Off Duty Border Patrol Agent Murdered - Guess Who Responsible?

[Pericles]

Two illegal immigrants from Mexico who were charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of an off-duty U.S. Border Patrol agent in front of his family in Texas have been arrested and deported numerous times, police sources told FoxNews.com. One suspect has been arrested no fewer than four times for entering the U.S. illegally, according to federal court records. The other has been deported twice after entering the U.S. illegally, sources said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/05/suspects-in-murder-border-patrol-agent-arrested-and-deported-numerous-times/?intcmp=latestnews

[LibertyEagle]

Three strikes and you're out. Bring back the firing squads.

http://www.pitch.com/binary/4927/1389935057-firing-squad-431x300.jpg

[tod evans]

I have a really hard time mustering one iota of sympathy for any murdered government agent...

However, I do have sympathy for their families...

[SeanTX]

It seems to me one effect of the illegal immigrant surge is that it will perpetuate and greatly expand the police state. Violent crime will worsen to the point where people will be begging for more police.

And of course, taking care of violent illegals will just be a side job for them, involving mostly just investigating the crime scene afterwards. So, expect to have more BP and cops down on the border who will arrest you for drinking a beer, while MS-13 runs wild.

And more checkpoints, etc. Great job security for the tax ticks.

[LibertyEagle]

I have a really hard time mustering one iota of sympathy for any murdered government agent...

However, I do have sympathy for their families...

Oh, come on. There are a lot of decent Border Patrol agents. They have been hog-tied by the government and not allowed to do jack as the illegals stream over. Hell, I don't think they are even allowed to shoot back if they are shot at.

[roho76]

Oh, come on. There are a lot of decent Border Patrol agents. They have been hog-tied by the government and not allowed to do jack as the illegals stream over. Hell, I don't think they are even allowed to shoot back if they are shot at.

Their continued employment is a threat to our liberty. No, there is no such thing as decent border patrol agents. Any law enforcement is a threat to liberty. You should know this. First command they get to fire on us, they will.

[aGameOfThrones]

Oh, come on. There are a lot of decent Border Patrol agents. They have been hog-tied by the government and not allowed to do jack as the illegals stream over. Hell, I don't think they are even allowed to shoot back if they are shot at.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391297-Plain-clothes-cop-kills-mother-of-5&highlight=Border+agent+kills+mother

[tod evans]

Oh, come on. There are a lot of decent Border Patrol agents. They have been hog-tied by the government and not allowed to do jack as the illegals stream over. Hell, I don't think they are even allowed to shoot back if they are shot at.

There very well may be "lots of good-n's" but it's my opinion that every government employee from the janitor to the prez is liable for the mess this country is in and I'll be damned if I shed a tear for any of them.

Government employees are the enemy of liberty.

[fr33]

They allegedly tried to rob a government agent at gunpoint and shot him when he resisted. There's some irony to this.

[AuH20]

Two illegal immigrants from Mexico who were charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of an off-duty U.S. Border Patrol agent in front of his family in Texas have been arrested and deported numerous times, police sources told FoxNews.com. One suspect has been arrested no fewer than four times for entering the U.S. illegally, according to federal court records. The other has been deported twice after entering the U.S. illegally, sources said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/05/suspects-in-murder-border-patrol-agent-arrested-and-deported-numerous-times/?intcmp=latestnews

This is eventually going to get very ugly, once the citizenry gets fed up with this. It has a chance of breaking down along racial lines as well (which is what THEY are counting on). One of these illegal criminals is going to pull a gun on the wrong person & all hell is going to break loose, after they're drawing chalk lines around their lifeless body.

[presence]

The 18th Amendment was the problem.

Al Capone was the blowback.

[kcchiefs6465]

Three strikes and you're out. Bring back the firing squads.

http://www.pitch.com/binary/4927/1389935057-firing-squad-431x300.jpg
It takes a particularly evil person to advocate summary execution of a bunch of peasant migrants... probably most of which being children.

You should be ashamed of yourself- You goddamned ignorant nationalist quasi-socialist. Pick up a book. Repent.

[JK/SEA]

Three strikes and you're out. Bring back the firing squads.

http://www.pitch.com/binary/4927/1389935057-firing-squad-431x300.jpg

i don't agree with this, and am dis-appointed in your comment.....oh well...

sigh..

[Keith and stuff]

It takes a particularly evil person to advocate summary execution of a bunch of peasant migrants... probably most of which being children.


Most of them aren't children. Well, they are someone's child but over the age of 17.

But yeah, if a person is caught sneaking across the border 4 times, this clearly shows that the federal government isn't doing it's job of securing the border. President Obama bares some responsibility for the death.

[Pericles]

I can understand how this incident may not register on your give a damn meter. With an average of 3 to 5 murders and 10 to 12 sexual assaults per week in Texas committed by illegals, it is hardly unusual.

If you want to see what the early stages of SHTF looks like, hie thee to south Texas.

[LibertyEagle]

Their continued employment is a threat to our liberty. No, there is no such thing as decent border patrol agents. Any law enforcement is a threat to liberty. You should know this. First command they get to fire on us, they will.

So, you believe in 0 law enforcement of any kind. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

It takes a particularly evil person to advocate summary execution of a bunch of peasant migrants... probably most of which being children.
Nope, most aren't children. These particular ones have been caught illegally entering the country multiple times before and murdered an American. The fact that you don't care is disgusting.


You should be ashamed of yourself- You goddamned ignorant nationalist quasi-socialist. Pick up a book. Repent.

Another useful idiot masquerading as a libertarian, I see. Congratulations.

I realize you don't believe in national sovereignty, but some of us do.

[tod evans]

I can understand how this incident may not register on your give a damn meter. With an average of 3 to 5 murders and 10 to 12 sexual assaults per week in Texas committed by illegals, it is hardly unusual.

If you want to see what the early stages of SHTF looks like, hie thee to south Texas.

Government isn't going to fix the problem, hell government caused the problem.

Fire/evict/run-off the feds and leave the Texans alone.....I know plenty of 'em and Texans can damn well take care of their own if they weren't tripping over feds or scared of federal litigation.

[LibForestPaul]

Oh, come on. There are a lot of decent Border Patrol agents. They have been hog-tied by the government and not allowed to do jack as the illegals stream over. Hell, I don't think they are even allowed to shoot back if they are shot at.

