Inside the mind of a "law and order" Republican [Archive]

View Full Version : Inside the mind of a "law and order" Republican

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 05:48 AM

To briefly rebut every one of his five points:

1 - No, it is not. In any given year roughly half the cops killed "in the line of duty" are due to traffic accidents or illness. Cop killings by violence remain at record low levels, and being a cop is not even close to being in the top ten of dangerous jobs. Being a roofer or taxi driver is more dangerous.

2 - The MSM and pop culture fawns over police and cop shows of all stripes abound, almost all universally portray police in a false positive light.

3 - The democrat party is pandering to it's constituencies. They are as much in love with cops as anybody else in power, as they realize it is the cops that keep them from the people. Case in point, Miriam Carey's killing.

4 - Because of #2. But every time they kill a Jeremy Mardis, or Justine Damond or Kelly Thomas or someone's dog, more of that support goes out the window.

5 - What happens when cops are going house to house to enforce democrat laws?

I would say that the GOP needs to get it's head out of it's ass on this, but honestly, they are so close to being clinically retarded as to make that pointless. You cannot claim to hate big government and then love big government's enforcement arm.

Virgil: Five Points About the Politics of Police Work in America Today

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/20/virgil-five-points-about-the-politics-of-police-work-in-america-today/

by Virgil

20 Jul 2017

Third in a series…

In Part One of this series, we considered the changing politics of the blue-collar suburb of Macomb County, Michigan, just outside of Detroit. In Part Two, we noted that the Thin Blue Line—that is, our nation’s police forces—is mostly blue collar, both by background, and by current salary income.

Now, let’s take a look at the politics of policing in 2017. Yes, let’s consider these men and women, these “New Centurions,” as they engage in a real-time sacrament of service and sacrifice. So the five points to make:

1. Policing is dangerous;
2. The mainstream media, and the popular culture, don’t like cops;
3. The Democratic Party, too, is increasingly anti-cop;
4. The American people, on the other hand, support the police;
5. This gap between the elites and the people is an opportunity for Republicans.

Let’s look at each of these points in turn:

First, policing is dangerous. As we remember, there have been many cold-blooded multiple-cop-assassinations in recent years: two killed in New York City in 2014, two more in Iowa in 2016, and then, that same year, three dead in Baton Rouge, and five slain in Dallas.

Indeed, in 2016, a total of 145 cops died in the line of duty; of these, 63 were killed by gunfire, another 17 died from other kinds of assault.

Moreover, this year, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, deaths among federal, state, and local police have risen 30 percent.

Second, the MSM, and the popular culture, are anti-cop. Here’s a typical CNN headline, from June 23: “Racial bias permeates law enforcement.” (Virgil could pile on more such headlines, but what’s the point? We all have been witness to this relentless anti-cop animus.)

We can step back and add that there’s a reason why the likes of Michael Brown, or of Freddie Gray, have become well known after their deaths. They were the guilty victims of police action, and yet the MSM has had a way of turning them into heroes of a kind, or at least martyr-like household names. By contrast, slain police officers are consigned to obscurity. That’s media bias at work.

And the popular culture, is, of course, even worse. We might consider, for example, the case of the rapper Ice Cube, who first came to prominence back in 1988 with his song, “F__ tha Police.” Today, some three decades later, he’s still trashing the police, still idolized by the pop culture, and still making money.

We might further note that these anti-police attitudes have extended beyond journalism and “art” into the lofty precincts of the law itself. Just last month, we learned that courts in Washington state “have developed a novel method to try and root out trustworthy feelings associated with police officers.” That method is the production of a video, courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union, aimed at teaching juries not to trust the police. Fortunately, in one instance, a presiding judge in a case involving a police-related killing ruled against showing the video to potential jurors; the judge declared that the video was “simply too prejudicial.” Needless to say, this legal setback notwithstanding, the ACLU will never give up on its tax-exempt mission of fomenting anti-police attitudes.

Third, Democrats are now the anti-police party. Once upon a time, the Democrats, as the political home to Irish-Americans, were the natural hub of pro-police sentiment. That is, if Officer O’Hara was Irish, and the Irish were Democrats, then the Democrats were naturally supportive of Officer O’Hara and all the other men of the Emerald Society.

Yet since then, Democrats have done a 180. The 2016 Democratic Party platform, for example, includes four lines of vague praise for the police, followed by 13 lines of specific criticism, including a demand for sweeping new powers for the Justice Department to intervene in local incidents that might catch the eye of Al Sharpton & Co.: “We will require the Department of Justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings.” In other words, each incident would, literally, become a federal case.

Furthermore, how many times last year did we hear Hillary Clinton declare that she would force the police to undergo mandatory “implicit bias training”?

Yet even since their 2016 electoral debacle, the Democrats are still going at it. Just this month, after a New York City cop, Miosotis Familia, a mother of three, was shot and killed by a paroled thug-lifer, Mayor Bill DeBlasio abandoned his grieving city for a foreign jaunt. Why? Because it was more important to him to protest Donald Trump at the G-20 meeting in Hamburg, Germany. DeBlasio thus snubbed the swearing-in ceremony for 524 new NYPD recruits.

Supporters of the NYPD at the funeral of slain New York City Police Officer Miosotis Familia (Associated Press)

In the words of an exasperated Ed Mullins, head of the Sergeant’s Benevolent Association,“We have a very anti-police atmosphere … where we are failing is in political leadership.” He later tweeted, “Whose side are you on Mr. Mayor??” Of course, we all know the answer to that question.

The irony of the Democrats’ anti-police stance is that it’s Democratic constituencies that are suffering the most from the resulting crime spree. Across the nation, the murder rate is increasing, especially in Democratic big cities; last year in Chicago, for example, there were 762 murders. Elsewhere in 2016, murder spiked in San Antonio, up 61 percent; in Memphis, up 56 percent; in Louisville, up 44 percent. Importantly, of the almost 16,000 murders in the U.S. in 2015, according to the FBI, 52 percent of the victims were black.

In the words of former Chicago police chief Garry McCarthy, anti-police groups such as Black Lives Matter are part of the problem:

A movement with the goal of saving black lives … is getting black lives taken, because 80 percent of our murder victims here in Chicago are male blacks.

And crime is worsening yet again in 2017: On July 1, 28 people were shot in a Little Rock, Arkansas, night club. And over the Fourth of July weekend in Chicago, a total of 102 people were shot, 15 fatally. Meanwhile, other places, too, are suffering greater carnage, from Prince George’s County, Maryland, to Albany, New York. In all of these instances, African-Americans were the most victimized.

Fourth, despite the anti-cop media blitz, the country stands by the police. According to Gallup, 57 percent of Americans have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the police—up five points in the last two years. (We might note that the other highly rated professions are also typically drawn from the working and middle classes, including nurses and pharmacists.)

We might also pause over the success of the CBS TV series, Blue Bloods, about an NYPD family. Without a doubt, it must grind the teeth of CBS executives to let star Tom Selleck pay tribute to the police every Friday night, but out in the heartland, people are watching—the show is now in its eighth season. Thus we see that for enough money, MSM-ers will put their personal ideology aside.

To be sure, not everyone admires the cops; at the high end of the income scale, there’s an aristocratic disdain for the blue, and at the low end, there’s outright hostility. So it would be a challenge to stage a “Support Your Local Police” rally in either Beverly Hills or Brooklyn. Furthermore, as we all know, through a strange kind of high-low alchemy, angry anti-cop groups find their popular muscle in the ‘hood, even as they find their financial support in haughtier zip codes.

In the meantime, in the middle, sandwiched between the high and the low, are the police. Every day, we send them out into the mean streets; we ask them to risk their lives in situations that most Americans would probably consider to be impossible.

For instance, we might start with the basic vagary of many criminal situations; that is, information is often fragmentary, and yet the police must react and do their job, knowing that gunmen could be lying in wait.

And it’s not just bullets that the cops must fear; it’s also legal action, possibly based on some sort of allegation of racial discrimination. Thus we can quickly see how cops can find themselves in a near-impossible situation. In that vein, here’s a July 4 tweet from the D.C. Police Department:

We might note that “B/M’s” is an abbreviation of “black males.” In other words, per this tweet, everyone—starting, of course, with the police—should be on the lookout for two black males; as the alert indicated, that’s all that there was to be known.

So now let’s ask: How could a police officer possibly do anything with that information that would not potentially put him or her in legal jeopardy? Even in attempting to fulfill the cops’ responsibility to the public—by at least closely scrutinizing any pair of black males in the area—they could be doing great harm to their career.

They are thus put in a no-win situation: Good police work could mean checking up on black men in the area, with all the possible repercussions, while bad police work—not doing anything—leaves criminals roving free.

This is the sort of unsolvable puzzle that the cops have to put up with every single day. And as we know, there is a huge posse of activists, litigators, and reporters eager to pounce on any incident where the cops can be said to have made a wrong judgment.

In such a hostile legal and media environment, it would be understandable if the cops chose to just sit in their squad cars and eat donuts. And some do. But most don’t.

In fact, the vast majority of police officers are doing their best, standing precariously on the ramparts of our civilization, even as the Sharpton/ACLU complex can’t wait to clobber them with their twisted version of the law.

Yet speaking of the use and abuse of the law, here’s something interesting: In the extreme cases where bullets are fired and blood is shed, prosecutors have found that they are having a hard time securing convictions against cops.

We might consider some recent cases in which juries have rejected prosecution claims. On June 23, a judge ordered a mistrial in the case of a former University of Cincinnati police officer, Ray Tensing, in the 2015 shooting of a black motorist, Sam DuBose. After 31 hours of deliberations, the jury could not reach a verdict—this was actually the second mistrial in the case.

Two days earlier, on June 21, a Milwaukee jury acquitted former police officer Dominique Heaggen-Brown in the 2016 shooting of Sylville Smith. National Review’s David French summarized a terrible situation that is all too typical:

Smith ran from a traffic stop, approached a chain-link fence, and turned to face the pursuing officers, gun in hand. Heaggan-Brown fired his first shot — a shot the prosecution conceded was lawful—and then fired the second, fatal shot less than two seconds later, just after Smith had thrown away his pistol. The prosecution claimed that the second shot constituted reckless homicide.

In other words, this was a tough situation: Every cop knows that a wounded suspect can be plenty dangerous—and might have more than one gun. French added:

We can’t impute god-like perception to police officers, and the split-second reasonable decision to fire on an armed suspect isn’t something that has to be reconsidered with every pull of the trigger … the jury reached the just result. [emphasis added]

Five days earlier than that, on June 16, another jury acquitted St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer Jeronimo Yanez in the shooting death of Philando Castile. And in May, Tulsa police officer Betty Jo Shelby was acquitted in the shooting death of Terence Crutcher. Also in May, federal prosecutors announced that they would be filing no charges against Baton Rouge police officers Howie Lake and Blane Salamoni in the shooting death of Alton Sterling.

Perhaps even better known than any of these cases was the politically inspired effort by Baltimore prosecutors to target six Baltimore police officers in the accidental 2015 death of Freddie Gray. (We might note that even at the tender age of 25, Gray had already had 20 brushes with the law and had spent two years in jail.) Nevertheless, the prosecutors went after those BPD officers, three of whom were themselves black. All six prosecutions failed.

We might note that it’s hardly the case that cops are never convicted of abuse; since 2005, 82 U.S. law enforcement officers have been charged with murder or manslaughter for on-duty shootings. Of these, 29 were convicted, five of them for murder.

Still, the the pattern is clear: Unlike the trifecta of the MSM, the popular culture, and the Democratic Party, ordinary folks—the kind of people who end up on juries—are disinclined to convict cops.

Fifth, because of this gap between the elites and the populace, Republicans have a big opportunity. For half a century, Republicans have been the mostly “law and order” party, and that righteous stance has won them many elections.

And yet in the last decade or two, a new strain has come into Republican thinking—libertarianism on crime and policing. Notably, the hydra-headed Koch Brothers operation has formed an alliance with the ACLU and other left-wing outfits on behalf of “criminal justice reform.” And at the same time, of course, the Kochs and other libertarians have been working to accelerate immigration into the U.S., legal and illegal.

Such efforts have given some on the libertarian end of the Republican Party a distinctly anti-police caste of mind. For example, in 2014, in the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Sen. Rand Paul chose to criticize the supposed “militarization” of the police. That is, the cops were monitoring angry protests with armor and heavy weapons, and this was somehow a bad thing—a manifestation, maybe, of blue-uniformed authoritarianism.

This anti-cop critique, of course, is a familiar libertarian talking point. Indeed it’s one of many areas where the thinking of libertarians and liberals converges, and so that’s why, in 2014, Paul was bannered on the cover of Time magazine as “The most interesting man in politics.”

Of course, all this liberal-libertarian admiration didn’t do Paul much good in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, where his candidacy fizzled quickly. Why this flameout? Perhaps because most Americans, and the overwhelming number of Republicans, are quickly seeing that “demilitarization” of the police is a code-word for an anti-police stance. That is, if the bad guys have high-powered weapons, the cops don’t stand a chance; so they, too, must be armored up.

If Republicans wish to improve their relationship with the police, and all that the Thin Blue Line stands for, they could start by unabashedly supporting the cops, and their safety. And that’s actually a win-win, for the cops and the citizenry, because if the police are secure, it’s more likely that they can help keep the rest of us secure as well.

Interestingly, libertarian Republican politicians have a way of coming to this realization, eventually; after all, if the bad guys have heavy weapons, then Members of Congress, too, don’t stand a chance.

A case in point is the shooting last month in Alexandria, Virginia, in which a left-wing lunatic started shooting at Republican lawmakers as they practiced for a charity baseball game, wounding several. It was only the presence of two well-armed police officers that saved the GOPers; as the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre would say, The good guys shot the bad guy.

Indeed, in the wake of that shooting, Paul himself was sounding a much different tune:

Without Capitol Hill police, it would have been a massacre—we had no defense, we had no defense at all. We were like sitting ducks.

