PDA

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




Anti Federalist
05-25-2013, 06:36 PM
Home run Eric, home run.

Said it better than I have been able to, in years of trying now.

Throw it in the woods, indeed...



Where Do Cops Come From?

May 24, 2013

By eric

http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/05/24/where-do-cops-come-from/

Ever wonder how come there are men (and women) in costumes “policing” the rest of us?

Most people accept this relationship as both given – and eternal. That there have always been men (if not always women) in costumes “policing” the rest of us. But, in fact, it’s a relatively novel thing. Think back to your schooldays. Do you recall any mention of police when you were learning about the colonial era and the American Revolution? There were sheriffs, yes – and the local militia. But these were concerned mostly with keeping the peace – that is, stepping in when someone harmed someone else. Up to and even during the Civil War – a titanic struggle between the fading remnants of the old republican idea and the centralized, omnipotent state that took its place – the idea of police as we know it was essentially unknown.

It is a modern concept – one developed out of the company town idea.

You may or may not recall the company town. It is a place – once upon a time, a very real place – in which the company not only employs nearly everyone but also controls nearly everyone. During work hours and – most relevant in terms of the discussion at hand – the rest of the time, too. This is achieved by paying the workers not in specie, but in “script” or tin coinage or some other form of fiat currency issued by the company – and good at the company stores in the company town where all the company workers live. Even the worker’s homes are company homes. In the company town, everything you did was the company’s business. And to keep it all nicely organized, there were company police.

Sound familiar?

Examples of these paternalistic – and authoritarian – “communities” include Bournville (see here) founded by Cadbury Chocolate King George Cadbury – which was gently paternalistic. And also the less gently paternalistic Pullman, Chicago. You may recall the Pullman Railroad strike of 1894 – which got ugly, quickly. The cattle – oops, Pullman workers – had become recalcitrant.

They were more firmly dealt with.

Often, they were dealt with by badged and costumed goons hired by the men who owned the company town. For example, the infamous Pinkertons – “pinks,” as they were once called.

Shortly after the not-so-Civil War, founder Allan Pinkerton expanded his band of head-crackers into the largest private law enforcement organization in the world – with more “agents” than there were soldiers in the U.S. Army at the time. Andrew Carnegie and other corporatists used the “pinks” to keep the cattle in line.

But, there was a problem.

The cattle were still free range. They could leave the company town – or the crowded city – and go somewhere beyond the reach of costumed enforcers. America – even post Civil War – was not yet a consolidated corporate entity. One could still live relatively free. But it was only a temporary reprieve – one based almost entirely on remoteness from the clutches of the octopus and its costumed enforcers, i.e., the police.

It would not be long before America – the entire continental United-at-gunpoint-States – became one singular, insufferable, inescapable company town. One in which rights no longer existed. Only privileges – which could be rescinded at any time, for any reason. Because now, everyone was “on the clock,” 24-7.

Post not-so-Civil War, the federal leviathan that squatted in DC looked upon the Pinkerton model and smiled. An army – literally, with military grades as well as military-style uniforms and the military attitude to go with it – was just what was needed to maintain “order” in the biggest company town the world had yet seen.

But, some light cosmetic retouching was in order. It would not do, from the standpoint of public relations, to have private (that is, corporate) law enforcers. These would have to be transformed into public servants and – just like that – Americans fell under the total authority of the police. A standing army of enforcers from whom there is no escape – and little recourse.

Today, most Americans accept, without question, the company town ideal and the enforcers that go along with it. The former distinctions between a private army of goons – and an army of goons styled “public servants” have been effaced. People not only no longer chafe at being ordered around by buzz-cut barking goons – they have been conditioned to revere their tormenters as selfless heroes working ever-so-hard to “protect” them!

The transformation – and consolidation of absolute power – is both astonishing and fearful.

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.

Or worse.

“Police” have become a class of persons immune from the normal rules of civilized human interaction. Almost a sacred priesthood. And we are expected to play the role of humble supplicant – thanking them for their “service.”