Really, do they protest? Do they come out for the local militias? What do they do at 100 miles inside the border?

[kcchiefs6465]

Nope, most aren't children. These particular ones have been caught illegally entering the country multiple times before and murdered an American. The fact that you don't care is disgusting.

Another useful idiot masquerading as a libertarian, I see. Congratulations.

I realize you don't believe in national sovereignty, but some of us do.
You are a socialist in denial questioning me as to my sincerity? -- You are a thief who hasn't the heart to steal anything yourself. The idea that you are worthy of chastising anyone is laughable.

Go pick pockets, you cowardly fuck.

[roho76]

Another reputation gem from LE: "Sad that you don't believe in national sovereignty. Very sad."

National sovereignty? Really? Well if it makes me say stupid shit like that then I guess I don't. Sorry but executing people over crossing. an imaginary line in the sand is not something to be proud of. Your nationalism is clouding your ability to think straight. You'd do better over at the Rick Santorum's Frothy Forums Emporium.

[Dianne]

I have a really hard time mustering one iota of sympathy for any murdered government agent...

However, I do have sympathy for their families...

That comment sucks actually.. I worked in Corrections, and although I hated what I did and I hated my job; I have a family to feed .. And I was a nice correctional officer.. I was one of those the inmates loved, because I was fair, honest and went to bat for them against other officers

There is no difference in law enforcement, then my situation ... There are some that are straight up assholds ... and there are some that are not.

So your statement tod evans, really pisses me off.. Direct your hate and wish of harm to those that deserve it .. You are almost saying one officer did something bad, so you will hate all of them from this time out .. That is so unfair ... so immature, and so embarrassing ... I believe the good outnumber the bad .. The White House and Eric Holder are the ones corrupting and ordering bad things. But your lower level, unless crazies and there are some, are not the ones to blame.

[kcchiefs6465]

That comment sucks actually.. I worked in Corrections, and although I hated what I did and I hated my job; I have a family to feed .. And I was a nice correctional officer.. I was one of those the inmates loved, because I was fair, honest and went to bat for them against other officers

There is no difference in law enforcement, then my situation ... There are some that are straight up assholds ... and there are some that are not.

So your statement tod evans, really pisses me off.. Direct your hate and wish of harm to those that deserve it .. You are almost saying one officer did something bad, so you will hate all of them from this time out .. That is so unfair ... so immature, and so embarrassing ... I believe the good outnumber the bad .. The White House and Eric Holder are the ones corrupting and ordering bad things. But your lower level, unless crazies and there are some, are not the ones to blame.
I have a family to feed too.

It's a lot harder to do so when they debase a currency, enforce laws that restrict what one can transact in, and rob me to pay for certain folk's subsidized wages.

[tod evans]

So your statement tod evans, really pisses me off.. Direct your hate and wish of harm to those that deserve it .. You are almost saying one officer did something bad, so you will hate all of them from this time out .. That is so unfair ... so immature, and so embarrassing ... I believe the good outnumber the bad .. The White House and Eric Holder are the ones corrupting and ordering bad things. But your lower level, unless crazies and there are some, are not the ones to blame.


Good!

I'm glad you're pissed off.

It's a shame that you continue to justify your own despicable behavior with the common excuses used by all government employees, "I was a good one", "My children needed the blood money." "It's the other ones who are bad."

You use the term "worked" as in past tense...Which tells me it's quite likely you're drawing some kind of government check that permits you to get online and argue about how you were "only".......

Face it Dianne you made immoral choices and it's quite possible you're continuing to make them while attempting to change the government you worked for, don't you notice the hypocrisy?

I too made an immoral choice many years ago, I joined the USN and took advantage of their schooling to become a paramedic. I knew at the time (fresh out of HS) that I was being a hypocrite. When I got out I burnt my seabag and discharge papers in front of hospital, I walked away vowing to never again have complicit dealings with the government that wages undeclared war, I haven't and I won't! I'm "entitled" to VA bennies....Fuck that! I'll never use them and I'll never draw SSI because I made a vow to myself.

Today the portion of government that you worked the gulag for is waging war on American citizens! The "Just-US" department isn't just the fruitcake golfer in charge and his minions, it's folks like you who justify waging war on Americans for the money..

So sorry to tell you this, in my opinion you deserve (In your words not mine)
Direct your hate and wish of harm to those that deserve it

You don't have to take their money, you have the ability to refute their behavior with your actions as well as your words.

The choice is yours.

[LibForestPaul]

Good!

I'm glad you're pissed off.

It's a shame that you continue to justify your own despicable behavior with the common excuses used by all government employees, "I was a good one", "My children needed the blood money." "It's the other ones who are bad."

You use the term "worked" as in past tense...Which tells me it's quite likely you're drawing some kind of government check that permits you to get online and argue about how you were "only".......

Face it Dianne you made immoral choices and it's quite possible you're continuing to make them while attempting to change the government you worked for, don't you notice the hypocrisy?
The choice is yours.

Germans had choices (they choose to destroy Jews/Gypsies/Gays). Soviets/Ukrainians had choices(lets starve a million of my brothers). Chinese had choices(bye-bye 10million farmers). and Americans have choices. You choose to be part of the machinery, and it served you well.

[jllundqu]

Good!

I'm glad you're pissed off.

It's a shame that you continue to justify your own despicable behavior with the common excuses used by all government employees, "I was a good one", "My children needed the blood money." "It's the other ones who are bad."

You use the term "worked" as in past tense...Which tells me it's quite likely you're drawing some kind of government check that permits you to get online and argue about how you were "only".......

Face it Dianne you made immoral choices and it's quite possible you're continuing to make them while attempting to change the government you worked for, don't you notice the hypocrisy?

I too made an immoral choice many years ago, I joined the USN and took advantage of their schooling to become a paramedic. I knew at the time (fresh out of HS) that I was being a hypocrite. When I got out I burnt my seabag and discharge papers in front of hospital, I walked away vowing to never again have complicit dealings with the government that wages undeclared war, I haven't and I won't! I'm "entitled" to VA bennies....Fuck that! I'll never use them and I'll never draw SSI because I made a vow to myself.

Today the portion of government that you worked the gulag for is waging war on American citizens! The "Just-US" department isn't just the fruitcake golfer in charge and his minions, it's folks like you who justify waging war on Americans for the money..