Since then, Congressional Republicans have realize that their instinctive desire to cut government budgets ought not to apply to the police that save their lives; the Hill GOP has quickly moved to increase the funding of the Capitol Police.

So we can quickly see: What’s good for Members of Congress ought to be good for the rest of us, too. The proper strategy for the GOP is to find other budgets to cut—not the cops’.

So as a matter of strategy, let’s resolve that Republicans will always be known as the party of law and order, up and down the line—putting their money where their mouth is.

And this “Centurion Strategy” can also be applied to the consequences for shooting victims—on both sides of the law. For instance, in the wake of the 2014 Ferguson shooting that left Michael Brown dead after he attacked a cop, Darren Wilson, the reaction of the authorities was revealing in its political correctness: Wilson was put on trial, although he was acquitted; he subsequently left the Ferguson police department. And in the meantime, Michael Brown’s parents got a $1.5 million settlement.

So let’s summarize this outrageous situation: Wilson does the right thing and gets tried in court, and then, even though he was acquitted, is pushed out of his job. Brown does the wrong thing, and his family gets rich.

So shouldn’t this sort of PC idiocy be a juicy campaign issue for Republicans? GOPers might ask, loudly, where’s the justice here? How much money do the families of slain cops get? And why are we giving the families of nogoodniks so much as a single penny?

In the meantime, the trend of unfairness to the cops is continuing: Just recently, Jeronimo Yanez, the Minnesota officer who shot Philando Castile and was acquitted of doing anything wrong, has nevertheless left the St. Anthony department.

Once again, if the GOP truly wants to be the law-and-order party, it must have the cops’ back, period.

Interestingly, the GOP is already moving in this direction—and it’s paying off. For example, in Louisiana, police chief Clay Higgins, the “Cajun John Wayne,” went from creating Gen. Patton-esque videos about law enforcement in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, to the U.S. Congress, where he keeps up the good fight. No doubt many other aspiring political leaders will seek to follow Higgins’ no-nonsense path.

It must be said, of course, that it would be good for the country if the Democrats, too, were to seek out the law-and-order mantle. Such a role is, after all, in their political heritage—the ghost of Officer O’Hara would be pleased.

Yet here’s not much evidence that the Democrats are thinking this way—just the opposite, in fact—and so that should encourage the GOP to double down on its winning strategy. After all, it could give Republicans an opening in crime-afflicted minority areas where the familiar GOP message of tax- and budget-cuts doesn’t play well at all.

So there it is: The Centurion Strategy. It’s a winning strategy for Republicans, sure, but even more, it’s a winning strategy for America.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 06:03 AM

Meanwhile, Eric Peters gets an earful from a less eloquent example of the GOP law and order crowd.

The Opposition

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2017/07/20/the-opposition/

By eric - July 20, 2017

I think we could all use a pick-me-up. Something to make us feel a little better about the state of things. Submitted for your consideration:

http://i.imgur.com/ggakkGq.jpg

Now, if this is what we are up against, we have a shot.

And this is pretty typical, actually, of the “fan mail” that arrives here. It makes me glad. To know that we are up against such people. Barely literate. 8th grade level imputations of homosexuality for having written an article critical of the practice of armed government workers literally stealing people’s property prior to conviction of any crime. It slays me that there are people out there who countenance such – and who defend those who perform such.

But then, I re-read the “fan mail.”

And feel better.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 10:53 AM

Even with super majorities of liberal progressives, even mild mannered police "reform" dies.

Proving point 3 of the OP is bullshit.

Gutting of Oversight Bill Puts Kibosh on Police Reform in California

http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/21/gutting-of-oversight-bill-puts-kibosh-on

Assembly Bill 284 had little chance of passage because it dealt with an actual problem and was getting pushback from some muscular lobbies.

Steven Greenhut | July 21, 2017

There are two rules of thumb to keep in mind when following the California legislature.

First, lawmakers love to prattle about pie-in-the-sky issues, such as halting global warming, but steadfastly avoid tackling nuts-and-bolts issues (pension liabilities, infrastructure repairs) that cry out for attention but run up against powerful special-interest groups.

Second, you always know it's a cop-out when legislators promise to "study" something.

The gutting of a police-reform bill last week combined both of those realities. Assembly Bill 284 had little chance of passage because it dealt with an actual problem and was getting pushback from some muscular lobbies. Instead of killing the measure and getting a bad rap among their minority constituents, legislators turned it into a meaningless study bill.

The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) following an incident captured on a disturbing video. Last July, Sacramento police tried to run over a knife-wielding, mentally ill man with their police cruiser, then fired 18 shots and killed him. The city in February settled a lawsuit with the man's family for $719,000, but the district attorney cleared the officers of wrongdoing. Police said the man was a danger to the neighborhood.

Obviously, several "use of force" incidents have been in the news, so the Sacramento situation wasn't unusual. What was unusual is that a legislator proposed something substantive in response. The legislation would have created statewide teams to investigate officer-involved shootings. This would provide outside involvement in the currently incestuous oversight system. The revised bill now merely requires the state Department of Justice to produce a report of times officers shoot people or when people shoot them.

Let's deal with a few little-discussed realities. No matter how egregious any killing appears, officers are cleared by their own departments and district attorneys, who work closely with the same police departments they oversee. In the rare instance they do prosecute an officer, a jury will side with the cop. Police unions shield even the worst officers, who always claim their lives were in danger. I've covered a number of these cases, and the result is usually the same.

Here are some more realities. Liberals see these police killings through an entirely racial lens. There is, of course, a strong racial element to many of them, but most of the ones I've covered have had white people as the victims. It's more a policing problem that centers on an insular paramilitary culture that downplays the value of "civilian" lives.

Conservatives—you know, the folks who prattle about government overreach—instinctively side with the government's agents. Would they be OK with letting the IRS or the Environmental Protection Agency or the California Air Resources Board investigate themselves when there are accusations of abusive behavior? Should we always side with government because, well, it's responsible for protecting us and its employees often have tough jobs?

The gutting of AB284 also reminds us of this reality: Union-allied Democrats are as hostile to police reforms as Republicans. Democratic state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, for instance, opposed the bill in its original state but backed it after it was watered down into meaninglessness. I'm glad that civil-rights groups spoke out at the Capitol against the amended version. Perhaps they will realize that there's virtually no chance any substantive police reform will move forward, even with Democratic legislative dominance.

Whenever there's a troubling incident, we're faced with a false choice. We can trust the process or get upset that the officers don't face criminal sentences. But there is a third option. We can analyze current policies, training, job protections and strategies—and institute reforms to improve the way those agencies operate. After the Sacramento shooting, the city instituted some reforms. Why is that a verboten idea in the legislature?

Government officials are supposed to work for us. There's nothing anti-police about questioning the way the current system operates. Police policy has been dominated for decades by law-enforcement unions, which exist solely to protect officers. Lawmakers from both parties are deathly afraid of their power—and of being portrayed in the next election as "soft on crime."

As a result, public concerns are given short shrift. Meanwhile, the drug war (and all that surplus military equipment) has led to increased militarization of local police forces, even though crime rates have fallen to levels not seen since the days of "The Andy Griffith Show." Instead of a community policing model, we often get one that seems more like something from an occupying army.

Liberals, in particular, forget that all the new rules and regulations they promote ultimately will be enforced by police officers. Some of the most disturbing police incidents involve cops enforcing picayune regulations.

It's unclear whether McCarty's original idea would have made any difference, but it is clear the current bill punts on a serious problem—and that the new studies will be meaningless. We can do better than this.

Madison320

07-21-2017, 11:06 AM

I know I'm part of a tiny minority here (maybe of one?), but I think the root cause of the problem are the laws that politicians pass, not the cops enforcing them. If the only laws were for actual crimes (murder, theft, etc) I think the police would be considered to be "on our side". Instead most laws are for non crimes against the state like drug laws for example. These bad laws make police the enemy of normal law abiding citizens. I'm not an anarchist and I believe a police force is necessary, but only to enforce real crime.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 11:15 AM

I believe a police force is necessary, but only to enforce real crime.

Well, I happen to agree... ;)

Seriously, no.

It is a manner of policing, heavy handed, over armed, and with the demeanor of an occupying army that is the problem.

And it would remain a problem if enforcing laws against murder and property theft or drugs, vice and petty regulations.

sparebulb

07-21-2017, 11:33 AM

by Virgil20

Wasn't there a neocon douchebag here a few years ago by that name?

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 11:37 AM

Wasn't there a neocon douchebag here a few years ago by that name?

There was a "Virgil" but a quick search reveals he was pretty pro Paul.

sparebulb

07-21-2017, 11:45 AM

There was a "Virgil" but a quick search reveals he was pretty pro Paul.

I had to look it up. I think it was Virgil47.

I, too, remember Virgil to be alright.

bunklocoempire

07-21-2017, 12:04 PM

Madison320

07-21-2017, 12:38 PM

Prevention and reaction to "real crime" is possible without slavery.
A free market with competition promotes liberty. A monopoly of force does not promote liberty.

Fear of man will prove to be a snare...

A free market in force is oxymoronic.

bunklocoempire

07-21-2017, 12:54 PM

A free market in force is oxymoronic.

Your fears allow for slavery.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 01:16 PM

tod evans

07-21-2017, 01:39 PM

Just try to imagine how horrible life would be without law makers, law enforcers, law punishers....:eek:

One needs only look at all of the children not addicted to marijuana or LSD.....

Guns? Look at how Chicago protected it's citizenry.

Without laws, lawyers, courts-n-prisons the children would be ruined! Baby rapers would be handing out heroin filled hypodermics at the local day-care!

Children would be ground up like hamburger on the roadsides if not for DWI laws!

Law-n-Order has been such a success we obviously need more! And we need it faster.....

AuH20

07-21-2017, 03:49 PM

Once police became political appointees, the end result was obvious.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 03:53 PM

It is the cops and the laws, police are a legitimate function of government but our cops have been warped beyond recognition for generations.

Cops have become a function of government only because big business lobbied for them in the 1800's under the premise that they were for the "public good." Cops were warped from inception. Taxpayer funded protection for the elite.

AuH20

07-21-2017, 03:55 PM

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 03:55 PM

Cops have become a function of government only because big business lobbied for them in the 1800's under the premise that they were for the "public good." Cops were warped from inception. Taxpayer funded protection for the elite.
Nonsense, they have been expanded (and that may have been a bad thing) but governments have had law enforcement officers for centuries.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 04:10 PM

Nonsense, they have been expanded (and that may have been a bad thing) but governments have had law enforcement officers for centuries.

For your edification: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469181-The-History-of-Policing-in-the-United-States

tod evans

07-21-2017, 04:11 PM

The more undisciplined and immoral a society becomes, the more laws and police it needs. This phenomenon is very unsettling when you think about it. If you had an entire society composed of true libertarians who practiced personal responsibility, then the law enforcement footprint would be minuscule nationwide. A debased society gives the centralized law enforcement industry a perfect excuse to encroach upon more freedoms.

I'll argue counterpoint....

With less laws the idiots would actually fear retribution for their misdeeds, there would be no courts or lawyers to keep them from comeuppance.

Every man/woman would face the very real threat of death for poor behavior, no back-n-forth in some courtroom to get a favorable plea-bargain because little-Johnny couldn't/wouldn't put 145 grains of lead in Bubba's brain... Either little-Johnny puts up or he shuts up..

But noooooooooo! Equality and protection are the order of the day and heaven forbid one takes care of himself and his family...:eek:

In today's world that too is afoul of some law.....Only the professionals are permitted to assure compliance....

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 04:16 PM

For your edification: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469181-The-History-of-Policing-in-the-United-States

The word "sheriff" is a contraction of the term "shire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shire) reeve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeve_%28England%29)". The term, from the Old English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English) scīrgerefa, designated a royal official responsible for keeping the peace (a "reeve") throughout a shire or county on behalf of the king.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff#cite_note-2) The term was preserved in England notwithstanding the Norman Conquest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest). From the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, the term spread to several other regions, at an early point to Scotland, latterly to Ireland and to the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 04:21 PM

I'll argue counterpoint....

With less laws the idiots would actually fear retribution for their misdeeds, there would be no courts or lawyers to keep them from comeuppance.

Every man/woman would face the very real threat of death for poor behavior, no back-n-forth in some courtroom to get a favorable plea-bargain because little-Johnny couldn't/wouldn't put 145 grains of lead in Bubba's brain... Either little-Johnny puts up or he shuts up..

But noooooooooo! Equality and protection are the order of the day and heaven forbid one takes care of himself and his family...:eek:

In today's world that too is afoul of some law.....Only the professionals are permitted to assure compliance....

Agreed. An armed society is a polite society, but only if those armed are permitted use without government retribution for doing what cops do everyday. Cops are allowed to keep "law and order" because they are given carte blanche use of their sidearms without recourse. Their word is greater in a court of their law than even the utmost law abiding citizen.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 04:22 PM

The word "sheriff" is a contraction of the term "shire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shire) reeve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeve_%28England%29)". The term, from the Old English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English) scīrgerefa, designated a royal official responsible for keeping the peace (a "reeve") throughout a shire or county on behalf of the king.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff#cite_note-2) The term was preserved in England notwithstanding the Norman Conquest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest). From the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, the term spread to several other regions, at an early point to Scotland, latterly to Ireland and to the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff

On behalf of the King. I'll end it right there. Hardly proper in a free society. Obviously you don't care to be edified.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 04:28 PM

On behalf of the King. I'll end it right there. Hardly proper in a free society.
Because they had a king and not some other form of government, the point is they have been expanded (and that may have been a bad thing) but governments have had law enforcement officers for centuries.
Even ancient pre-monarchic Israel had the Judges.
Government is necessary, laws are necessary, law enforcement officers are necessary, all things can be distorted and abused.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 04:29 PM

On behalf of the King. I'll end it right there. Hardly proper in a free society. Obviously you don't care to be edified.