Somewhere, far below, Alan Pinkerton is looking upward – and smiling.

AFPVet
05-25-2013, 07:29 PM
The first 'modern' police originated in England where the communities or 'shires' had a reeve or chief watchman. This became, what we know of today, as the sheriff—or shire-reeve.

Fast forwarding to colonial America, people also took turns standing watch under a 'shire reeve'. Police forces were always supposed to be just regular people taking turns keeping the peace under the direction of an elected sheriff.

We still have this to an extent when sheriffs form posses and volunteer forces; however, it is now an out of control gang with little to no accountability. When you have a police force that is not under the control of an elected official making everyone bow down, you have a standing army.

jasonxe
05-25-2013, 07:45 PM
I imagine a private police officer whatever would have to respect property rights unlike cops today who are protected under the state.

pcosmar
05-25-2013, 07:52 PM
I imagine a private police officer whatever would have to respect property rights unlike cops today who are protected under the state.
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

Danan
05-25-2013, 07:52 PM
I imagine a private police officer whatever would have to respect property rights unlike cops today who are protected under the state.

True. If the general public wouldn't accept them to be aboth the law (since they all knew they are just another private organization) private competition could arise to deal with this security agency, should they violate property rights. Unlike the current monopoly system where the police can do pretty much whatever they want to.

Christian Liberty
05-25-2013, 07:55 PM
I think some of us are defining "Police" different than others. A police force, strictly speaking, enforces the law. Whether that's good or bad depends on what the laws are.

pcosmar
05-25-2013, 07:59 PM
I think some of us are defining "Police" different than others. A police force, strictly speaking, enforces the law. Whether that's good or bad depends on what the laws are.
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.

Danan
05-25-2013, 08:08 PM
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.

What's wrong with other people enforcing property rights for you, in a free society? Is every form of private security agency illegitimate to you?

I agree that they should have no special privileges and be under the same rule of law as everybody else. But if they are basically just private citizens whose job it happens to be to protect private property (and paid for by people demanding their services, not with money they themselves steal), I don't see a problem with that.

If you have the right to protect your own property, you also have the right to delegate that right to someone else.

AFPVet
05-25-2013, 08:10 PM
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

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.

noneedtoaggress
05-25-2013, 08:14 PM
http://tacticstime.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/paul_blart_mall_cop_ver2.jpg

Danan
05-25-2013, 08:15 PM
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.

That's why nobody should be allowed to assert power of others, period.

pcosmar
05-25-2013, 08:16 PM
What's wrong with other people enforcing property rights for you, in a free society? Is every form of private security agency illegitimate to you?

I agree that they should have no special privileges and be under the same rule of law as everybody else. But if they are basically just private citizens whose job it happens to be to protect private property (and paid for by people demanding their services, not with money they themselves steal), I don't see a problem with that.

If you have the right to protect your own property, you also have the right to delegate that right to someone else.

Private security is fine. Private security has no power outside of strictly defined bounds of YOUR property.
Private security has no legitimate ability to fuck with anyone else outside those defined limits and have no legal powers outside that specifically defined location.
Private security is NOT police. It is private security.

AGRP
05-25-2013, 08:16 PM
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

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

AFPVet
05-25-2013, 08:21 PM
That's why nobody should be allowed to assert power of others, period.

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.

asurfaholic
05-25-2013, 08:23 PM
Pcosmar- what about sheriffs?

Anti Federalist
05-25-2013, 08:23 PM
How is a private police on private property authoritarian? Are homeowners not private police while on their property?

Read the OP again...about company towns.

pcosmar
05-25-2013, 08:24 PM
How is a private police on private property authoritarian? Are homeowners not private police while on their property?

Then everyone is police. Which is NOT what we are talking about.
Did you read the link I posted (have posted several times)??
It is not hard to click on,, nor is it a difficult read.