So sorry to tell you this, in my opinion you deserve (In your words not mine)

You don't have to take their money, you have the ability to refute their behavior with your actions as well as your words.

The choice is yours.

Yeah! Rand Paul (and formerly Ron Paul) is a government employee! Fuck them! Direct your hate at them all!

/ sarc :rolleyes: :toady:

[Zippyjuan]

It seems to me one effect of the illegal immigrant surge is that it will perpetuate and greatly expand the police state. Violent crime will worsen to the point where people will be begging for more police.

And of course, taking care of violent illegals will just be a side job for them, involving mostly just investigating the crime scene afterwards. So, expect to have more BP and cops down on the border who will arrest you for drinking a beer, while MS-13 runs wild.

And more checkpoints, etc. Great job security for the tax ticks.

So perhaps we should increase the border patrol to keep more people out? Is that your argument?

[PRB]

you're forgetting that the MAJORITY of America's prison population and murderers are blacks, not Mexicans.

[Zippyjuan]

Violent crime will worsen to the point where people will be begging for more police.

Just a couple of charts.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/anecdotes-evidence-setting-record-straight-immigrants-and-crime-0

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/figure2_0.jpg

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/figure_3.jpg

[PRB]

Just a couple of charts.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/anecdotes-evidence-setting-record-straight-immigrants-and-crime-0



http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/figure_3.jpg
that's not what the nostalgists are telling me!!! according to them, including Michael Moore, nobody locked their house doors in the past, today everybody is armed and ready. Unless we reconcile this by saying all the crime today is caused by government.

[roho76]

So, you believe in 0 law enforcement of any kind. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

You offer no ideas on how to keep "law enforcement" from behaving badly. Brilliant! At least I don't advocate murder.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Another useful idiot masquerading as a libertarian, I see. Congratulations.

Says the socialist masquerading as a conservative, who wants to steal money through taxation to fund a police state designed to infringe on private property rights and free market interactions.

[Pericles]

Says the socialist masquerading as a conservative, who wants to steal money through taxation to fund a police state designed to infringe on private property rights and free market interactions.

I at least know to be on the lookout for the government to steal my money, take my liberty, and potentially tyranize me unto death because I have fair warning. When uninvited persons from other places attempt the same, I have a greater chance of being taken by surprise and have to maintain additional situational awareness. It would be noice to get a break from that sometime.

[roho76]

I at least know to be on the lookout for the government to steal my money, take my liberty, and potentially tyranize me unto death because I have fair warning. When uninvited persons from other places attempt the same, I have a greater chance of being taken by surprise and have to maintain additional situational awareness. It would be noice to get a break from that sometime.

So, because police exist, you don't have to worry about being killed by surprise? I'm confused. We have a shit ton of kops and there is still crime.

[Pericles]

So, because police exist, you don't have to worry about being killed by surprise? I'm confused. We have a shit ton of kops and there is still crime.

Every once in a great while, some police organization somewhere, does manage to bag a murderer, rapist, and / or thief. I realize that an anarchist libertarian can not possibly acknowledge that any positive outcome can exist via a tax funded entity, and thus must maintain the perception among the generally rational, of being a head in the clouds loon.

In anarchy la la land, I'd have to chase down the murderer myself (which is particularly inconvenient if I am dead), or hire a mall ninja who can't have the power of arrest without the consent of the person to be arrested for the crime.

[William Tell]

Every once in a great while, some police organization somewhere, does manage to bag a murderer, rapist, and / or thief. I realize that an anarchist libertarian can not possibly acknowledge that any positive outcome can exist via a tax funded entity, and thus must maintain the perception among the generally rational, of being a head in the clouds loon.

In anarchy la la land, I'd have to chase down the murderer myself (which is particularly inconvenient if I am dead), or hire a mall ninja who can't have the power of arrest without the consent of the person to be arrested for the crime.

Very well said.

[jllundqu]

Every once in a great while, some police organization somewhere, does manage to bag a murderer, rapist, and / or thief. I realize that an anarchist libertarian can not possibly acknowledge that any positive outcome can exist via a tax funded entity, and thus must maintain the perception among the generally rational, of being a head in the clouds loon.

In anarchy la la land, I'd have to chase down the murderer myself (which is particularly inconvenient if I am dead), or hire a mall ninja who can't have the power of arrest without the consent of the person to be arrested for the crime.

Ha! Love it...

[Deborah K]

Every once in a great while, some police organization somewhere, does manage to bag a murderer, rapist, and / or thief. I realize that an anarchist libertarian can not possibly acknowledge that any positive outcome can exist via a tax funded entity, and thus must maintain the perception among the generally rational, of being a head in the clouds loon.

In anarchy la la land, I'd have to chase down the murderer myself (which is particularly inconvenient if I am dead), or hire a mall ninja who can't have the power of arrest without the consent of the person to be arrested for the crime.

Qft = rep

[Pericles]

Very well said.

After all, if I'm a murderer, I don't have much incentive to cooperate with the mall ninja. Will future murder victims refuse to cooperate?

[PRB]

Every once in a great while, some police organization somewhere, does manage to bag a murderer, rapist, and / or thief. I realize that an anarchist libertarian can not possibly acknowledge that any positive outcome can exist via a tax funded entity, and thus must maintain the perception among the generally rational, of being a head in the clouds loon.

In anarchy la la land, I'd have to chase down the murderer myself (which is particularly inconvenient if I am dead), or hire a mall ninja who can't have the power of arrest without the consent of the person to be arrested for the crime.

you fucking nailed it right there, in anarchist la la land, nobody is governed unless he consented to, so if I am a bad guy and didn't consent to being subject to some douchebag's private security and private courts, I am either free to do what I want, or I will be forced against my will to be punished (which is no better than now)

[tod evans]

Every once in a great while, some police organization somewhere, does manage to bag a murderer, rapist, and / or thief. I realize that an anarchist libertarian can not possibly acknowledge that any positive outcome can exist via a tax funded entity, and thus must maintain the perception among the generally rational, of being a head in the clouds loon.

In anarchy la la land, I'd have to chase down the murderer myself (which is particularly inconvenient if I am dead), or hire a mall ninja who can't have the power of arrest without the consent of the person to be arrested for the crime.