Which is, of course, yet another indication of why we are not a free society.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 04:31 PM

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 04:33 PM

Government is necessary, laws are necessary, law enforcement officers are necessary, all things can be distorted and abused.

Ok, so now that we have been distorted and abused into a rental serfdom/police state, what now?

tod evans

07-21-2017, 04:34 PM

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 04:37 PM

Because they had a king and not some other form of government, the point is they have been expanded (and that may have been a bad thing) but governments have had law enforcement officers for centuries.
Even ancient pre-monarchic Israel had the Judges.
Government is necessary, laws are necessary, law enforcement officers are necessary, all things can be distorted and abused.

No. Read the fucking thread I posted. Would that be so hard?

Here's another for your edification. Law enforcement does not require government involvement.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?371304-The-Myth-of-the-Wild-West

A snip...

In contrast, an alternative literature based on actual history concludes that the civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was not very violent. Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier “was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today” (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “[t]he West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved” (1979, 10).

What were these private protective agencies? They were not governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on keeping order. Instead, they included such organizations as land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains.

So-called land clubs were organizations established by settlers before the U.S. government even surveyed the land, let alone started to sell it or give it away. Because disputes over land titles are inevitable, the land clubs adopted their own constitutions, laying out the “laws” that would define and protect property rights in land (Anderson and Hill 1979, 15). They administered land claims, protected them from outsiders, and arbitrated disputes. Social ostracism was used effectively against those who violated the rules. Establishing property rights in this way minimized disputes—and violence.

The wagon trains that transported thousands of people to the California gold fields and other parts of the West usually established their own constitutions before setting out. These constitutions often included detailed judicial systems. As a consequence, writes Benson, “[t]here were few instances of violence on the wagon trains even when food became extremely scarce and starvation threatened. When crimes against persons or their property were committed, the judicial system . . . would take effect” (1998, 102). Ostracism and threats of banishment from the group, instead of threats of violence, were usually sufficient to correct rule breakers’ behavior.

Dozens of movies have portrayed the nineteenth-century mining camps in the West as hot beds of anarchy and violence, but John Umbeck discovered that, beginning in 1848, the miners began forming contracts with one another to restrain their own behavior (1981, 51). There was no government authority in California at the time, apart from a few military posts. The miners’ contracts established property rights in land (and in any gold found on the land) that the miners themselves enforced. Miners who did not accept the rules the majority adopted were free to mine elsewhere or to set up their own contractual arrangements with other miners. The rules that were adopted were often consequently established with unanimous consent (Anderson and Hill 1979, 19). As long as a miner abided by the rules, the other miners defended his rights under the community contract. If he did not abide by the agreed-on rules, his claim would be regarded as “open to any [claim] jumpers” (Umbeck 1981, 53).

The mining camps hired “enforcement specialists”—justices of the peace and arbitrators—and developed an extensive body of property and criminal law. As a result, there was very little violence and theft. The fact that the miners were usually armed also helps to explain why crime was relatively infrequent. Benson concludes, “The contractual system of law effectively generated cooperation rather than conflict, and on those occasions when conflict arose it was, by and large, effectively quelled through nonviolent means” (1998, 105).

When government bureaucrats failed to police cattle rustling effectively, ranchers established cattlemen’s associations that drew up their own constitutions and hired private “protection agencies” that were often staffed by expert gunmen. This action deterred cattle rustling. Some of these “gunmen” did “drift in and out of a life of crime,” write Anderson and Hill (1979, 18), but they were usually dealt with by the cattlemen’s associations and never created any kind of large-scale criminal organization, as some have predicted would occur under a regime of private law enforcement.

In sum, this work by Benson, Anderson and Hill, Umbeck, and others challenges with solid historical research the claims made by the “West was violent” authors. The civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was much more peaceful than American cities are today, and the evidence suggests that in fact the Old West was not a very violent place at all. History also reveals that the expanded presence of the U.S. government was the real cause of a culture of violence in the American West. If there is anything to the idea that a nineteenth-century culture of violence on the American frontier is the genesis of much of the violence in the United States today, the main source of that culture is therefore government, not civil society.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 04:37 PM

Ok, so now that we have been distorted and abused into a rental serfdom/police state, what now?
The options are political reform (the mission of this website), or revolt (which if and when it is appropriate would be discussed elsewhere for obvious reasons), or submission (Not an option as far as I am concerned).

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 04:41 PM

No. Read the $#@!ing thread I posted. Would that be so hard?

Here's another for your edification. Law enforcement does not require government involvement.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?371304-The-Myth-of-the-Wild-West
At lower population levels less is required (which is why excessive urbanization was one of the worst things to happen to this country), but the wild west for all it's freedom still had and needed Sheriffs and U.S. Marshalls and the U.S. Cavalry.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 04:44 PM

:eek:

We're living the death spiral of government and her laws...

Child molesters get paroled and weed farmers get life, state actors operate with impunity while more than half the country literally exists off the other halfs production...

I'm ready for the grande finale...

When a field becomes overgrown with weeds one does not reject all plants and salt it.
We are most certainly neck deep in corruption and abuse that can happen to any necessary thing.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 04:45 PM

At lower population levels less is required (which is why excessive urbanization was one of the worst things to happen to this country), but the wild west for all it's freedom still had and needed Sheriffs and U.S. Marshalls and the U.S. Cavalry.

No it didn't. You would understand that if you read my post. And your quick response to my post informs me that you have not. But, you seem to have some refusal for doing so. So I guess we are done.

Schifference

07-21-2017, 04:47 PM

Cops are a band of brotherhood that think they are better than everyone else and it is them against everyone else.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 04:49 PM

The horrors of lemonade anarchy.

UK Police Fine 5-Year-Old Girl 150 Pounds for Selling Lemonade

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/21/uk-police-fine-5-year-old-girl-150-pounds-selling-lemonade/

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 04:50 PM

At lower population levels less is required (which is why excessive urbanization was one of the worst things to happen to this country), but the wild west for all it's freedom still had and needed Sheriffs and U.S. Marshalls and the U.S. Cavalry.

And again you refuse to be edified. Instead regurgitating all you have been force fed to swallow. Why should I bother at this point?

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 04:59 PM

And again you refuse to be edified. Instead regurgitating all you have been force fed to swallow. Why should I bother at this point?
Your unfair Neg-Rep and double response will not provoke me into further debate. You Anarchists can't learn, your idiotic theories would only lead to tribal savagery, subjective justice and the strong preying upon the weak. I will not discuss this further.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 05:00 PM

Your unfair Neg-Rep and double response will not provoke me into further debate. You Anarchists can't learn, your idiotic theories would only lead to tribal savagery subjective justice and the strong preying upon the weak. I will not discuss this further.

I'm not an anarchist. Nice try at painting me into a corner. Yeah, I guess we are done.

tod evans

07-21-2017, 05:17 PM

When a field becomes overgrown with weeds one does not reject all plants and salt it.
We are most certainly neck deep in corruption and abuse that can happen to any necessary thing.

Burning them every spring for several years might help...

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 05:22 PM

Burning them every spring for several years might help...
A little Revolution now and then....

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 05:22 PM

Burning them every spring for several years might help...

Or getting a bunch of old goats to eat 'em out and reseed with productive yeilds. ;)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 05:24 PM

A little Revolution now and then....

Can't have that with a law and order police state, now can we? To do so would be a declaration that the forced law and order is unlawful and disorderly, now isn't it?

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 05:29 PM

Can't have that with a law and order police state, now can we? To do so would be a declaration that the forced law and order is unlawful and disorderly, now isn't it?
I have never been in favor of the "law and order police state", all of my comments have favored a reduction of police numbers and activities.
But advocating revolution against tyrannical corruption of the law and law enforcement agencies is not a declaration that the enforced law and order is unlawful and disorderly.

Madison320

07-21-2017, 05:30 PM

Your unfair Neg-Rep and double response will not provoke me into further debate. You Anarchists can't learn, your idiotic theories would only lead to tribal savagery, subjective justice and the strong preying upon the weak. I will not discuss this further.

But what about Somalia? :)

The only thing worse than police are no police.

Madison320

07-21-2017, 05:32 PM

I'm not an anarchist. Nice try at painting me into a corner. Yeah, I guess we are done.

Is this the new thing? I see a lot of people lately who claim they are not anarchists but they are against a police force and an army.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 05:33 PM

But what about Somalia? :)

The only thing worse than police are no police.
Sports matches don't need umpires right?

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 05:37 PM

Is this the new thing? I see a lot of people lately who claim they are not anarchists but they are against a police force and an army.

I dunno, is it? I don't get out much. I'm not an anarchist. I'm against governmental policing. I'm against a standing army. I'm pretty sure that I share values with those that fought the American Revolution. So...I don't think it is a very new concept.

TheCount

07-21-2017, 05:39 PM

I have never been in favor of the "law and order police state", all of my comments have favored a reduction of police numbers and activities.

I don't even have to leave the front page to find a counter example.

By that logic you can't catch any criminal, if the illegals leave the sanctuary cities they will be in jurisdictions that cooperate with ICE.

More enforcement will lead to decreased illegal activity.

Madison320

07-21-2017, 05:41 PM

Sports matches don't need umpires right?

Yup. That's a good one. I used to have all sorts of intricate arguments with anarchists but I got tired of it. Now my main argument is just that it's impossible. Government, in one form or another, always exists.

Madison320

07-21-2017, 05:42 PM

I dunno, is it? I don't get out much. I'm not an anarchist. I'm against governmental policing. I'm against a standing army. I'm pretty sure that I share values with those that fought the American Revolution. So...I don't think it is a very new concept.

What do you think government should do?

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 05:43 PM

I don't even have to leave the front page to find a counter example.
I was referring to my comments on this thread, the fact that I want enforcement of immigration laws that have been deliberately ignored for decades is not "being in favor of 'the law and order police state'".

tod evans

07-21-2017, 05:45 PM

I was referring to my comments on this thread, the fact that I want enforcement of immigration laws that have been deliberately ignored for decades is not "being in favor of 'the law and order police state'".

Government caused problems aren't going to be fixed by government...

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 05:47 PM

Government caused problems aren't going to be fixed by government...
That depends on how you think government caused the problem, omission or commission.

tod evans

07-21-2017, 05:54 PM

That depends on how you think government caused the problem, omission or commission.

No it doesn't.

More government isn't going to fix government, period.

Arguing semantics is silly.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 05:55 PM

What do you think government should do?

Depends. Federal, State, County or local? At any length only that for which it can be voluntarily funded and abided.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 05:56 PM

No it doesn't.

More government isn't going to fix government, period.

Arguing semantics is silly.
If government failed to do a job that it is supposed to do then if it does that job it fixes the problem. QED

TheCount

07-21-2017, 06:14 PM

I was referring to my comments on this thread, the fact that I want enforcement of immigration laws that have been deliberately ignored for decades is not "being in favor of 'the law and order police state'".

Immigration enforcement by ICE in cities in the interior of the United States is police enforcement and part of the"law and order police state"

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 06:20 PM

Immigration enforcement by ICE in cities in the interior of the United States is police enforcement and part of the"law and order police state"

The "law and order police state" is whatever you want it to be?
If you mean that the "law and order police state" is having police and the law being enforced then I stand guilty as charged, but that is not what it is taken to mean in ordinary conversation, it is used to describe big brother always watching and pouncing on the smallest infraction, with too many laws to keep track of, and "police presence" omnipresent to keep the population submissive etc.

tod evans

07-21-2017, 06:25 PM

If government failed to do a job that it is supposed to do then if it does that job it fixes the problem. QED

"Government' has literally semi loads of rules-n-regulations.

So many that even intelligent people couldn't read and understand a fraction of them over a 20 year career..

Supporting another 20 years cycle of even more government to suck pensions and accomplish little for too much money is a fools game.

Government isn't going to fix government because government works just fine if you're part of it.....

Try to define the 'job' of government...........Just one segment..........Then think about all the other segments of government that exist to support/justify and finance that one segment to do one thing.......If you get through that exercise then try to determine if that segment you looked at does its 'job' well.......Does it do its 'job' cost effectively?

Like I keep saying;

More government isn't going to fix government....

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 06:28 PM

"Government' has literally semi loads of rules-n-regulations.

So many that even intelligent people couldn't read and understand a fraction of them over a 20 year career..

Supporting another 20 years cycle of even more government to suck pensions and accomplish little for too much money is a fools game.

Government isn't going to fix government because government works just fine if you're part of it.....

Try to define the 'job' of government...........Just one segment..........Then think about all the other segments of government that exist to support/justify and finance that one segment to do one thing.......If you get through that exercise then try to determine if that segment you looked at does its 'job' well.......Does it do its 'job' cost effectively?

Like I keep saying;

More government isn't going to fix government....
Another Anarchist, this conversation is over.

tod evans

07-21-2017, 06:29 PM

Another Anarchist, this conversation is over.

Fuck you man.

I didn't start calling names or trying to hang labels on you.

This is the kind of shit that'll get you knocked on your ass in person. :mad:

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 06:35 PM

$#@! you man.

I didn't start calling names or trying to hang labels on you.

This is the kind of $#@! that'll get you knocked on your ass in person. :mad:
You don't believe that government should do anything, therefore you are an Anarchist.
I didn't say you were an evil Anarchist or a crazy Anarchist so you should be proud of what you are, I am proud of what I am I believe I am right, if you don't like what you are you should rethink your philosophy.

tod evans

07-21-2017, 06:41 PM

You don't believe that government should do anything, therefore you are an Anarchist.
I didn't say you were an evil Anarchist or a crazy Anarchist so you should be proud of what you are, I am proud of what I am I believe I am right, if you don't like what you are you should rethink your philosophy.

As I said; Fuck you man!

I can't subscribe to the anarchist philosophy either............Just like libertarian there are parts that don't sit well with me.

Notice I'm not trying to tell you what you are.........

Civil discourse is taught with force..........And it's apparent to me you haven't been subjected to enough force yet.

