidewalk-- might want to keep that in mind.
;)

So government is necessary because people might hvae sex on sidewalks, if not? lol... go to any porn site and you will see that this happens all the time anyways :p

[heavenlyboy34]

A constitutional republic is The utopian fantasy. Limited government, is the fantasy. It's like limited cancer. ;)


qft!

[teacherone]

[QUOTE=ClayTrainor;]
Someone can threaten you, or use force to stop you from speaking, but can't take away your right to free speech ;)


if someone uses force against you they are violating your right to live free from unwanted aggression- whether or not you are speaking is beyond the point.


Freedom of speech is a natural right... you actually don't agree with this?

No. Someone can use force to remove you from their property because they disagree with your opinions. This violates no rights.


Government is the main source of rights violations, in my life. How do you suggest i protect myself from them?


Please describe in detail the horrendous treatment you have received from the Canadian Totalitarian Regime.

Don't forget to balance that out with the many benefits you have also received from said regime.



That's because public land isn't really public. It's owned by an entity that ignores rules on ink and paper, and is granted the ability to tax. ;)

Agreed -- public land is held by the entity granted power by the public-- ie. the government.


What a suprise!! They didn't follow the constitution? why?

Because Americans have chronic amnesia and 200 years is far to long for us to remember how and why our country was founded.

This movement's purpose is to remind us all and elect leaders who will return us to those founding goals.



The solution is to allow individuals to own the land. Would you rather swim in a public pool or a private pool?


Lol--do tell how you are going to divvy up public land in an equitable fashion to the US's 300,000,000 citizens.



A constitutional republic is The utopian fantasy. Limited government, is the fantasy. It's like limited cancer. ;)

Cute. I wonder what sounds more utopian- divvying up public land to every citizen in a nation, allowing them to hire their own armed gang to guard it, dismantling the system of morality laws developed over centuries and not expecting communities/ tribes to form based on socio-economic-political factions.

Or... following the constitution.

[LibertyEagle]

1. The 1st Amendment pertains to restricting the government from infringing on free speech.

2. Our rights are not granted by government. They are owned by us. This in fact is one of the huge differences between the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter purports to grant rights. If you go along with that, then you believe that government has the right to take them away. That stands in opposition of everything for which our Founders stood.

[teacherone]

1. The 1st Amendment pertains to restricting the government from infringing on free speech.

2. Our rights are not granted by government. They are owned by us. This in fact is one of the huge differences between the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter purports to grant rights. If you go along with that, then you believe that government has the right to take them away. That stands in opposition of everything for which our Founders stood.

agreed- I was trying to explain how "freedom of speech" has nothing to do with Natural Law-- a confusion of Clay's

You have no RIGHT to free speech on someone else's private property-- I can throw you out of my house if you call my wife an ugly reptilian.

On your own property, or given permission someone else's, you can say and display whatever you want- and you are absolutely correct, the government should not infringe on that right.

Since you technically own a portion of public land-- administered by the government with your tax dollars- the government should not restrict your speech when on public land.

But there are many morality laws which do restrict speech in public and which if dismantled would cause a total splintering along political-social-economic lines.

The trick of course is finding a balance-- today as we all agree, the government infringes too much on our first amendment "rights" and therefor we need to limit the size and scope of government and elect constitutionalists who will guarantee those rights shall not be infringed.

[tremendoustie]

freedom of speech refers to PUBLIC LAND-- land owned by the public and administered by the government. No one has ever denied your right to say whatever you want in your own home, or in your neighbor's home given permission.

But on PUBLIC LAND, in some countries (including the totalitarian states of the USA and Canada) freedom of speech is protected (of course up to a limit). In many countries citizens DO NOT have the privilege of speaking/ gathering to protest on PUBLIC land.


This is not at all true. Most governments that have restricted speech in the past have not gotten hung up on the issue of where the speech occurred. Try giving a speech against North Korea's dictator, on private land, or in nazi germany, or in the USSR, etc. Lincoln and other presidents restricted speech in people's "private" newspapers -- their property.

I am not aware of any country at any time which had significant restrictions on speech which only applied when standing on public property.




Today of course, the government is slowly eroding this privilege. The way to get it back is to elect constitutionalists who recognize the right to gather and protest on public land (a fantastical utopian fantasy would be to privatize all land but this belongs in another thread).


Or, elect anyone who respects that right, whether it be for reasons of the constitution, or basic morality. Also, civil disobedience can be very effective. I'd also like the person I elect to start privatizing this land.

And it's a right, not a privilege, because the government did not obtain the land legitimately. If I were to tell you you can say whatever you like on my land, that'd be a privilege. If I were to steal your land from you, regardless of what I say, you would still have the moral right to do what you like with that land, because it is yours.




As long as there is public land administered by the government (and neither of us will ever see the day when this won't be the case)


Don't count your chickens. A lot can happen in a few decades -- often significant change comes very quickly. I wouldn't bet even money on it, but I also wouldn't count it out.



then the privilege to congregate and protest on this land will be granted by the government. Just because you can do something on your private property, doesn't mean you can do so on public.


No, government will just pretend it has a right to decide how the land is used, when in reality it is stolen property.



Note- the bill of rights does not guarantee your right to have intercourse on a public sidewalk-- might want to keep that in mind.
;)

And here we have the tragedy of the commons. When more than one person "owns" something, their rights conflict. Forget sex, this already happens with free speech. I own the park, so I should be able to keep people from saying things I don't like on it, but they own the park, so they should be able to say those things.

This is one of the reasons real property rights are so important.