I'm not an anarchist per-se but I'm damn sure against the "Just-Us" department currently in place.

I see it as a cancer that needs excised.

I completely agree that there must be some mechanism in place to hold "real" criminals accountable for their actions...What we have now is so perverted and broken I can see no way to fix it without totally eliminating all of the current players from the equation.

Some argue that there are good ones in the mix.......Honestly I'm sure there are.......Problem is the bad ones are the best liars.

We are living with 100+ years of "reform" and it ain't working for me.

[Occam's Banana]

Every once in a great while, some police organization somewhere, does manage to bag a murderer, rapist, and / or thief. I realize that an anarchist libertarian can not possibly acknowledge that any positive outcome can exist via a tax funded entity, and thus must maintain the perception among the generally rational, of being a head in the clouds loon.

I am an "anarchist libertarian."
I acknowledge that roads are a "postive outcome."
I acknowledge that roads may "exist via a tax funded entity."

How, then, may I - or anyone else not inclined to rabid, spittle-spewing mischaracterizations of the substance of others' positions - conclude that you are not utterly full of shit when it comes to your pronouncements about "anarchist libertarians?"


In anarchy la la land, I'd have to chase down the murderer myself (which is particularly inconvenient if I am dead),

Yes, of course of you would. You would also have to build all your own roads, bake all your own bread (after sowing, growing, reaping & milling all the grain yourself), and basically do everthing else you need by the sweat of your very own back - because voluntary cooperation to mutual advantage is simply not possible unless a small group of elites hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in society.


or hire a mall ninja who can't have the power of arrest without the consent of the person to be arrested for the crime.

Damn right! Because, you know ... if a "mall ninja" from Mall Ninjas R Us arrested someone who has initiated agression without the agression-initiator's permission, that would clearly be a flagrant violation of the monopoly on the legitimate use of force in an "anarchist libertarian" society ... oh, wait ... um, nevermind ...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[kcchiefs6465]

Every once in a great while, some police organization somewhere, does manage to bag a murderer, rapist, and / or thief. I realize that an anarchist libertarian can not possibly acknowledge that any positive outcome can exist via a tax funded entity, and thus must maintain the perception among the generally rational, of being a head in the clouds loon.

In anarchy la la land, I'd have to chase down the murderer myself (which is particularly inconvenient if I am dead), or hire a mall ninja who can't have the power of arrest without the consent of the person to be arrested for the crime.
A government founded upon consent, which respects rights and works to protect individual rights is the only legitimate government (in the sense it's most commonly used now) to be had.

You don't want to subsidize migrant families? No one-- not one, or 280,000,000-- can legitimately force you to.

I don't want to pay for particularly unproductive and most often counterproductive tapeworms? In a free society I'd not be required to. Also in a free society they wouldn't run around like jackboots, molesting, robbing, beating, and murdering people on whim.

What is so hard about this to understand? You have no right, regardless of how many neighbors you get to agree with you, to steal another's property. If the issue is important it will be funded.

You realize what you advocate for is on par with what everyone else advocates for, right? They want social safety nets. You want border patrol funded. That is not how this country was supposed to operate and it indeed will be the fall of the republic. Not because of immigrants. But because of generations of people like you.

[Deborah K]

A government founded upon consent, which respects rights and works to protect individual rights is the only legitimate government (in the sense it's most commonly used now) to be had.

You could have stopped right there....

[Deborah K]

Some argue that there are good ones in the mix.......Honestly I'm sure there are.......Problem is the bad ones are the best liars.


An anarchic society isn't going to change that dynamic.


We are living with 100+ years of "reform" and it ain't working for me


Reform isn't what we've needed. Adherence to the Constitution all along, including properly amending it when necessary, would have avoided a lot of what we're dealing with now.

[Antischism]

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[kcchiefs6465]

You could have stopped right there....
Yet you all have some pet issue that you feel is so important that you ignore your conscious and morality and shamelessly advocate for my robbery. You all say basically what I say. Then often in that same exact sentence you write about national security needs or border patrol needs or the need for this or that. You've yet to properly convince me that my robbery then becomes justified. Whether you argue through some sort of fairy tale social contract theory or the Constitution, your arguments are founded on nothing more than bastardizations of justice and law. And it isn't because you are uneducated or unread. You know exactly what I am talking about. You, and I mean that loosely, feel that your pet issue is important enough that the minor (in your eyes) violation of my rights is justifiable. Well I'll tell you something: Those looking to provide free services to migrants crossing the border believe the same thing about their pet issue and I fail to see any discernible difference between the two.

[Deborah K]

How, then, may I - or anyone else not inclined to rabid, spittle-spewing mischaracterizations of the substance of others' positions - conclude that you are not utterly full of shit when it comes to pronouncements about "anarchist libertarians?"


Certainly, you're not implying that some anarchist libertarians aren't equally as inclined to "rabid, spittle-spewing mischaracterizations of the substance of others' positions" as others are. I don't think Pericles meant to be all inclusive. Just like I'm sure not all anarchist libertarians think people like me are "full of shit". But I dunno, maybe you do.

[Deborah K]

Yet you all have some pet issue that you feel is so important that you ignore your conscious and morality and shamelessly advocate for my robbery. You all say basically what I say. Then often in that same exact sentence you write about national security needs or border patrol needs or the need for this or that. You've yet to properly convince me that my robbery then becomes justified. Whether you argue through some sort of fairy tale social contract theory or the Constitution, your arguments are founded on nothing more than bastardizations of justice and law. And it isn't because you are uneducated or unread. You know exactly what I am talking about. You, and I mean that loosely, feel that your pet issue is important enough that the minor (in your eyes) violation of my rights is justifiable. Well I'll tell you something: Those looking to provide free services to migrants crossing the border believe the same thing about their pet issue and I fail to see any discernible difference between the two.

Then explain please, your interpretation of justice and law.

[kcchiefs6465]

Then explain please, your interpretation of justice and law.
Well for starters, and this is what is particularly important to this conversation, you have no right to take another's property. Whether said theft is done by the individual or whether it is done by a group of individuals does not change one's moral culpability in the theft.