Maybe you should show where I've said "I don't believe that government should do anything" ?

What I keep typing is that government isn't going to fix government.

I could delve deeper into that idea but why?

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 06:47 PM

Maybe you should show where I've said "I don't believe that government should do anything" ?
The following quote

Try to define the 'job' of government...........Just one segment..........Then think about all the other segments of government that exist to support/justify and finance that one segment to do one thing.......If you get through that exercise then try to determine if that segment you looked at does its 'job' well.......Does it do its 'job' cost effectively?
If that doesn't say that you don't think that government should do anything, what does it mean?
You are using questions to send the message that government can't do anything right or cost effectively.

tod evans

07-21-2017, 06:51 PM

The following quote

If that doesn't say that you don't think that government should do anything, what does it mean?
You are using questions to send the message that government can't do anything right or cost effectively.

No I asked you a question, can you answer it?

Or is it easier for you to name-call and try to pigeon-hole?

Madison320

07-21-2017, 06:52 PM

Depends. Federal, State, County or local? At any length only that for which it can be voluntarily funded and abided.

Any level. Just name a couple things. Without a military or police there's not much left for a proper government to do that I know of. The only other thing I can think of is a court system, but without a way of enforcing the rulings, it won't do much good.

Madison320

07-21-2017, 06:55 PM

No I asked you a question, can you answer it?

Or is it easier for you to name-call and try to pigeon-hole?

So what do you think the government should do?

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 06:55 PM

No I asked you a question, can you answer it?

Or is it easier for you to name-call and try to pigeon-hole?
You are doing what I said.
But to answer to your question

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tod evans http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6500680#post6500680)
Try to define the 'job' of government...........Just one segment..........Then think about all the other segments of government that exist to support/justify and finance that one segment to do one thing.......If you get through that exercise then try to determine if that segment you looked at does its 'job' well.......Does it do its 'job' cost effectively?

IT CAN.

tod evans

07-21-2017, 06:59 PM

So what do you think the government should do?

Only what it's citizens can have a direct impact on.

Which would negate much of the federal government as it sits....

However.............

With the digital age it is now possible for citizens to have direct contact which leads to the question I pose you;

Which citizens should influence government? And why do you feel that way.

tod evans

07-21-2017, 07:01 PM

IT CAN.

It hasn't.

Why should I believe things'll be different now?

What's changed?

heavenlyboy34

07-21-2017, 07:05 PM

Someone's trying to call tod evans an anarchist? Dem's fightin' words! :eek:

tod evans

07-21-2017, 07:08 PM

You are using questions to send the message that government can't do anything right or cost effectively.

You could quote me several hundred times stating;

"Everything government gets involved in it fucks up"

Which I hold out to be an unequivocal truth.

In this thread the discussion revolves around "Law-n-Order Republicans", a specific area of government and a specific party in government who have consistently failed in the area being discussed....Thus bolstering my claim.

tod evans

07-21-2017, 07:14 PM

Someone's trying to call tod evans an anarchist? Dem's fightin' words! :eek:

Chickenshit dismissals with unsubstantiated claims of allegiance to any one philosophy to justify false superiority is "fightin' words"...;)

I like to think I get along quite well with the anarchists who post here, I can think of two in-particular who are extremely intelligent and well spoken...

Same with the libertarian faction....

I have never been dismissed by them or vice-versa...

Holier than thou gets my goat every time..........

Madison320

07-21-2017, 07:36 PM

Only what it's citizens can have a direct impact on.

Could you just name something specific? Post office? Design the flag?

With the digital age it is now possible for citizens to have direct contact which leads to the question I pose you;

Which citizens should influence government? And why do you feel that way.

I feel very strongly that the biggest problem in almost all democracies/republics is allowing parasites to vote. Only people that pay more in taxes than they get in benefits should be allowed to vote.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 07:47 PM

You are using questions to send the message that government can't do anything right or cost effectively.

Can it?

Can you name anything that government and central planning has accomplished that was not:

A - Wildly overpriced.

B - Superfluous.

C - Badly managed.

D - Mandated that the people comply with, at the barrel of a cop's gun.

E - All of the above.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 07:58 PM

Too Many Laws: Why Police Encounters Escalate

https://mises.org/blog/too-many-laws-why-police-encounters-escalate

07/12/2016 Ryan McMaken

[This is Part One in a three-part series on policing. See Part Two and Part Three.]

The debate over the shooting of Philando Castile has ignited the debate over the way the police, generally speaking, often enforce petty, small-time offenses with often overwhelming force. In the case of Castile, the controversy hinges partially on whether or not Castile was being detained as a suspect in a real crime (such as armed robbery), or if he was being stopped and harassed for a small-time non-violent infraction such as drug possession or a broken tail light.

People instinctively know there is a real difference between the situations. Moreover, it is a safe assumption that in the case of armed robbery, someone has actually requested the services of the police, while it is extremely unlikely that any citizen complained about, or was harmed by, a broken tail light or the possession of marijuana. If it proves to be true that Castile was, in fact, stopped for a small-time infraction, then the escalation to a situation in which Castile was shot dead can be shown to be all the more unnecessary and needlessly violent.

But, of course, we don't need the Castile case to prove our point. Every day, people are stopped and detained by police for what should be regarded as peaceful non-criminal activities. But those situations often escalate to tense confrontations, and even in some cases to violent interactions.

It doesn't have to be this way.

Police Didn't Always Patrol Areas Looking for People to Arrest

Modern policing is largely a nineteenth-century invention, and prior to modern urban police forces, state agents were generally called in to deal only with episodes of general social unrest.

Prior to the age of the modern police patrol in English-speaking countries, state agents — often a sheriff-like official — were used primarily to compel named defendants to appear in court when another citizen had made a complaint in court against that person, usually to demand restitution for some wrong inflicted. It wasn't until the twentieth century that police agents routinely patrolled an area looking for places to intervene. In the United States, for example, as Jack Greene notes, "the American police service was originally cast as a reactive force, not as a preventive of interdicting force. ... America's police were to provide assistance on request, not to proactively intervene in the lives of the community."

In England, the tradition of legal action only beginning in response to a private complaint is very old, and law enforcement agents were expected to act only in response to court orders. Michael Giuliano writes:

Since early medieval England, long before the Norman invasion of England, criminal actions had been instituted by aggrieved private parties. They were primarily settled by compensation or restitution, and not imprisonment, capital punishment, or even the blood-feud that was common in much of Europe. For most offenses, specific civil fines and compensation were established. ... The affirmative role of the victim or next of kin initiated the legal process. Particularly heinous offenses requiring more than “mere” intentional homicide, were often excluded from the realm of compensatory remedy. As process, judges were appointed to preside over the courts and enforce the decisions made by the assembled freemen of a district.

Policing and law bore elements of democracy.

This reliance on a private restitution-based model continued into the late nineteenth century, and was hotly defended by many of the English on the presumption that a shift to "public" prosecutions — prosecution initiated by the state itself — would lead to a destruction of English civil liberties. Giuliano continues:

The formal transition from private to public prosecution in England did not occur until 1879 and years passed before it could be implemented in practice. The English gentry had long been suspicious of both a public prosecution system and a professional police force.

Indeed, the private initiation of criminal prosecution in England was a curiosity to visitors. Among them was the French jurist Charles Cottu, who like many was unaware of the “traditional arguments of English gentlemen against a constabulary and state prosecution,” according to legal historian Douglas Hay. Those Englishmen believed, in Hay’s characterization, that the power of prosecutorial institutions could lead to a “political police serving the Crown.” This opposition to public prosecution has been cast by law professor Bruce P. Smith as an example of old England's “national commitment to civil liberties.”

Obviously, today, we see few traces of a legal system that even resembles the English Common Law system that relied on there being an actual victim for a crime to have taken place.

Today, police actively patrol neighborhoods looking for potential offenders even if no one has requested the "service."

In response, this has led to some observers to suggest that the police should function instead on a "fire department model" in which police respond only to actual complaints, rather than seek out "offenders" on their own.

Certainly, this could potentially be a step in the right direction, but the larger problem lies in the fact that not only can arrests and prosecutions be initiated in the absence of any complaint or victim, but the list of offenses for which a person can be arrested and imprisoned has grown disastrously long.

Every Police Encounter Is an Opportunity for Arrest and Criminal Prosecution

Dealing with violent crime constitutes only a small minority of what police deal with on a daily basis. For example, in 2014, out of 11,205,833 arrests made nationwide (in the US), 498,666 arrests were for violent crimes and 1,553,980 arrests were for property crime.

That means 82 percent of arrests were made for something other than violent crime or property crime.

Moreover, many of these non-violent offenses — such as drug use, liquor violations, carrying an illegal knife, or other infractions that should be regarded as small-time offenses can result in serious jail time or prison time, as well as steep fines and lost earnings.

For instance, the highly publicized death of Eric Garner at the hands of police officers was a conflict precipitated by the sale of untaxed cigarettes by Garner. The police officers who killed Freddie Gray in custody in Baltimore later claimed the arrest was necessary because Gray possessed a knife that violated city ordinances.

And then there are the countless cases of non-criminals who have been stopped, searched, arrested and imprisoned for petty drug offenses such as possession.

Indeed, police departments spend an immense amount of time and resources on these non-violent offenses. In their book, The Challenge of Crime, Henry Ruth and Kevin Reitz observe:

[W]e do know that the effort to stem the tide of illicit drugs has been massive — and expensive. On the local level, 93 percent of county police agencies and 82 percent of all municipal agencies with more than one hundred police officers contained a full-time drug enforcement unit, as did about 60 percent of the state police agencies, and almost 70 percent of all sheriffs' departments. New York City alone in 1997 reported over 2,500 police officers dedicated to drug units and task forcese. More than 90 percent of all these police agencies received money and property forfeited by drug sellers for use in law enforcement opertations. ...

State and local police made about 1.6 million arrests for drug abuse violations in 2000, four-fifths of them for drug possession. ... And in 1998, drug offenders were 35 percent of all felons convicted in state courts.

In Gangs and Gang Crime, Michael Newton Reports: "In 1987, drug offenses produced 7.4 percent of all American arrests, nearly doubling to 13.1 percent by 2005."

As Ruth and Reitz note, there are financial incentives to police agencies to pursue drug offenders. The nature of drug offenses also gives the police more reason to make arrests in general. As explained by Lawrence Travis in Introduction to Criminal Justice:

With increased emphasis on drug crimes, agents and agencies of the justice system have uncovered offenses that have been present for years. Because drug offenses have gone unreported in the past, Zeisel (1982) noted that they present an almost limitless supply of business for the police. changing public perceptions of the seriousness of drug offenses has supported increased drug enforcement efforts.

[Peter] Kraska observed that with drug offenders, police "can seek actively to detect drug crimes, as opposed to violent and property crimes, for which they have little choice but to react to complaints." Thus, the volume of drug offenders entering the justice system is more a product of police activity than is that of violent or property offenders.. Political pressure to treat drug offenses more seriously, coupled with giving incentives such as profit from seizing the property of drug offenders, spurs more aggressive police action."

In other words, rather than react to complaints about violent crime or property crime, drug enforcement provides the police with nearly limitless opportunities to search, question, and arrest suspects for any number of offenses related to drugs. Moreover, if the police attempt to stop and search a person, and the person becomes uncooperative, police may then be able to justify an arrest for "resisting arrest" or similar offense even if no drugs are found.

Arrests in turn then bolster a police officer's career, even though little time has been spent on investigating violent crime or recovering stolen property.

The results of this emphasis among law enforcers can be seen in the incarceration data. Erinn Herbermann and Thomas Bonczar report that, of the 3,910,647 adults on probation in the US at the end of 2013, 25 percent (approximately 977,662 people) had a drug charge as their most serious offense.

According to the Justice Policy Institute: "approximately one-quarter of those people held in U.S. prisons or jails have been convicted of a drug offense. The United States incarcerates more people for drug offenses than any other country. With an estimated 6.8 million Americans struggling with drug abuse or dependence, the growth of the prison population continues to be driven largely by incarceration for drug offenses."

Consequently, more than one-fifth of prisoners (21 percent) in state prisons are held due to drug violations, while more than half (55 percent) of prisoners in federal prisons are held due to drug violations. This does not include offenders in county jails for shorter non-prison sentences.

The Effects of an Expansive Criminal Code on Police-Suspect Interactions

The effects of these trends should be predictable.

Imagine, for example, a world in which the only offenses that brought significant jail terms or large fines were violent criminal acts and property crimes. Obviously, in this case, the range of action open to the police would be greatly reduced, and citizens stopped by the police would have little to worry about in terms of stiff jail sentences. The possession of a switchblade or a certain type of cigarette would be of little concern to either the police or the suspect. Even if policymakers could not bring themselves to legalize these activities but only de-criminalize them, the stakes would be much lower in police-citizen interactions when citizens fear only a citation and fine instead of prison time for any offense that does not involve thievery, fraud, violence, or destruction of property.

When suspects know they are unlikely to be arrested or face a serious criminal charge, they are unlikely to panic and resist the police in a way that may lead to escalation of violence.

Moreover, given the relative rarity of real crime versus mere drug offenses and other small-time violations, police would be forced to concentrate their efforts on violent crime and property instead.

After all, given the reality of scarce resources for any endeavor, including policing, the opportunity cost of pursuing drug offenses leads to fewer police resources being devoted to recovering stolen property and pursuing violent criminals.

Contrary to un-serious and absurd claims that the police "enforce all laws," police use their discretion all the time as to what laws to enforce and which to not enforce. Those laws that are enforced are often laws that can lead to profit for the police department — such as drug laws which leads to asset forfeiture — or laws that can make for easy arrests — such as loitering and other small time laws — which improve a police officers' arrest record.