And it is from the Constitution Society,, not some questionable source.

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


Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

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

noneedtoaggress
05-25-2013, 08:26 PM
This seems like a good thread to post this in.

http://mises.org//store/Assets/ProductImages/SS486.jpg (http://mises.org/page/1432)

http://mises.org/document/2716

pcosmar
05-25-2013, 08:27 PM
Pcosmar- what about sheriffs?

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

Danan
05-25-2013, 08:29 PM
Private security is fine. Private security has no power outside of strictly defined bounds of YOUR property.
Private security has no legitimate ability to fuck with anyone else outside those defined limits and have no legal powers outside that specifically defined location.
Private security is NOT police. It is private security.

Maybe it's a problem of definitions. When some anarcho-capitalists talk about "private police" they surely don't mean to give some group of people special authority over the rest of the population. What they generally mean is private security/private rights enforcement agencies (and they also usually call it that way).

The only difference to current private security firms, in an environment absent a government police force, would be that they would also enforce compensation, etc. If there is probable cause that you did something than there would be some system in place that allowed them to enter your property and drag you into a court room or seize your property after you are convicted of a crime and refuse to pay compensation. But they would have no special privilege to be allowed to do that. Everybody should in theory be able to enforce their rights (it would just be way to dangerous for most people and better left to people who specialize in this area).

And while that's surely a delicate issue, there has to be some mechanism like that one in place. You can't just go ahead and steal, defraud and shoot people and than hide on your own property, without anyone ever being able to enter (or only by putting their own lifes at risk). Of course that's problematic and requires a well thought-out system, but the same problems arise with a government run police force, enforcing court decisions.

asurfaholic
05-25-2013, 08:31 PM
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
05-25-2013, 08:32 PM
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
05-25-2013, 08:34 PM
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
05-25-2013, 08:37 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Pinkerton_Act).

noneedtoaggress
05-25-2013, 08:42 PM
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.
\\
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/JOE.jpg

(another example of democratic elections empowering authoritarians)

pcosmar
05-25-2013, 08:42 PM
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
05-25-2013, 08:49 PM
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
05-25-2013, 08:52 PM
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
05-25-2013, 08:54 PM
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
05-25-2013, 08:54 PM
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
05-25-2013, 09:07 PM
I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ME, SON.

I sentence you to 10 Years in the Pink Hotbox.
\\
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/JOE.jpg

(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
05-25-2013, 10:17 PM
By what authority do costumed men presume to have lordship over me? Death to tyrants.

bolil
05-25-2013, 10:38 PM
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
05-25-2013, 10:39 PM
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
05-26-2013, 06:39 AM
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
05-26-2013, 08:31 AM
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
05-26-2013, 09:13 AM
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
05-26-2013, 12:51 PM
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
05-26-2013, 12:56 PM
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
05-26-2013, 01:29 PM
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.

Zippyjuan
05-26-2013, 01:36 PM
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
05-26-2013, 01:39 PM
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
05-26-2013, 01:41 PM
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
05-26-2013, 01:51 PM
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
05-26-2013, 02:25 PM
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
02-08-2018, 03:06 AM
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
02-08-2018, 03:07 AM
Was going to repost this, but I knew I had read before.

Proph
02-08-2018, 12:04 PM
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
02-08-2018, 12:28 PM
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
02-08-2018, 12:31 PM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) 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
02-08-2018, 12:43 PM
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
02-08-2018, 01:01 PM
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
02-08-2018, 01:38 PM
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
02-08-2018, 01:49 PM
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
02-08-2018, 01:54 PM
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
02-08-2018, 02:38 PM
Listening to this right now. (https://tomwoods.com/ep-693-the-art-of-political-persuasion-winning-supporters-not-arguments/) (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.

You do.
RPF doesn't spoil!

Proph
02-09-2018, 08:17 PM
I try to avoid double posting, but I never got around to linking this yesterday.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AHBMLHIg_E

Mark Passio is great.

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