[William Tell]

Damn right! Because, you know ... if a "mall ninja" from Mall Ninjas R Us arrested someone who has initiated agression without the agression-initiator's permission, that would clearly be a flagrant violation of the monopoly on the legitimate use of force in an "anarchist libertarian" society ... oh, wait ... um, nevermind ...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Allegedly you mean? Innocent until guilty, right?:rolleyes:
Of course, one must keep in mind that Mall Ninjas R Us gives not a damn about the rights of anyone who is not their client....:p

[Deborah K]

Well for starters, and this is what is particularly important to this conversation, you have no right to take another's property. Whether said theft is done by the individual or whether it is done by a group of individuals does not change one's moral culpability in the theft.

On that we agree. We also agree on your statement here:


A government founded upon consent, which respects rights and works to protect individual rights is the only legitimate government (in the sense it's most commonly used now) to be had.

To add to it, as it pertains to this issue, is the fact that every nation has its own set of immigration laws. If ours were being implemented in the first place, this issue wouldn't exist. And please be careful about pigeon holing me - unless you can point to something specific I have stated on this issue.

[Occam's Banana]

Certainly, you're not implying that some anarchist libertarians aren't equally as inclined to "rabid, spittle-spewing mischaracterizations of the substance of others' positions" as others are. I don't think Pericles meant to be all inclusive. Just like I'm sure not all anarchist libertarians think people like me are "full of shit". But I dunno, maybe you do.

I did not imply any such thing. Certainly, you are not implying that I did? People would do a lot better to just read what others actually write instead of rooting around for hidden "implications" - if for no other reason than clarity of communication. I meant nothing more or less than exactly what I actually said.

I extend to others the assumption that they in turn mean what they actually say. When someone demonstrably misrepresents and offensively distorts an entire position as flagrantly as Pericles did, is it any wonder that adherents of that position should object to such?

[Deborah K]

I did not imply any such thing. Certainly, you are not implying that I did? People would do a lot better to just read what others actually write instead of rooting around for hidden "implications" - if for no other reason than clarity of communication. I meant nothing more or less than exactly what I actually said.

I extend to others the assumption that they in turn mean what they actually say. When someone demonstrably misrepresents and offensively distorts an entire position as flagrantly as Pericles did, is it any wonder that adherents of that position should object to such?

I read what you wrote. I zeroed in on that comment because I don't understand the need to take generalized comments like that so personally when they are not aimed directly at something you have written.

[Occam's Banana]

Allegedly you mean? Innocent until guilty, right?:rolleyes:
Of course, one must keep in mind that Mall Ninjas R Us gives not a damn about the rights of anyone who is not their client....:p

I have no desire to debate anarcho-libertarian theory here - especially considering that such would be an off-topic (and, I suspect, an entirely unproductive) derailment.

My point is solely that Pericles' mocking derision of "anarchist libertarians" is demonstrably a gross misrepresentation. As I (very easily) demonstrated, his absurd claim that "anarchist libertarians" (such as myself) "cannot possibly acknowledge" that the State is capable of doing things that have "positive outcomes" is grotesquely ridiculous nonsense. His contention that the permission of aggressors must be explicitly solicited prior to the possibility of doing anything about them is also clearly false - especially given an anarcho-libertarian context of the absence of an all-encompassing monopoly on the legitimate use of force in society (as my remark on his comment was intended to illustrate).

You may disagree with anarchist libertarianism. You may do so vehemently. That's fine. I have NO problem with that. What I have a problem with is when anarcho-libertarians (such as myself) or our positions are held up to mockery and ridicule on the basis of gross distortions that can only have been derived from either ignorance or willful deceit.

[tod evans]

An anarchic society isn't going to change that dynamic.



Reform isn't what we've needed. Adherence to the Constitution all along, including properly amending it when necessary, would have avoided a lot of what we're dealing with now.

I'm not arguing for an anarchistic society or for reform...

My position, as I very clearly stated, is that the current "Just-Us" system in its entirety, is broken beyond repair and the only way I see to excise it from society is to sever all ties with its current and past members and affiliates.

I'm all for starting anew in strict adherence to the constitution so long as those liable for the current mess are barred from participating in the new one under strict penalty of death.

Given the sheer number of lives they have ruined to line their own pockets I believe I'm being quite generous in not calling for severed heads. My original statement of feeling no sympathy for those agents murdered stands on its own merit.

[DamianTV]

The Illegal Immigrants are directly responsible for the death. However, the US Govt is Indirectly Responsible by creating the surge of Illegal Immigration to begin with. Not all cops are pure evil, nor are they pure good. Someone can throw in a good Matrix quote about the very people we are trying to save. The thing is, when we start dehumanizing all Police we are no better than they are. Each Cop, Border Patrol Agent, Police Officer, etc is an individual and each of their actions needs to be considered on a case by case basis. If we were to say something like "all Cops should die", we might as well give up right fucking now because we have lost what it means to be human. The two human Illegal Immigrants do need to be held accountable for their actions, just as Cops that commit the numerous injustices upon the people need to be held accountable for their actions as well. Lumping people together in groups, such as "We" vs "They" does not absolve the victims of accountability. This "We" that, *ahem* we frequently speak of need to also be accountable for our own actions, and that acountability needs to be fair and balanced and equal for all men as well as proportional to the severity of the accused crime. Just because Cops do bad shit to us and Illegal Immigrants do bad shit to bad Cops does not mean we should be able to just murder each other with the same non-accountability as those in power. The Law needs to be applicable to every man, and reasonable in its responses. The War on Drugs is unreasonable as it is a war on "us", just as Police Brutality is also a war on us. The thing is that Cops are also a part of that "us" group, which means they may as well be committing crimes against themselves. We lose Freedom, they lose that same Freedom. We cant do drugs, they cant do drugs. Unless we want Cops to do their jobs while smoking a joint, which actually wouldnt be such a bad thing in my humble opinion. When the war is on "us", it means ALL of "us". The real war on "us" is our ability to self correct and rebalance society. Exceptions to the Law upset this balance as much as any excesses of Responsibility to the Law do as well. Illegal Immigrants and Cops need to be just as accountable for true Rights violations as everyone else, just as their Rights should also be respected. I dont want Cops going to jail for actions without a Fair Trial, nor do I want Cops getting away with Murder. Same thing goes for Illegal Immigrants. If an Illegal Immigrant does commit a crime, that crime needs to be punished Fairly and Justly and expediently. Enter the country illegally, go home. Enter the country illegally, commit a real crime like Murder, now youre accountable. In that accountability for committing the crime of Murder, the consequences for shooting a Cop need to be the same as the consequences for shooting a Non Cop. Im not trying to either stick up for or bash on any particular group, but merely to say the Rights of ALL Men need to be equal by our application of Law and respect for the Limits of the Law as defined by the Human Rights of ALL Men. Many of the consequences of the world we live in is the result of Inequal Application of Equality. It is a world of our own making. And we have the power to change this by leading by example.