If we want to be serious about scaling back the degree to which police interactions with the public can lead to violent escalations, we must first scale back the number of offenses that can lead to serious fines and imprisonment for members of the public, while shifting the concentration of police efforts to violent crime and property crime. The emphasis must return to crimes that have actual victims and which are reported by citizens looking for stolen property and violent criminals. Not only will this increase the value of policing, but will also improve relations with most of the public while reducing the footprint of the state in the lives of ordinary people.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 07:59 PM

Why We Get More Policing Than We Need: It's "Free"

https://mises.org/blog/why-we-get-more-policing-we-need-its-free

07/13/2016 Ryan McMaken

[This is Part Two of a three-part series on policing. See Part One and Part Three.]

In a press conference Monday, Dallas Police Chief David Brown admitted that the American propensity for sending the police to deal with every minor social problem has failed:

“We’re asking cops to do too much in this country” said Brown.

“Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve” said Brown. He listed mental health, drug addiction, loose dogs, failing schools as problems the public expects ‘cops to solve.’

“Seventy percent of the African American community is being raised by single women, let’s give it to the cops to solve that as well” said Brown. “Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.”

Brown is right.

In America today, the police are used as a general agency to intervene in nearly any unpleasant situation that may arise. It has become a sign of the times to see a headline like this one: "Mom calls 911 over son's video-game habit." In this case, the police were actually dispatched to solve the woman's problem — free of charge. According to NBC news: "Two officers who responded to the house persuaded the child to obey his mother."

Then, there was the case of the woman who called 911 because Burger King got her order wrong.

Cases like these are extreme, of course, and largely serve as click bait for readers looking for the outrage of the day. Nevertheless, they are reminders that very little of what the police do in modern America involves the prevention and punishment of violent crime or property crime.

This is a modern innovation, and in the past, the police, the courts, and armed law enforcement agents in general were designed to address primarily violent crime and property crime. In their book Introduction to Criminal Justice, Joseph Senna and Larry Siegel write:

Police are expected to perform many civic duties that in earlier times were the responsibility of every citizen: keeping the peace, performing emergency medical care, and dealing with civil emergencies. Today, we leave those tasks to the police. Although most of us agree that a neighborhood brawl must be broken up, that the homeless family must be found shelter, or the drunk taken safely home, few of us want to jump personally into the fray: we'd rather "call the cops."

John Dempsey and Linda Forst agree, noting:

We might agree with [Senna and Siegel]. They say that the police role has become that of a social handywoman or handyman called to handle social problems that citizens wish would just go away.

The data suggests that they are right. In research on calls to police and police activities, we find that most of what leads to calls to the police involves something other than criminal activity.

Dempsey and Forst continue:

"[I]n a classic study of patrol activities in a city of 400,000, John Webster found that providing social service functions and performing administrative tasks accounted for 55 percent of police officers' time and 57 percent of their calls. Activities involving crime fighting took only 17 percent of patrol time and amounted to about 16 percent of the calls to the police. Robert Lilly found that of 18,000 calls to a Kentucky police department made during a four-month period, 60 percent were for information, and 13 percent concerned traffic problems. Less than 3 percent were about violent crime, and approximately 2 percent were about theft.

In the Police Services Study (PSS), a survey of 26,000 calls to police in 24 different police departments in 60 neighborhoods, researchers found that only 19 percent of calls involved the report of a criminal activity.
Part of the reason we hear so little about the lack of law enforcement activities among police is because the police themselves prefer to portray themselves as spending most of their time hunting down "bad guys." This isn't the reality, but as George Kirkham observed:

The police have historically overemphasized their role as crime fighters and played down their more common work as keepers of the peace and providers of social services, simply because our society proffers rewards for the former (crime fighting) but cares little for the latter (peacekeeping and providing services).

Nevertheless, as research by Matthew Hickman and Brian Reaves has shown, a sizable amount of police agency time and resources goes to non-crime-related activities including animal control, search and rescue, school crossing services, emergency medical services, civil defense, fire services, "crime prevention education," and underwater recovery operations. Police are also used for parking enforcement, traffic direction, and commercial vehicle enforcement.

Police have become a general agency for dealing with minor neighborhood disputes such as unkempt lawns, and children playing "unsupervised" on their own property. One might call the police if a family member refuses to take his medication, or if a family member is suicidal but no threat to the community. These activities have no connection to "crime fighting."

Nevertheless, residents have become acquainted to calling the police on even the most benign activities, such as the case of a suburban man who called the police because a neighbor's father was "suspiciously" walking through the neighborhood. Too lazy (or cowardly) to approach the man — a slow-moving grandfather who gave no indication of being violent — and ask him what he was up to, the "vigilant" citizen called the police instead.

Heavily Armed, Taxpayer-Funded Arbitrators

Given that police services are generally fully subsidized by taxpayers, this is to be expected.

Since calling the police requires no financial obligation on the part of the caller, calling the police on neighbors or others in the community — including non-criminals — offers a low-cost means to intimidate or hassle others at nearly-zero cost to the one calling 911.

But, as history has shown, this is not the only way to handle disputes. As recounted by Michael Giuliano here, the use of government sanctions against a neighbor once required a demonstration in court that the offender had inflicted damages against the alleged victim. Obviously, this sort of due process could be costly and time consuming. So, why go through all that trouble when numerous calls for the police might frighten one's adversary enough to obviate the need for court action? The fact that these police services are "free" contributes to their widespread over-utilization. As with any subsidized activity, you'll get far more of it than if the service were not subsidized.

In all of these cases, though, the problem does not necessarily lie with wishing to call in a third party that might act as a mediator or arbitrator. Calling in a third party is often prudent. The problem here lies with the fact that these services are all expected to be at someone else's expense, and handled by people with guns as the very first step in resolving the situation.

What If Other Industries Were Like Police Services?

Imagine if the same standards were applied to other industries. In the case of health care, for example, if the public expected the same model as employed in policing, people would be regularly calling in to demand house calls from medical personal for every broken bone or abrasion. In practice, though, rides to the hospital in an ambulance are costly, and patients are expected to bear at least some of the cost of medical services. Similar conditions apply in non-police search and rescue operations in which the victim often receives a bill in the mail after being rescued from some wilderness misadventure.

With policing, however, there is no cost at all to demanding armed police show up to confront an elderly man walking down the street. One can do it repeatedly at no charge to the one making accusations.

One can only guess what health care costs would look like were ambulance services performed on a similar model. Obviously, if these services were provided for free, the utilization of ambulances and paramedics would quickly outstrip the supply, thus drawing services away from more serious injuries and driving up the cost of the response to far more pressing emergencies. After all, scarcity does not disappear because policymakers have decided something should be free.

The same is true of police services. Every minute that a police officer spends searching someone for marijuana possession is a minute not available for recovering stolen property or locating violent criminals.

Moreover, the incessant usage of police for everything from animal control to medical services means government agents trained in armed confrontations with criminals will be continually brought into situations that do not warrant such a response. Often, an unarmed expert with actual training in dealing with the mentally ill or the homeless is a far wiser approach. When police are used they way they are, we should not be surprised if these situations then escalate into violence.

No matter how poor a fit the police may be for a given situation, though, the fact that police services are mostly paid for by someone else provides an incentive for their continued use in a myriad of situations.

A Modest Proposal: Partial Privatization

The answer to this situation is privatization. In a world where police can be used to address every minor complaint, there will be no incentive on the part of the public to limit the use of police services to true emergencies and criminal behavior. If those who use police services were expected to pay for the service, however, we would quickly find a reduction in the habit of calling the police for services unrelated to crime. Moreover, a reduction in police services in these cases would also open up markets for private firms to address these issues at lower cost and with less threat of deadly force.

Naturally, opponents of privatization will complain that privatization will lead to only big corporations and rich people being able to benefit from crime prevention services. As Murray Rothbard and Tate Fegley have shown (see here, here, and here), this is an unconvincing argument.

In the spirit of compromise, however, let's begin with baby steps and limit taxpayer-provided police services to criminal activities only. Even better, let's limit them to real violent crime and property crime, and not to non-crimes such as drug offenses and "crimes" such as carrying knives and selling loose cigarettes.

For now, "crime prevention" would still remain "free." If, however, you want to call in people with guns to get your son off the Xbox, you can pay a private firm for that.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 08:00 PM

The Broken Windows Theory of Policing Has Failed

https://mises.org/blog/broken-windows-theory-policing-has-failed

07/14/2016 Ryan McMaken

[This is Part Three of a three-part series on policing. See Part One and Part Two.]

One of the most successful ideological movements waged by government agencies in recent decades has been the so-called Broken Windows theory of policing. Popularized in the 1980s by George Kelling, the theory states that if minor violations are ignored — such as the breaking of a window on private property — then those small infractions will act as a signal to others in the community that more serious crimes can be committed with impunity.

In political and policing circles, this theory became immensely popular during the 1990s and persists today, although repeated demonstrations of the forceful and deadly methods used by police to address small-time infractions has prompted many to ask if coming down hard on every little thing is really the best way to police a neighborhood.

While Kelling successfully reinvigorated the idea, the Broken Windows theory in the 1980s, was not new or novel. It was simply the latest manifestation of what has also been termed "community policing" and "order maintenance" policing.

At their core, these ideas taken together depend on the idea that police interactions with community members should be expanded well beyond criminal activities while giving police officers more discretion over what laws to enforce, and when.

Two Views: Community Policing vs. Limited Policing

Community policing and order maintenance policing have long been in tension with competing views of policing in which the police should be more limited in their role and focused more on serious and violent crime.

Not surprisingly, as police agencies took shape for the first time in the United States in the nineteenth century, many Americans took the view that policing should be limited in scope.

In his essay "Community Policing in the United States," Jack Greene notes that "the American police service was originally cast as a reactive force, not as a preventive of interdicting force ... America's police were to provide assistance on request, not to proactively intervene in the lives of the community." (See more from Greene on four different policing models.)

It was recognized that more police power and more police discretion to initiate interactions with the public would lead to corruption. The coercive and monopolistic power that comes with government policing brings the ability to demand compliance and resources from the public for personal advantage, and the advantage of state institutions. The best safeguard, early skeptics of policing concluded, was to carefully limit police power.

It did not take long for the skeptics to be proven right.

Greene continues:

The police of the late 19th and early 20th century were unlikely to be seen as extension of "the community." More often, they were viewed by citizens as extension fo corrupt politicians or as criminal enterprises. While charged with enforcing the laws, the early American police were not often lawful — the law was neither a means not and ends for the police. Rather, the law was often selectively invoked for political, administrative or corrupt purposes.

Not surprisingly, many reformers attempted to reduce police corruption then by seeking "to control in detailed ways the actions of the police." Reformers suspected that police who were given discretion to enforce a wide variety of laws according to their own judgment were more prone to use the law enforcement system for personal purposes, whether for outright extortion, or to improve one's own career prospects.

The reformers were successful, to a certain extent, at pushing through a more "professional" model of policing in the twentieth century. The new model of professionalism put distance between police officers and the community. The community was engaged for purposes of crime fighting, and police focused on emphasizing their role in combating dangerous criminals. It's not a coincidence that this new model of professionalism manifests itself by the middle of the twentieth century in popular culture through fictional characters like Joe Friday of the long-running Dragnet franchise about the Los Angeles police department. Friday is distant from the community, professional, straitlaced, efficient, and interested only in facts.

Reformers sought to professionalize the police as part of an effort to distance the police from the political machinery of the time, thinking this would reduce police corruption. This may have been helpful, although the corrupting nature of law enforcement monopolies continued, as one might expect.

The problem of police corruption was hardly solved in the decades following these initial reforms. Greene continues:

Early studies of the American police in the 1950s and 1960s did not necessarily support a benign biew of the public law enforcement or of its agents. More often, the police were found: to use excessive violence toward personal ends; to punish non-respect with arrest; to be socially and politically cynical; and to be rooted in local customs and traditions, despite years of reform efforts. Later studies in the 1970s suggested that the preventive capacity of the police was largely mythical, that rapid response was largely ineffective, and that detective work was largely overrated, generally by detectives themselves."

Calls for a more explicit return to "community policing" came in the 1960s and 1970s with significant increases in street crime and social unrest in the United States. It was thought that if the police would engage the community in a variety of ways beyond mere crime fighting, then this would defuse racial tensions and other socio-economic conflicts apparent within urban communities.

Thus, by the early 1980s, when Kelling and James Q. Wilson wrote this influential essay in The Atlantic explaining the basics of the Broken Windows theory, they were able to portray community policing as something new that might address the failures of older models of policing.

Broken Windows Theory Has Often Been Abused and Misapplied

It's important to note, though, that the vision of Kelling and Wilson was not the crude model of policing that is used today under the label or the Broken Windows theory. (What is used today is often a hybrid of the Broken Windows model and the "zero-tolerance" model.)

Kelling had always advocated a soft approach to policing in which arrests and summonses were only one tool of many employed by the police. In Kelling's vision, effective community policing had to be done on foot, and the police officer relied largely on his personality and his relationships with the community to maintain order. The officer was in no position to use overwhelming force against community members or retreat into an armored vehicle. Kelling writes:

An officer on foot cannot separate himself from the street people; if he is approached, only his uniform and his personality can help him manage whatever is about to happen. And he can never be certain what that will be — a request for directions, a plea for help, an angry denunciation, a teasing remark, a confused babble, a threatening gesture.

The philosophy of order maintenance employed by Kelling rested on the idea that frequent use of violence on the part of the officer (i.e., tasing and arresting members of the community) would be counter to the entire point of community policing and order maintenance.

Modern policing done in the name of the Broken Windows theory, however, relies largely on summonses, citations, arrests, and physical violence to enforce laws against any number of minor infractions including carrying knives, selling loose cigarettes, smoking a joint, jaywalking, and other "offenses" that should be regarded as completely non-criminal.

In spite of Kelling's original intentions, Broken-Windows-style policing has come to mean rigid and aggressive enforcement of small-time violations.

What Kelling might consider "abuse" is now often the norm, when it comes to the practical application of the theory. In fact, the Broken Windows theory in many communities has been used to justify legal regimes built largely on extracting large amounts of resources from working class and lower class neighborhoods in the form of fines, court fees, and other legal costs.