[Occam's Banana]

I read what you wrote. I zeroed in on that comment because I don't understand the need to take generalized comments like that so personally when they are not aimed directly at something you have written.

My problem with "comments like that" are not that they are generalized. I try to make a conscious and deliberate effort to avoid such generalizations when I can, but sometimes it is not possible or convenient to do so. In such cases, one relies upon the contextual understanding of others.

My problem with "comments like that" is that they are flagrantly grotesque falsehoods. Following Pericles' example, suppose I said, "I realize that a limited-government Constitutionalist cannot possibly acknowledge that Barack Obama is a constitutional scholar and that Obamacare (and everything else that he does or supports) is therefore constitutional if he says it is - and thus [a limited government Constitionalist] must maintain the perception among the generally rational, of being a head in the clouds loon."

If you were a limited-government Constitutionalist, would you object to such a statement merely because it was a generalization about limited-government Constitutionalists that might not apply to you in partcular - or because it was an egregiously absurd misrepesentation of limited-government Constitutionalism? And if you object on this latter basis - as you quite rightly should - would it be because you were taking it "too personally?" And should your (entirely proper and justified) objection need to be predicated upon whether such a statement was "aimed directly at something you have written?" I rather think not ...

[Origanalist]

An anarchic society isn't going to change that dynamic.



Reform isn't what we've needed. Adherence to the Constitution all along, including properly amending it when necessary, would have avoided a lot of what we're dealing with now.

The problem with that is there is nothing to keep the scum wishing to increase governments stranglehold from doing so in that document or we wouldn't be here. Nothing will stop them short of the threat of death.

[green73]

Off Duty Border Patrol Agent Murdered - Guess Who Responsible?

The evil nation of Mexico. I say nuke them, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Deborah K]

I'm not arguing for an anarchistic society or for reform...

My position, as I very clearly stated, is that the current "Just-Us" system in its entirety, is broken beyond repair and the only way I see to excise it from society is to sever all ties with its current and past members and affiliates.

I'm all for starting anew in strict adherence to the constitution so long as those liable for the current mess are barred from participating in the new one under strict penalty of death.

Given the sheer number of lives they have ruined to line their own pockets I believe I'm being quite generous in not calling for severed heads. My original statement of feeling no sympathy for those agents murdered stands on its own merit.

Oh, I know where you stand on the issue. I was supplementing, not trying to correct. Sorry if I came off that way.

[Deborah K]

The problem with that is there is nothing to keep the scum wishing to increase governments stranglehold from doing so in that document or we wouldn't be here. Nothing will stop them short of the threat of death.

Or term limits.

If the argument turns to the nature of man, and how the scum will always eventually rule, then simply changing the manner in which we 'govern' ourselves is ultimately futile. And from what I understand, even in an anarchic society there will be laws, which will undoubtedly be manipulated.

[LibertyEagle]

The problem with that is there is nothing to keep the scum wishing to increase governments stranglehold from doing so in that document or we wouldn't be here. Nothing will stop them short of the threat of death.

How many times does this have to be said? A piece of paper is only as good as the enforcement behind it. The American people were warned to stay educated and vigilant. They didn't. They sat on their asses as the Constitution was trampled. And here we are still blaming it all on the Constitution. :rolleyes:

[Origanalist]

Or term limits.

If the argument turns to the nature of man, and how the scum will always eventually rule, then simply changing the manner in which we 'govern' ourselves is ultimately futile. And from what I understand, even in an anarchic society there will be laws, which will undoubtedly be manipulated.

I have no doubt whatsoever that a "anarchistic" "society" ???? would devolve at the same rate that ours did. Nothing short of the pain of death will stop the madness.

[LibertyEagle]

The evil nation of Mexico. I say nuke them, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nah. But, if foreigners break our laws and murder Americans, I damn sure don't condone throwing them a party.

[Tod]

A government founded upon consent, which respects rights and works to protect individual rights is the only legitimate government (in the sense it's most commonly used now) to be had.

You don't want to subsidize migrant families? No one-- not one, or 280,000,000-- can legitimately force you to.

I don't want to pay for particularly unproductive and most often counterproductive tapeworms? In a free society I'd not be required to. Also in a free society they wouldn't run around like jackboots, molesting, robbing, beating, and murdering people on whim.

What is so hard about this to understand? You have no right, regardless of how many neighbors you get to agree with you, to steal another's property. If the issue is important it will be funded.

You realize what you advocate for is on par with what everyone else advocates for, right? They want social safety nets. You want border patrol funded. That is not how this country was supposed to operate and it indeed will be the fall of the republic. Not because of immigrants. But because of generations of people like you.


Amen.

Either we are free, independent people who have the right to defend our lives, liberty, and property


or


we are slaves.

[Deborah K]

My problem with "comments like that" are not that they are generalized. I try to make a conscious and deliberate effort to avoid such generalizations when I can, but sometimes it is not possible or convenient to do so. In such cases, one relies upon the contextual understanding of others.

My problem with "comments like that" is that they are flagrantly grotesque falsehoods. Following Pericles' example, suppose I said, "I realize that a limited-government Constitutionalist cannot possibly acknowledge that Barack Obama is a constitutional scholar and that Obamacare (and everything else that he does or supports) is therefore constitutional if he says it is - and thus [a limited government Constitionalist] must maintain the perception among the generally rational, of being a head in the clouds loon."

If you were a limited-government Constitutionalist, would you object to such a statement merely because it was a generalization about limited-government Constitutionalists that might not apply to you in partcular - or because it was an egregiously absurd misrepesentation of limited-government Constitutionalism? And if you object on this latter basis - as you quite rightly should - would it be because you were taking it "too personally?" And should your (entirely proper and justified) objection need to be predicated upon whether such a statement was "aimed directly at something you have written?" I rather think not ...

Sorry to say it, but that characterization of a "limited-government Constitutionalist" would not offend me because it's meaningless to me. I get your point though. I guess it all depends on our individual buttons. I have mine too.

[Deborah K]

I have no doubt whatsoever that a "anarchistic" "society" ???? would devolve at the same rate that ours did. Nothing short of the pain of death will stop the madness.

Agreed. I say we bring back dueling. :D

[Origanalist]

How many times do this have to be said? A piece of paper is only as good as the enforcement behind it. The American people were warned to stay educated and vigilant. They didn't. They sat on their asses as the Constitution was trampled. And here we are still blaming it all on the Constitution. :rolleyes:

How far do we have to go before you can see the piece of paper didn't do what it was supposed to do?

[Origanalist]

Agreed. I say we bring back dueling. :D

Or Thunderdome. :)

[Deborah K]

I have no desire to debate anarcho-libertarian theory here - especially considering that such would be an off-topic (and, I suspect, an entirely unproductive) derailment.

My point is solely that Pericles' mocking derision of "anarchist libertarians" is demonstrably a gross misrepresentation. As I (very easily) demonstrated, his absurd claim that "anarchist libertarians" (such as myself) "cannot possibly acknowledge" that the State is capable of doing things that have "positive outcomes" is grotesquely ridiculous nonsense. His contention that the permission of aggressors must be explicitly solicited prior to the possibility of doing anything about them is also clearly false - especially given an anarcho-libertarian context of the absence of an all-encompassing monopoly on the legitimate use of force in society (as my remark on his comment was intended to illustrate).

You may disagree with anarchist libertarianism. You may do so vehemently. That's fine. I have NO problem with that. What I have a problem with is when anarcho-libertarians (such as myself) or our positions are held up to mockery and ridicule on the basis of gross distortions that can only have been derived from either ignorance or willful deceit.


Honest question here: what is your take on anarchists who deride non-anarchists (for lack of a better label)? Because, I can bear witness to the fact that many of the anarchists on this forum have brow-beaten the hell out of the rest of us for many years with equally as ludicrous analogies and insults. Most have done a piss-poor job of explaining their position without the use of condescension and disrespect. So, you'll have to forgive those of us who wear the scars of your fellow advocates when, on occasion, someone not of your viewpoint spouts off. In my opinion, it becomes a matter of "if you can dish it..." Now I'm not saying you're one of them, but you took issue with this, so that's why I'm pointing this out.

[Occam's Banana]

Honest question here: what is your take on anarchists who deride non-anarchists (for lack of a better label)? Because, I can bear witness to the fact that many of the anarchists on this forum have brow-beaten the hell out of the rest of us for many years with equally as ludicrous analogies and insults. Most have done a piss-poor job of explaining their position without the use of condescension and disrespect. So, you'll have to forgive those of us who wear the scars of your fellow advocates when, on occasion, someone not of your viewpoint spouts off. In my opinion, it becomes a matter of "if you can dish it..." Now I'm not saying you're one of them, but you took issue with this, so that's why I'm pointing this out.

I know what you are talking about, and when it happens, you are as fully justified as I in responding just as I did. I have, for example, seen LE's and Gunny's stated beliefs recast or mischaracterized in just such ways. I generally refrain from "butting in" on such exchanges because they both seem perfectly capable of handling themselves in the face of such insults or misrepresentations. However, there have been rare occasions when I have felt compelled to speak up (such as here, on behalf of Travlyr: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394367-American-Imperialism-born-with-Constitutionalism&p=4727009&viewfull=1#post4727009 - and further to this, especially see here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394367-American-Imperialism-born-with-Constitutionalism&p=4727238&viewfull=1#post4727238).

In addition - and when I believe it is constructive to be so - I am even critical of the arguments of my fellow anarchists (or voluntaryists, or whatever other term any of them might prefer) - e.g., as I was here in support of Gunny: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453282-Judge-Assaults-PD-for-not-waiving-client-s-6th-Amdmt-rights&p=5553157&viewfull=1#post5553157. (And note also that in the course of offering the criticisms I have made in this thread, I have not levelled so much as a single charge of any kind against "non-anarchism" or "non-anarchists" - I have only defended my own socio-political beliefs against a scurrilously and ridiculously false characterization.)

"Two wrongs do not make a right." Why should I have to defend or explain the boorish behavior of others who share (many if not all of) my socio-political beliefs in order to be justified myself in criticizing the (clearly) egregiously and boorishly false assertions made by someone else about those beliefs? Either my criticism of those assertions was justifiable or it was not (and this is a thing entirely apart from whether my socio-political beliefs are correct or not). What has the fact that some (most ?) anarchists, Constitutionalists, etc. seem to enjoy being assholes towards one another got to do with it?

[Origanalist]

[snip] What has the fact that some (most ?) anarchists, Constitutionalists, etc. seem to enjoy being assholes towards one another got to do with it?

:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGpFcHTxjZs

[Deborah K]

I know what you are talking about, and when it happens, you are as fully justified as I in responding just as I did. I have, for example, seen LE's and Gunny's stated beliefs recast or mischaracterized in just such ways. I generally refrain from "butting in" on such exchanges because they both seem perfectly capable of handling themselves in the face of such insults or misrepresentations. However, there have been rare occasions when I have felt compelled to speak up (such as here, on behalf of Travlyr: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394367-American-Imperialism-born-with-Constitutionalism&p=4727009&viewfull=1#post4727009 - and further to this, especially see here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394367-American-Imperialism-born-with-Constitutionalism&p=4727238&viewfull=1#post4727238).

In addition - and when I believe it is constructive to be so - I am even critical of the arguments of my fellow anarchists (or voluntaryists, or whatever other term any of them might prefer) - e.g., as I was here in support of Gunny: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453282-Judge-Assaults-PD-for-not-waiving-client-s-6th-Amdmt-rights&p=5553157&viewfull=1#post5553157. (And note also that in the course of offering the criticisms I have made in this thread, I have not levelled so much as a single charge of any kind against "non-anarchism" or "non-anarchists" - I have only defended my own socio-political beliefs against a scurrilously and ridiculously false characterization.)