In Ferguson, Missouri, for example, where a jaywalking intervention led to the shooting death of Michael Brown, it was revealed that the city of Ferguson was in the habit of issuing unusually large numbers of citations and fines for non-violent violations. The city then arrested citizens who did not pay the fines, putting them in what are effectively debtors prisons.

This tactic has been used elsewhere as well. In a recent Frontline analysis, the author noted similar practices have been employed in Newark, New Jersey where so-called "blue summonses" have been liberally issued throughout the community.

Broken-Windows Theory As an Excuse for More Heavy-Handed Policing

This, however, is what we would expect from a police force that enjoys immunity, monopoly powers, and is far more heavily armed than the general population. Why engage in the Kelling model of community policing when it is far more lucrative — and requires far less patience and risk — to simply arrest or open fire upon anyone who shows "disrespect"?

In both the Ferguson and Newark cases, the Broken Windows model was been used to justify more citations and arrests, but, as the Frontline report notes: "the frequent stops and citations made people mistrust the police, and much less likely to cooperate when officers were investigating serious crimes."

Enforcement of small-times crimes thus may harm police efforts to catch serious criminals. Nor does enforcement of low-level offenses mean that people likely to commit serious crime are even being targeted. In the case of Newark, for example, large percentages of summonses were going to people who were "in their 50s or 60s or maybe even older."

People over fifty are not the people committing serious crimes. But, older residents have been easy targets for police, so it is they who receive the citations.

This disconnect between real crime and petty offenses is not sufficient to dissuade police officers and police departments from continuing to crack down on small-time offenders. After all, there are career incentives for making large numbers of arrests and issuing large numbers of citations. In the case of Newark, "officers who racked up summonses were chosen for plum assignments" while officers also targeted the easier-to-victimize populations such as the elderly, disabled, and mentally ill.

Trends like these have long been shaped by police department policy which rewards police officers who take a harsh stance against minor offenses, while police to focus on more serious crime are less often rewarded. Police Historian David Simon writes:

How do you reward cops? Two ways: promotion and cash. That's what rewards a cop. If you want to pay overtime pay for having police fill the jails with loitering arrests or simple drug possession or failure to yield, if you want to spend your municipal treasure rewarding that, well the cop who’s going to court 7 or 8 days a month — and court is always overtime pay — you're going to damn near double your salary every month. On the other hand, the guy who actually goes to his post and investigates who's burglarizing the homes, at the end of the month maybe he’s made one arrest. It may be the right arrest and one that makes his post safer, but he's going to court one day and he's out in two hours. So you fail to reward the cop who actually does police work.

Naturally, local governments also have a lot to gain from demanding fines and payments for court costs from defendants.

Does It Reduce Serious Crime?

Politicians have long embraced the Broken Windows theory and assumed that order-maintenance policing reduces all types of crime. The evidence does not warrant such an assumption.

In Policing in America, Larry Gaines and Victor Kappeler conclude flatly "there is little proof that order maintenance policing impacts serious violent crime," although there is evidence that it reduces the incidence of lesser offenses.

The theory nevertheless remains popular. The poster child for the Broken Windows theory is usually presented as New York City where many have noted a significant improvement in crime during the 1990s. This is then credited to the aggressive enforcement of laws against a variety of minor offenses. Ignored, of course, is the fact that New York experienced historic levels of economic growth during this period and that crime nationwide declined significantly over the same period. Numerous large cities throughout the United States during this period experienced similar trends in the absence of similar police policies.

In an article in the American Journal of Sociology, Robert Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush deny there is a proven link between "public disorder" and crime. ("Public disorder" includes activities such as vagrancy, prostitution, drinking in public, and drug selling.) The authors conclude socio-demographic issues and physical neighborhood characteristics are far more important to the equation: "Attacking public disorder through tough police tactics may thus be a politically popular but perhaps analytically weak strategy to reduce crime."

Some of the confusion over the effectiveness of community policing stems from inexact use of definitions of crime. If one defines drug selling and prostitution as "crimes" then harsh penalties against those "crimes" will tend to lessen them. On the other hand, if one limits the definition of "crime" to violence, theft, destruction of property and other acts with a specific identifiable victim — as one should — then we find it much more difficult to connect public disorder to real crime.

In evaluating the success of community policing, one must also evaluate the side effects of more aggressive enforcement. Police shootings, violent confrontations and civil unrest must all also be factored into claims that community policing has improved conditions within a community. There is also evidence that incarcerating people for small infractions makes them more likely to commit crimes later. Because incarceration can have long term affects on one's ability to earn a living through legal means, researcher Michael Mueller-Smith concluded "incarceration led to increased criminality for inmates after re-entry."

Community Policing Is More About Politics than Crime Reduction

By mentioning politics in their conclusions, Sampson and Raudenbush may have hit on the true reason for the popularity of the Broken Windows theory. Although it has not been shown to reduce serious crime, the theory remains politically popular and allows politicians to claim they are being active in punishing and preventing crime.

Even Kelling admitted that order maintenance policing often cannot be shown to reduce crime, but it remains valuable, in Kelling's view, for other reasons. The key, Kelling notes, lies in the fact that a neighborhood can be "'safer' when the crime rate has not gone down." This is because when the Broken Windows theory is employed, people will often feel safer in spite of the reality. Now, feeling safer is not the same thing as being safer, but the claim is that order maintenance policing is important because it improves "quality of life" and perceptions of the community.

At this point then, Kelling — and backers of the Broken Windows theory in general — have been reduced to admitting that when used for order maintenance, police are really quality-of-life agents and not crime fighters at all.

Faced with this, then, we must ask ourselves if the same people who are trained to capture rapists and murders with deadly weapons need to be the same people who shoo away aging drunks who engage in public drinking.

There is good reason to suspect the private sector could easily provide these services. As Murray Rothbard has noted, order maintenance at the street level is low-hanging fruit as far as private-sector security goes, with merchants and other community members highly motivated to pool private resources to keep the streets clear of people who impede commerce and restrict use of public spaces. Indeed, this sort of order maintenance can be — and has been — accomplished quite easily in privately-owned public spaces such as common areas of housing developments and multifamily housing complexes, shopping malls, parking lots, amusement parks, downtown plazas, outdoor food courts, and similar areas. This sort of security is carried out daily by private security worldwide. (See Tate Fegley on this topic, as well.) Moreover, these neighborhood-controlled agents would be answerable to the local owners and residents, and not to centralized political machines, police chiefs, or other government agents who stand to benefit personally from aggressive enforcement.

The reason we see so little of this in practice, though, is the fact that the public sector has already crowded out the private sector in matters of order maintenance. Since one can easily access (at least in theory) taxpayer-subsidized police services via 911, there is an enormous incentive to rely on "free" police services, even if those services are more likely to bring the possibility of violence, abuse, or unreliable service. Why employ private agents to tell drug dealers to find some other street corner when the police will show up (eventually) and do it for free?

Community Policing Expands State Power and Discretion

Early critics of police agencies were right when they immediately identified the downside of active community policing: It gives police agents wide discretion to take action against the general population, while increasing opportunities for coercive intervention in the lives of private citizens. A police force that is encouraged and empowered to intervene in any number of non-violent activities by citizens is also a police force that has wide leeway to extort, threaten, arrest, and assault private citizens over any number of small-time "transgressions" that don't rise to the level of crime.

Many "fixes" have been offered for the problem of police corruption and abuse. As early reformers knew, though, the only truly reliable way to reduce corruption and needlessly violent police interactions is to reduce police discretion and to reduce the number and scope of laws that police are called upon to enforce. "Community policing" or "order maintenance" are really just another way of describing a large expansion of police power.

So long as police forces enjoy monopoly powers, and are subject to political, rather than market control, the only way to minimize the potential for police abuse is to minimize their legal reach. If Americans as a society want government police who will be tasked with finding murderers and rapists, they also need to understand that these tasks do not necessitate a police force that spends its days citing local residents for broken tail lights and drinking a beer in public. Giving police wide latitude to be aggressive against the population in the name of order maintenance, on the other hand, is likely to breed resentment, suspicion, and obstacles to enforcing laws against more serious crimes. It's time to admit that the Broken Windows theory is failed and the answer lies in limiting police powers, not in expanding them.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 08:14 PM

It hasn't.

Why should I believe things'll be different now?

What's changed?

You could quote me several hundred times stating;

"Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up"

Which I hold out to be an unequivocal truth.

In this thread the discussion revolves around "Law-n-Order Republicans", a specific area of government and a specific party in government who have consistently failed in the area being discussed....Thus bolstering my claim.

Chicken$#@! dismissals with unsubstantiated claims of allegiance to any one philosophy to justify false superiority is "fightin' words"...;)

I like to think I get along quite well with the anarchists who post here, I can think of two in-particular who are extremely intelligent and well spoken...

Same with the libertarian faction....

I have never been dismissed by them or vice-versa...

Holier than thou gets my goat every time..........

You say there is nothing government should do, therefore you are an Anarchist, if you believe you are right then you should be proud, instead you take insult when I call you what you are and try to weasel out of admitting what you believe.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 08:20 PM

It hasn't.

Why should I believe things'll be different now?

What's changed?

Can it?

Can you name anything that government and central planning has accomplished that was not:

A - Wildly overpriced.

B - Superfluous.

C - Badly managed.

D - Mandated that the people comply with, at the barrel of a cop's gun.

E - All of the above.

Nothing in life has ever been done perfectly, ALL systems succumb to corruption, civilization does better with government than without.
This is the last I will say about this because you can't debate Anarchists, they are to committed to their fantasy that they can solve all problems by converting everyone to their philosophical religion.

tod evans

07-21-2017, 08:21 PM

You say there is nothing government should do, therefore you are an Anarchist, if you believe you are right then you should be proud, instead you take insult when I call you what you are and try to weasel out of admitting what you believe.

Once again fuck you!

DO NOT try to tell me what I am you useless piece of shit.

And stop putting words in my mouth! I'll type exactly what I mean there's no need for you to try and interpret.

tod evans

07-21-2017, 08:28 PM

Could you just name something specific? Post office? Design the flag?

How 'bout sticking to the topic of this thread?

Law-n-Order..... I do not want to subject other communities/counties or states to the Law-n-Order of my community, nor do I want their Law-n-Order imposed on my community....

I feel very strongly that the biggest problem in almost all democracies/republics is allowing parasites to vote. Only people that pay more in taxes than they get in benefits should be allowed to vote.

I could agree with this IF government 'employees' contractors and pensioners would be barred from voting too...

Existing off government largess is all the same to me.....A federal judge or a welfare crack-whore are both suckin' up tax dollars.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 08:31 PM

I'm amazed that NorthCarolinaLiberty isn't calling out Swordsmyth out for a troll at his point!

This forum is entertaining.

Ender

07-21-2017, 08:32 PM

You say there is nothing government should do, therefore you are an Anarchist, if you believe you are right then you should be proud, instead you take insult when I call you what you are and try to weasel out of admitting what you believe.

Mirror?

Stop with the names and insults- only shows that you have no argument.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 08:33 PM

Nothing in life has ever been done perfectly, ALL systems succumb to corruption, civilization does better with government than without.

Then why on earth would you think it was good idea to put phalanxes of heavily armed enforcers of same in every town, boro and neighborhood across the country?

And I was just looking for one, just one, example.

This is the last I will say about this because you can't debate Anarchists, they are to committed to their fantasy that they can solve all problems by converting everyone to their philosophical religion.

My position is quite clear and consistent for over ten years now.

You can look to my voluminous past posting history to see where I stand on this.

If that makes me an anarchist, so be it...but there's no reason to leave, I'm just asking questions.

Here's another: Is the United States, in 2017, a police state?

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 08:35 PM

Mirror?

Stop with the names and insults- only shows that you have no argument.
Words have meaning, someone who believes government should not do anything is an Anarchist look it up.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 08:35 PM

Ender

07-21-2017, 08:38 PM

Words have meaning, someone who believes government should not do anything is an Anarchist look it up.

I know exactly what an anarchist is.

Someone who thinks gov should take care of government created problems while acting like it's not a government problem, is a neocon- look it up.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 08:38 PM

Then why on earth would you think it was good idea to put phalanxes of heavily armed enforcers of same in every town, boro and neighborhood across the country?

And I was just looking for one, just one, example.

My position is quite clear and consistent for over ten years now.

You can look to my voluminous past posting history to see where I stand on this.

If that makes me an anarchist, so be it...but there's no reason to leave, I'm just asking questions.

Here's another: Is the United States, in 2017, a police state?

If you read the rest of this thread you will see that I want less police and less laws, but some people run around demanding that we should have none.

The answer to your question depends on your exact location in this continent wide nation, some places are others are not.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 08:39 PM

I know exactly what an anarchist is.

Someone who thinks gov should take care of government created problems while acting like it's not a government problem, is a neocon- look it up.
Not when the problem was that government failed to do something it should.

Ender

07-21-2017, 08:39 PM

And yet there is a campaign to red bar Zippy. LMAO.

Ya think? :rolleyes:

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 08:39 PM

Words have meaning, someone who believes government should not do anything is an Anarchist look it up.

I have.

Many times.

Anarchy, in its most strict sense, is a state of existence in which there are no rulers.

Origin and Etymology of anarchy:

Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler

c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 08:40 PM

And yet there is a campaign to red bar Zippy. LMAO.
Zippy frequently opposes the goals of this site and Dr. Ron Paul.

Ender

07-21-2017, 08:41 PM

Not when the problem was that government failed to do something it should.

BULLSHIT. Your special little "me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, now, now, now" problem was created by government.

Ender

07-21-2017, 08:42 PM

Zippy frequently opposes the goals of this site and Dr. Ron Paul.

No- he just looks at all sides- and he's NEVER called anybody on the forum names.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 08:42 PM

If you read the rest of this thread you will see that I want less police and less laws....

What's your Min/Max?

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 08:43 PM

If you read the rest of this thread you will see that I want less police and less laws, but some people run around demanding that we should have none.

The answer to your question depends on your exact location in this continent wide nation, some places are others are not.

Yes, I read the whole thread and your responses...I don't abandon threads and, since I was able to post this in GP and not in the dungeon, it's nice to actually get some responses and to talk about this.

In the areas that are not, which are those and why?

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 08:45 PM

I have.

Many times.

Anarchy, in its most strict sense, is a state of existence in which there are no rulers.

Origin and Etymology of anarchy:

Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler

c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
Utopian Means fantasy.
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 08:48 PM

Yes, I read the whole thread and your responses...I don't abandon threads and, since I was able to post this in GP and not in the dungeon, it's nice to actually get some responses and to talk about this.

In the areas that are not, which are those and why?

They are the areas with less police and less laws, generally they have lower populations and tend towards the conservative end of politics, this description also explains th why.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 08:49 PM

Utopian Means fantasy.
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy

Heavier than air flight was generally regarded as utopian fantasy.

Until it wasn't.

Don't you want a world where you are accountable to, and must comply with, no man but yourself?

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 08:50 PM

They are the areas with less police and less laws, generally they have lower populations and tend towards the conservative end of politics, this description also explains th why.

So, areas with less police and less laws are more free?

In other words, less government = more freedom.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 08:54 PM

What's your Min/Max?
That is a very complex question, but I will try to give some simplistic rough answers.

Min: The Old west, not including progressive cities like Dodge where the citizens were denied their 2nd amendment rights.
Max: This one is harder but it would probably be somewhere around the 1900s and 1910s.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 08:56 PM

Heavier than air flight was generally regarded as utopian fantasy.

Until it wasn't.

Don't you want a world where you are accountable to, and must comply with, no man but yourself?
Until God purges the world of evil and brings us his Kingdom I do not, the weak among us need to be protected from the strong.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 08:57 PM

Zippy frequently opposes the goals of this site and Dr. Ron Paul.

He really doesn't. If you can site something then go ahead.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 08:58 PM

So, areas with less police and less laws are more free?

In other words, less government = more freedom.
To a point, if you decrease government below that threshold Tyrants and criminals will seize control and impose excessive government upon you and you will then have very little freedom.

Ender

07-21-2017, 09:02 PM

Most have an incorrect definition of anarchy.

This one is how most "anarchists" see it:

Anarchy
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Writes Bruce Bartlett: “I note The Economist’s definition of anarchy: ‘Anarchy means the complete absence of law or government. It may be harmonious or chaotic.’

“While it is good to see the magazine concede that anarchy may be harmonious, it errs in saying that it necessarily means an absence of law. It is the absence of government only. Law can continue to function.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/anarchy/

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 09:05 PM

No- he just looks at all sides- and he's NEVER called anybody on the forum names.

He really doesn't. If you can site something then go ahead.

On this thread he opposed an audit of the fed and the gold standard:
Trump Meeting with John Allison: Wants to abolish Federal Reserve and return to Gold (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504722-Trump-Meeting-with-John-Allison-Wants-to-abolish-Federal-Reserve-and-return-to-Gold-Standard&highlight=zippy+doesn%27t+fed+audited)
And that is just the easiest one I can remember

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 09:05 PM

That is a very complex question, but I will try to give some simplistic rough answers.

Min: The Old west, not including progressive cities like Dodge where the citizens were denied their 2nd amendment rights.
Max: This one is harder but it would probably be somewhere around the 1900s and 1910s.

I guess you are going to have to explain yourself by being a little bit more involved.

Can you give me 2 paragraphs of at least 125 characters each each explaining and defending your Min/Max?

Mike4Freedom

07-21-2017, 09:08 PM

To a point, if you decrease government below that threshold Tyrants and criminals will seize control and impose excessive government upon you and you will then have very little freedom.

Tyrants amd criminals are nothing without a legion of uniformed soldiers. The uniforms give them legitimacy. This is far more dangerous then letting man be man and decide his own fate.

At least with the mafia, they left you alone after you paid your "protection money"

Ender

07-21-2017, 09:09 PM

On this thread he opposed an audit of the fed and the gold standard:
Trump Meeting with John Allison: Wants to abolish Federal Reserve and return to Gold (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504722-Trump-Meeting-with-John-Allison-Wants-to-abolish-Federal-Reserve-and-return-to-Gold-Standard&highlight=zippy+doesn%27t+fed+audited)
And that is just the easiest one I can remember

Again- Zip looks at all sides of the question & brings them into the conversation. I've never been bothered by it because it saves me from having to go there myself.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 09:10 PM

Ender

07-21-2017, 09:12 PM

Like....what we have now.

Beat me to it. ;)

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 09:12 PM

I guess you are going to have to explain yourself by being a little bit more involved.

Can you give me 2 paragraphs of at least 125 characters each each explaining and defending your Min/Max?
No any more detail would require a lot more words than that. Law and government are extremely complex and the philosophical ground has already been well trodden, you shouldn't need me to lay out a whole legal code in order to understand.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 09:12 PM

Until God purges the world of evil and brings us his Kingdom I do not, the weak among us need to be protected from the strong.

The strong and powerful skate.

The weak and helpless go to prison.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 09:16 PM

Like....what we have now.

Beat me to it. ;)

Or much worse, and unlike what we had in the beginning, and yes I know we had problems from the start but they were minimized.
You can't get perfection in this life, you could get better than we have or even better than what we started with, but as I pointed out Anarchy will bring you what we have or worse in short order.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 09:16 PM

No any more detail would require a lot more words than that. Law and government are extremely complex and the philosophical ground has already been well trodden, you shouldn't need me to lay out a whole legal code in order to understand.

And you replied earlier that my neg rep was not warranted. Lol.

Ender

07-21-2017, 09:18 PM

Or much worse, and unlike what we had in the beginning, and yes I know we had problems from the start but they were minimized.
You can't get perfection in this life, you could get better than we have or even better than what we started with, but as I pointed out Anarchy will bring you what we have or worse in short order.

Maybe you ought to read a little more Heinlein:

"An armed society is a polite society."
-Robert A. Heinlein

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 09:19 PM

The strong and powerful skate.

The weak and helpless go to prison.
In our current state of thing many do, but not all.
And you are only looking at the top of the food chain many big mean criminals go to prison where they belong, and where they can't burglarize or mug geeks and little old ladies.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 09:20 PM

Maybe you ought to read a little more Heinlein:

"An armed society is a polite society."
-Robert A. Heinlein
I want an armed society but not everyone is proficient in the use of arms.

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 09:24 PM

Maybe you ought to read a little more Heinlein:

"An armed society is a polite society."
-Robert A. Heinlein

Reading links is not his forte. Responding in non-subject matter and personal attacks is more his style.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 09:28 PM

Until God purges the world of evil and brings us his Kingdom I do not, the weak among us need to be protected from the strong.

What do you think of Romans 13?

phill4paul

07-21-2017, 09:31 PM

This kid is comic gold here on RPFs.

I want an armed society but not everyone is proficient in the use of arms.

Just gotta shift some words...

I want everyone to drive cars but not everyone is proficient in the use of cars.

What the fuck does what he said mean? Anyone? Anyone?

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 09:31 PM

What do you think of Romans 13?
Paul was a Heretic who defied god on at least one occasion after his conversion, reading his writings requires one to "eat the meat and spit out the bones".
Romans 13 is a bone.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 09:33 PM

This kid is comic gold here on RPFs.

Just gotta shift some words...

I want everyone to drive cars but not everyone is proficient in the use of cars.

What the $#@! does what he said mean? Anyone? Anyone?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Swordsmyth http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6500807#post6500807)
I want an armed society but not everyone is proficient in the use of arms.

It means not everyone is capable of defending his rights from the evil among us by him/herself.
My Grandmothers come to mind.

Anti Federalist

07-21-2017, 09:47 PM

Paul was a Heretic who defied god on at least one occasion after his conversion, reading his writings requires one to "eat the meat and spit out the bones".
Romans 13 is a bone.

See, common ground.

I agree.

Ender

07-21-2017, 10:25 PM

I want an armed society but not everyone is proficient in the use of arms.

So. What. AND most used to be until .gov started taking rights away.

Ender

07-21-2017, 10:26 PM

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Swordsmyth http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6500807#post6500807)
I want an armed society but not everyone is proficient in the use of arms.

It means not everyone is capable of defending his rights from the evil among us by him/herself.
My Grandmothers come to mind.

My grandma can whip the tar outta most users- and she's pretty good with a sword too. ;)

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 10:30 PM

My grandma can whip the tar outta most users- and she's pretty good with a sword too. ;)
Good for her, millions of people are too old or too sick or too clumsy.

TheTexan

07-21-2017, 10:43 PM

It's pretty rude to call someone an anarchist.

Have some manners.

Ender

07-21-2017, 10:44 PM

Good for her, millions of people are too old or too sick or too clumsy.

So, you want more gov to handle this? Makes no sense. Freedom is the only answer.

Here's a good article on the Not-So-Wild-West:

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

In contrast, an alternative literature based on actual history concludes that the civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was not very violent. Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier “was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today” (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “[t]he West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved” (1979, 10).

What were these private protective agencies? They were not governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on keeping order. Instead, they included such organizations as land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains.

So-called land clubs were organizations established by settlers before the U.S. government even surveyed the land, let alone started to sell it or give it away. Because disputes over land titles are inevitable, the land clubs adopted their own constitutions, laying out the “laws” that would define and protect property rights in land (Anderson and Hill 1979, 15). They administered land claims, protected them from outsiders, and arbitrated disputes. Social ostracism was used effectively against those who violated the rules. Establishing property rights in this way minimized disputes—and violence.

The wagon trains that transported thousands of people to the California gold fields and other parts of the West usually established their own constitutions before setting out. These constitutions often included detailed judicial systems. As a consequence, writes Benson, “[t]here were few instances of violence on the wagon trains even when food became extremely scarce and starvation threatened. When crimes against persons or their property were committed, the judicial system . . . would take effect” (1998, 102). Ostracism and threats of banishment from the group, instead of threats of violence, were usually sufficient to correct rule breakers’ behavior.

This is REAL anarchy.^^^^

And the REAL cause of violence in the west was the government:

The Real Cause of Violence in the American West

The real culture of violence in the American West of the latter half of the nineteenth century sprang from the U.S. government’s policies toward the Plains Indians. It is untrue that white European settlers were always at war with Indians, as popular folklore contends. After all, Indians assisted the Pilgrims and celebrated the first Thanksgiving with them; John Smith married Pocahontas; a white man (mostly Scots, with some Cherokee), John Ross, was the chief of the Cherokees of Tennessee and North Carolina; and there was always a great deal of trade with Indians, as opposed to violence. As Jennifer Roback has written, “Europeans generally acknowledged that the Indians retained possessory rights to their lands. More important, the English recognized the advantage of being on friendly terms with the Indians. Trade with the Indians, especially the fur trade, was profitable. War was costly” (1992, 9). Trade and cooperation with the Indians were much more common than conflict and violence during the first half of the nineteenth century.

Terry Anderson and Fred McChesney relate how Thomas Jefferson found that during his time negotiation was the Europeans’ predominant means of acquiring land from Indians (1994, 56). By the twentieth century, some $800 million had been paid for Indian lands. These authors also argue that various factors can alter the incentives for trade, as opposed to waging a war of conquest as a means of acquiring land. One of the most important factors is the existence of a standing army, as opposed to militias, which were used in the American West prior to the War Between the States. On this point, Anderson and McChesney quote Adam Smith, who wrote that “‘[i]n a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character.’” (1994, 52). A standing army, according to Anderson and McChesney, “creates a class of professional soldiers whose personal welfare increases with warfare, even if fighting is a negative-sum act for the population as a whole” (52).

The change from militia to a standing army took place in the American West immediately upon the conclusion of the War Between the States. The result, say Anderson and McChesney, was that white settlers and railroad corporations were able to socialize the costs of stealing Indian lands by using violence supplied by the U.S. Army. On their own, they were much more likely to negotiate peacefully. Thus, “raid” replaced “trade” in white–Indian relations. Congress even voted in 1871 not to ratify any more Indian treaties, effectively announcing that it no longer sought peaceful relations with the Plains Indians.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 10:53 PM

So, you want more gov to handle this? Makes no sense. Freedom is the only answer.

Here's a good article on the Not-So-Wild-West:

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

This is REAL anarchy.^^^^

And the REAL cause of violence in the west was the government:

NOT more government, I want less, but not none, those miners courts etc. that Anarchists are so fond of were known as Kangaroo courts in Australia, they were quite often tyrannical and unjust, and the people of the west wanted sheriffs and deputies in addition to their "armed society", As population and wealth rose so did crime and the need for law enforcement.

Ender

07-21-2017, 11:19 PM

NOT more government, I want less, but not none, those miners courts etc. that Anarchists are so fond of were known as Kangaroo courts in Australia, they were quite often tyrannical and unjust, and the people of the west wanted sheriffs and deputies in addition to their "armed society", As population and wealth rose so did crime and the need for law enforcement.

You didn't even read this did you?

Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “[t]he West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved” (1979, 10).

What were these private protective agencies? They were not governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on keeping order. Instead, they included such organizations as land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains.

So-called land clubs were organizations established by settlers before the U.S. government even surveyed the land, let alone started to sell it or give it away. Because disputes over land titles are inevitable, the land clubs adopted their own constitutions, laying out the “laws” that would define and protect property rights in land (Anderson and Hill 1979, 15). They administered land claims, protected them from outsiders, and arbitrated disputes. Social ostracism was used effectively against those who violated the rules. Establishing property rights in this way minimized disputes—and violence.

Get out of The Matrix and read some real truth.

Swordsmyth

07-21-2017, 11:26 PM

You didn't even read this did you?