"Two wrongs do not make a right." Why should I have to defend or explain the boorish behavior of others who share (many if not all of) my socio-political beliefs in order to be justified myself in criticizing the (clearly) egregiously and boorishly false assertions made by someone else about those beliefs? Either my criticism of those assertions was justifiable or it was not (and this is a thing entirely apart from whether my socio-political beliefs are correct or not). What has the fact that some (most ?) anarchists, Constitutionalists, etc. seem to enjoy being assholes towards one another got to do with it?


It has everything to do with it, doesn't it? Isn't that what you're taking issue with?

[Deborah K]

For the record, while I am not an anarchist, I do believe your right to opt out of any system with which you disagree should be your right.

[Occam's Banana]

It has everything to do with it, doesn't it? Isn't that what you're taking issue with?

No. What I am taking issue with are particular statements made by a particluar poster in a particular post - statements that are demonstrably false & flagrantly irrational (which can been by anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity - regardless of one's socio-political beliefs or opinions.)

In the course of so doing, I did not mock or deride - or even neutrally criticize, either directly or indirectly - the socio-political beliefs of others with whom I disagree. I did not invoke blatant falsehoods in support of prounouncements about how the "generally rational" will regard anyone who does not share my socio-political beliefs as a "head in the clouds loon."

And so I am not clear on what it is you want or expect of me here. Would you rather I do as Pericles, and heap the same sorts of grotesque and insupportable irrationalities upon broadly collectivized groups with whom I disagree? Or am I simply to remain quiescent in the face of such irrationality?

[kcchiefs6465]

On that we agree. We also agree on your statement here:

To add to it, as it pertains to this issue, is the fact that every nation has its own set of immigration laws. If ours were being implemented in the first place, this issue wouldn't exist. And please be careful about pigeon holing me - unless you can point to something specific I have stated on this issue.
That they do (have their own set of immigration laws, that is). The people gather 'round, in their infinite wisdom, of course, and call for all sorts of things. It's almost as if government schools have branded a cast of disinterested retards. And I apologize for the language. If for nothing else it is a disservice to those truly mentally incapable (of studying the issues or recognizing and comprehending abstract theories).

For the rest, they truly are retarded. A step behind the step behind, if you will.

As to pigeon holing you, I didn't mean to do any such thing. My post was simply a generalization.

People who bitch and moan about their money being squandered on this or that are often the first to whine that my money be squandered to do this or that. I find their inconsistency annoying (not to mention they directly advocate that I be robbed to fund counter productive swine). And what do they offer to ease my objections? Collectivist theories. Pardon me for not being particularly amused.

An honest socialist is leaps and bounds better than a closeted one. At least then one'd recognize the true intentions of most. As it stands, they hide behind republican rhetoric and nationalistic sentiments... indoctrinated in both to an astounding degree.

I do not know specifically what you mean by "implemented." What 'law[s]' are you referring to? The Constitution?

[Pericles]

No. What I am taking issue with are particular statements made by a particluar poster in a particular post - statements that are demonstrably false & flagrantly irrational (which can been by anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity - regardless of one's socio-political beliefs or opinions.)

In the course of so doing, I did not mock or deride - or even neutrally criticize, either directly or indirectly - the socio-political beliefs of others with whom I disagree. I did not invoke blatant falsehoods in support of prounouncements about how the "generally rational" will regard anyone who does not share my socio-political beliefs as a "head in the clouds loon."

And so I am not clear on what it is you want or expect of me here. Would you rather I do as Pericles, and heap the same sorts of grotesque and insupportable irrationalities upon broadly collectivized groups with whom I disagree? Or am I simply to remain quiescent in the face of such irrationality?

As one of the reasonable voluntary / anarchist types here, I can easily have a rational discussion of the issue. Taking the example of the two wealth redistribution engineers being the subject of this thread as an example, exception to my assertions could be easily refuted by illustrating how the envisioned system would deal with this circumstance. I will posit that was the purpose of your statement that my claim was demonstrably false because the mall ninjas would be dealing with a case of the violation of the NAP.

For purposes of my categorizations, that will be in the third category. As a general principle, a society needs a mechanism to resolve disputes among its members and provide that justice be dispensed to protect individual rights. The voluntary / anarchy society has to deal with three categories of disputes or acts the society considers criminal.

First, dispute among members who are voluntarily joining such a society. One can easily deal with this category, as such a means of dispute resolution would be a condition of joining such a society. Therefore no more needs to be said here.

Second, assuming that the individual can leave such a society at anytime, it would be to the advantage to such an individual to leave such a society if that individual were to be subjected to such punishment / requirement for restitution the individual was unwilling to make. Would a voluntary / anarchy society expect enforcement of such agreements, after an individual chose to leave? Which leads to either it is like the EU, where you keep voting until you decide to join, at which point you don't need to vote anymore, or the ..

Third, resolving disputes with individuals who are not part of the voluntary / anarchy community. In this case, we have individuals who never agreed to any of the conditions of the society from entering the society in violation of its, rules to attempted robbery, and murder. By invoking the NAP as reason for the mall ninjas to come after the perpetrators of the crime for violating the NAP, the key issue was ignored. What gave the mall ninjas any authority or claim to arrest persons not a member of the society and had given no consent to live by its rules. How is this any different from the actions of a state, which enforces it rules against any and all?

Note that the third category is different from self defense. A person has been killed, and the point is that bringing the killers to account is either an act of revenge by an individual or the society which assumed responsibility for some degree of protection of that individual. If the voluntary / anarchist society requires the consent of the individual for actions taken affecting that individual, is it not the position of such a society that it has no claim over an individual that has never given consent to be governed by such a society? If not, then that society is just another created state QED.

Because the voluntary / anarchy concept has unresolvable contradictions - non members either escape punishment, or the mall ninjas assume the power of a state to enforce the rules of the society against those who never were part of that society, among others. Or there are the self deceivers - it would work if everybody was a voluntarist, because then categories two and three would not exist. Well if everybody has to join the voluntary association, it would seem to be misnamed ... And the potentially misleading, we solve the problem of the state by - creating our own state! That's the ticket, yeah.

Any of those three is an object fit for ridicule.

Look at the contortions made to pretend that category three does not exist - everybody hires their own mall ninjas - only if you are a part of the community. Or the concept that there are multiple mall ninjas and thus competition for who can arrest you is better that the current system of federal, state, and local police competing to throw the most people in jail is a single entity.