Get out of The Matrix and read some real truth.
Private agencies, like Blackwater? or Pinkertons?
Land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains, were often Tyrannical and unjust, frequently little better than mob rule at one extreme and feudalism at the other.
I have read plenty of western history.

devil21

07-21-2017, 11:31 PM

I had to look it up. I think it was Virgil47.

I, too, remember Virgil to be alright.

(didnt read whole thread)

I remember Virgil. Came off as an Israel hasbara type. Regarding AF's quoted post full of profanity and misspellings (#2), I've found that most of the use of homosexual epithets, gratuitous profanity and generally poor grasp of english are, in fact, foreign hasbara trolls. It's a calling card of sorts. Deflection from the substance of the topic with gratuitous profanity and personal attacks is a sure sign.

In case anyone missed it, the cities in the US are being slowly turned into IDF style Gaza-esque urban concentration camps so it makes sense that the overt defenders of the police state being implemented would be those most intimately familiar with the concept.

tod evans

07-22-2017, 03:54 AM

NOT more government, I want less, but not none, those miners courts etc. that Anarchists are so fond of were known as Kangaroo courts in Australia, they were quite often tyrannical and unjust, and the people of the west wanted sheriffs and deputies in addition to their "armed society", As population and wealth rose so did crime and the need for law enforcement.

Your court system is breaking down at the national level and it will continue to do so.

When people no longer have a say in their own governance the government can't last.

There are factions in these United States that are diametrically opposed and trying to govern them from one set of laws with one all powerful police force while imprisoning scofflaws in one homogeneous universal gulag is a recipe for disaster.

Throw in the lifetime bureaucrat and his pension who are unaffected by such mundane things as elections and you find yourself with the government we all suffer under now..

One I can't in good conscience fight to protect.

Now before you start sputtering 'anarchist' or some other silly misnomer this morning, see if you can figure out how to rid the host society of the cancer this government has become and then describe the minimal government you envision that could co-exist with the differing factions that comprise the country today...

enhanced_deficit

07-22-2017, 09:03 AM

Virgil: Five Points About the Politics of Police Work in America Today

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/20/virgil-five-points-about-the-politics-of-police-work-in-america-today/

by Virgil
20 Jul 2017

.....

Interestingly, the GOP is already moving in this direction—and it’s paying off. For example, in Louisiana, police chief Clay Higgins, the “Cajun John Wayne,” went from creating Gen. Patton-esque videos about law enforcement in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, to the U.S. Congress, where he keeps up the good fight. No doubt many other aspiring political leaders will seek to follow Higgins’ no-nonsense path.
...

Have not read the the whole article to be able to do justice in commenting on this. But one observation I would add that there is significant overlap in "support the cops" and "support the troops" sentiments within much of GOP as well as sizeable "blue-dog" hawkish segments among Dems sometimes charcterized as neocons.

On a sidenote, read interesting freedom news about this police chief recently:

"This is why homeland security must be squared away, why our military must be invincible," says Higgins, a former law enforcement officer who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee. "The world's a smaller place now than it was in World War II. The United States is more accessible to terror like this, horror like this.

"It's hard to walk away from the gas chambers and ovens without a very sober feeling of commitment -- unwavering commitment -- to make damn sure that the United States of America is protected from the evils of the world."
The video was posted Saturday (July 1) to YouTube channel of Lee Johnson Media, "A Conservative Podcast looking at America of Today!" It was first reported by Convenant Spotlight, a magazine that describes itself as "your resource for hope and direction through the Bible."

From Auschwitz, Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins has a message for America (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513184-From-Auschwitz-Louisiana-Congressman-Clay-Higgins-has-a-message-for-America&)

Ender

07-22-2017, 11:08 AM

Private agencies, like Blackwater? or Pinkertons?
Land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains, were often Tyrannical and unjust, frequently little better than mob rule at one extreme and feudalism at the other.
I have read plenty of western history.

I seriously doubt it.

If you had, then you would know that local communities handled their own problems. Blackwater etc are Big Corps that are gov supported, stealing tax-payer's money and NOT concerned about locals. BTW- originally, police were exactly what you just described- Blackwater types that took from so-called criminals and were paid for it.

The Wild West was NOT that wild- only when the Big Corp railroads moved in with fed gov support, did stuff start escalating.

Madison320

07-22-2017, 12:10 PM

I feel very strongly that the biggest problem in almost all democracies/republics is allowing parasites to vote. Only people that pay more in taxes than they get in benefits should be allowed to vote.

And yet there is a campaign to red bar Zippy. LMAO.

What's wrong with what I wrote? Someone help me out here.

And why can't you answer a simple question? You claim you're not an anarchist, yet you can't even list one example of something government should do?

nikcers

07-22-2017, 12:18 PM

What's wrong with what I wrote? Someone help me out here.

And why can't you answer a simple question? You claim you're not an anarchist, yet you can't even list one example of something government should do? A free society is not a lawless society. Libertarians are not anarchists, this is a progressive talking point.

Madison320

07-22-2017, 12:27 PM

A free society is not a lawless society. Libertarians are not anarchists, this is a progressive talking point.

But what was wrong with my statement that only net taxpayers should vote? Why does phill4paul think that is worse than Zippy? I'm confused.

nikcers

07-22-2017, 12:33 PM

But what was wrong with my statement that only net taxpayers should vote? Why does phill4paul think that is worse than Zippy? I'm confused.
Progressives tend to want to change the rule of law instead of following the rule of law.

tod evans

07-22-2017, 12:43 PM

Progressives tend to want to change the rule of law instead of following the rule of law.

Which of the 100's of thousands of laws and edicts should one follow?

I'm not a progressive although some of my politics are to the left of Gandhi...

Nor am I a conservative even though most of my politics are to the right of Attila the Hun....

nikcers

07-22-2017, 12:48 PM

Which of the 100's of thousands of laws and edicts should one follow?

I'm not a progressive although some of my politics are to the left of Gandhi...

Nor am I a conservative even though most of my politics are to the right of Attila the Hun....
You know where I feel safe, where there is private security. There is private security everywhere I go nowadays. I go to walgreens and there is a security guard greeting me and telling me to have a good day. You know where I feel safe, where I can conceal carry, because I know that no one is going to protect my life the way I will. Cops scare the shit out of me, they shoot more innocent people then criminals do in my eyes. Do you call that law and order?

TheCount

07-22-2017, 12:54 PM

That is a very complex question, but I will try to give some simplistic rough answers.

Min: The Old west, not including progressive cities like Dodge where the citizens were denied their 2nd amendment rights.
Max: This one is harder but it would probably be somewhere around the 1900s and 1910s.

How does ICE fit into this?

Were there immigration agents in the old west?

tod evans

07-22-2017, 12:56 PM

You know where I feel safe, where there is private security. There is private security everywhere I go nowadays. I go to walgreens and there is a security guard greeting me and telling me to have a good day. You know where I feel safe, where I can conceal carry, because I know that no one is going to protect my life the way I will. Cops scare the shit out of me, they shoot more innocent people then criminals do in my eyes. Do you call that law and order?

Certainly not.

Now how about answering the question I asked you?

nikcers

07-22-2017, 01:04 PM

Certainly not.

Now how about answering the question I asked you?
I think we should legalize more liberty before we can repeal a lot of laws that perpetuate the Marxist PC culture. I don't think we need a TSA for our local law enforcement and that's where I see this going.

tod evans

07-22-2017, 01:12 PM

I think we should legalize more liberty before we can repeal a lot of laws that perpetuate the Marxist PC culture. I don't think we need a TSA for our local law enforcement and that's where I see this going.

What?

WTF does "legalize more liberty" actually mean?

And how could anyone be against repealing laws?

nikcers

07-22-2017, 01:19 PM

What?

WTF does "legalize more liberty" actually mean?

And how could anyone be against repealing laws?
I don't even understand if you are arguing against my argument or the phrasing or both? I think if I got articulate enough- wrote paragraphs out- you would be pedantic to criticize my spelling.

tod evans

07-22-2017, 01:36 PM

I don't even understand if you are arguing against my argument or the phrasing or both? I think if I got articulate enough- wrote paragraphs out- you would be pedantic to criticize my spelling.

I'm not arguing against anything, I'm trying to understand the point you're making...

nikcers

07-22-2017, 01:40 PM

I'm not arguing against anything, I'm trying to understand the point you're making...
These systemic problems in society can't be fixed by government because they are caused by government. You can't remove the law though without removing the government otherwise there will be tyranny.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

07-22-2017, 01:42 PM

One problem I observe is that many people don't even bother to separate the two words "law" and "order." People put them together, as if they're inseparable. I don't hear people digging deep enough to discuss the differences. Most of today's new legislation and regulation is about order, not about law.

Laws occur naturally; Law has been around for eons. Do not murder. Do not steal. Man doesn't invent laws. Law precedes man. You don't need people who think they are so smart as to declare eureka, and then pretend they came up with something the rest of us did not know about.

Order code that has nothing to do with law:

consensual drug use and purchasing
smoking in a restaurant
occupational licensing
home schooling regs
Obama "Care"
minimum wage
seatbelt & helmet code
police roadblocks
marriage
gambling
gun statutes
rent stabilization/control
eminent domain
paid work family leave
blue "laws"
happy hour legislation
assisted suicide
firework selling restrictions
asset forfeiture
campaign contribution statutes
cable TV regulation
raw milk selling
trans-fat food bans
Etc, etc, etc, etc

NorthCarolinaLiberty

07-22-2017, 01:45 PM

Enforcing law doesn't necessarily require a formal, government body.

Zippyjuan

07-22-2017, 01:51 PM

Zippyjuan

07-22-2017, 01:54 PM

Enforcing law doesn't necessarily require a formal, government body.

How does one encourage compliance with laws? If you want me to obey one of your laws, how can you prevent me from violating it? A law without enforcement capabilities is a useless law. More of a "suggestion" really.

Anti Federalist

07-22-2017, 02:05 PM

How does one encourage compliance with laws? If you want me to obey one of your laws, how can you prevent me from violating it? A law without enforcement capabilities is a useless law. More of a "suggestion" really.

Natural law.

Which is a "physical" law - Equal and opposite reaction.

Don't threaten to hurt me or my family, or I'll turn your head into a canoe.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/co5xVHsMRV0/hqdefault.jpg

Zippyjuan

07-22-2017, 02:09 PM

Natural law.

Which is a "physical" law - Equal and opposite reaction.

Don't threaten to hurt me or my family, or I'll turn your head into a canoe.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/co5xVHsMRV0/hqdefault.jpg

That's nice. But I have one of these- can you still enforce your laws?

http://cdn0.wideopenspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ftd-gercannon.jpg

tod evans

07-22-2017, 02:35 PM

These systemic problems in society can't be fixed by government because they are caused by government. You can't remove the law though without removing the government otherwise there will be tyranny.

Well yeah....

NorthCarolinaLiberty

07-22-2017, 02:38 PM

So all laws come from God and therefore must all be just and fair since none were created by man. Or are they created by the Devil? What is their true source?

(I disagree- all laws aside from laws of physics are created by man).

So if a group of men suddenly declared murder as alright, then you'd be okay with that?

NorthCarolinaLiberty

07-22-2017, 02:38 PM

That's nice. But I have one of these- can you still enforce your laws?

http://cdn0.wideopenspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ftd-gercannon.jpg

Yes. I have one too.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

07-22-2017, 02:39 PM

How does one encourage compliance with laws? If you want me to obey one of your laws, how can you prevent me from violating it?

If you try to kill me, then I can pull a gun and try to stop you. Law of self defense. All animals have a built-in survival instinct.

tod evans

07-22-2017, 02:42 PM

How does one encourage compliance with laws? If you want me to obey one of your laws, how can you prevent me from violating it? A law without enforcement capabilities is a useless law. More of a "suggestion" really.

When a community passes and enforces its own laws everything is grand...

When Fed-Gov wants to pass and enforce laws remotely everything is askew...Same for many states....

Laws and law enforcement must revert to local, directly influenced by the citizens, endeavors....And some, many even, will run afoul of this feel good everybody is equal BS that we have now....

Out here in the Ozarks we have very little in common with those in Ca., why should we try to enforce our laws and beliefs on the libs? Or why should they try to enforce theirs on us?

And this isn't even taking into account the city/country disparity...

Zippyjuan

07-22-2017, 02:54 PM

When a community passes and enforces its own laws everything is grand...

When Fed-Gov wants to pass and enforce laws remotely everything is askew...Same for many states....

Laws and law enforcement must revert to local, directly influenced by the citizens, endeavors....And some, many even, will run afoul of this feel good everybody is equal BS that we have now....

Out here in the Ozarks we have very little in common with those in Ca., why should we try to enforce our laws and beliefs on the libs? Or why should they try to enforce theirs on us?

And this isn't even taking into account the city/country disparity...

Isn't that government?

should we try to enforce our laws and beliefs on the libs? Or why should they try to enforce theirs on us?
Even in a community there are those who do not agree with the laws and beliefs. Should even that community be able to pass and enforce laws? Or should everything be lawless?

nikcers

07-22-2017, 03:09 PM

Isn't that government?

Even in a community there are those who do not agree with the laws and beliefs. Should even that community be able to pass and enforce laws? Or should everything be lawless?
I don't think putting Kalief Browder in jail for years without trial is lawful so I just would have to disagree on what lawless means.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

07-22-2017, 03:20 PM

Or should everything be lawless?

"Everything?" A little hyperbolic, wouldn't you say?

...lawless?

Another misnomer. Rescinding statutes does not make law disappear.

tod evans

07-22-2017, 04:03 PM

Isn't that government?

Yup.

Albeit small enough every resident affected could affect the government.

Even in a community there are those who do not agree with the laws and beliefs. Should even that community be able to pass and enforce laws? Or should everything be lawless?

Of course the community should be able to pass and institute laws, I addressed that very plainly;

Laws and law enforcement must revert to local, directly influenced by the citizens, endeavors....And some, many even, will run afoul of this feel good everybody is equal BS that we have now....

devil21

07-23-2017, 12:14 AM