A Truer Separation Of Powers

[osan]

What I intend here is not really philosophy, but more a philosophically-based architectural plan regarding separation of police power.

I had a brain fart months ago and have now decided to allow the little <fup> to escape my mental anus for your aromatic pleasure and consideration.

We largely agree on these forums that police pose a very serious problem in the United States. As crazy-$#@!ty as Europe is, the police there are generally far more under control in terms of how they discharge their duties. In addition, the definition of their duties appears to differ fundamentally in certain respects from those of cops in America.

I would propose that all police forces have their wings clipped such that there would no longer be police departments as we have come to know and love them, but would rather be re-tasked as Departments of Criminal Investigations. As such, their ONLY function would be to investigate crimes that have already been committed. There would be no issues of "probable cause", proactive enforcement, and all the rest of the great gems of contemporary law enforcement. That function would rightly fall upon the shoulders of the common man.

Investigators would be debarred the possession of arms while on duty so as not to be lead into the apparently irresistible temptation to usurp and violate. Investigators would possess NO POWER TO ARREST unless they were witnessing an actual felonious act in progress, the same as any other individual. They would investigate allegations, gather evidence, write their reports, and file their reports with the Grand Jury. The GJ would then, decide whether to indict, in which case they draft an appropriate warrant, which would then pass to the sheriff for execution. In this world, the sheriff would be allowed ZERO full-time paid deputies, though he might have some administrative officers who would be utterly and sternly debarred from assisting in the execution of any warrant. The sheriff would be utterly dependent upon the good will of his constituent citizens to volunteer for posse duty pursuant to execution of the writ. Upon formation, the posse would be sworn-in with their oath to the uphold, defend, and abide by the Constitution. In addition, every criminal investigator and posse member would be required to reaffirm his oath daily before going on duty such that he would be literally prevented from assuming any position until such time as he swore his oath that day.

This would separate the functions, the powers of investigations and enforcement, which I believe we as a nation sorely need. This has the effect of compartmentalizing knowledge, function, and mental investment, thereby greatly circumscribing not only the actual authority, but the sense of authority such that they do not come to assume powers greater than intended. One-time "cops" are stripped of the powers which they now so habitually and deeply abuse. There would be no career sheriff's deputies, but only sworn volunteers whose prerogatives as such would be sternly limited to the narrowly defined parameters of the role.

It is my belief that this would effectively de-ball the respective institutions to the extent that the currently rampant and wild abuses we experience daily would be almost completely curtailed without diminishing the intended capacities of the respective offices. It would remove any vested mental and emotional interests from the chain of procedure. If an investigator puts much investment in a case, allowing him to serve on the enforcement side runs the risk of his acting out due to that investment. But if he hands his report to the separate GJ, they are able to approach the case in question with greater detachment. The review the evidence and in the "go" cases, issue warrants which are handed over to the "naive" sheriff who convenes a posse and executes with no emotional investment, save perhaps some adrenalin. Mental compartmentalization leads to narrower function and a far greater ability to control behavior that is today completely out of control.

People would be allowed to volunteer for posse duty, say, no more than two non-consecutive months per year. Like investigarors, they would re-swear their oaths every time they are called to duty. I struggle a bit with the question of whether they ought to be paid for their service. Because they volunteer, I am inclined to say "no".


Thoughts?

[Ronin Truth]

And after that we can slice and dice them again.

[helmuth_hubener]

I think this is a good idea, osan.

That said, the only way to have a true separation of powers is to have a poly-centric legal order. If all the power is concentrated in one monopoly organization, then no real separation of powers is possible. Any attempt, such as yours, amounts to creating different divisions within the org and separating out functions among them.

Not that that's not a good thing! Not that that wouldn't be an improvement.

But ultimately, even if the Judge division and the Jury division and the Executioner division of Dell are all split out and separate, maybe even in separate buildings, they're all still part of Dell, and I still don't want Dell to be my judge, jury, and executioner. Nor the Corporation of City X, nor the Corporation of the United States, nor any other corporation. There must be actual separation, between actual separate, independent orgs with independent revenue sources, for separation of powers to be really effective and meaningful to me.

I especially like the part of your proposal that almost eliminates any standing enforcement arm and instead involves the normal people in the community as volunteers. That's less a separation of power and more a taking back of power. That would almost definitely be a big improvement.

[VIDEODROME]

We should consider what government and police should really be for: common security

Not so much minding the behavior of others or penalizing them. I think part of this could include abolishing fines. If someone is that bad of a driver or has injured someone, restrict or revoke their licence, but don't take money from them because that creates an incentive making citizens into targets.

[osan]

I think this is a good idea, osan.

That said, the only way to have a true separation of powers is to have a poly-centric legal order. If all the power is concentrated in one monopoly organization, then no real separation of powers is possible. Any attempt, such as yours, amounts to creating different divisions within the org and separating out functions among them.

Could you elaborate on your notion of a poly-centric legal order in terms of a practical implementation? I have hints of what you may mean floating about in my head but have not been able to zero-in on anything concrete that I can positively attach to that term. We may be thinking the exact same thing, only using different terms.

Not that that's not a good thing! Not that that wouldn't be an improvement.

At this point, any quantum improvement may be welcome.

But ultimately, even if the Judge division and the Jury division and the Executioner division of Dell are all split out and separate, maybe even in separate buildings, they're all still part of Dell, and I still don't want Dell to be my judge, jury, and executioner. Nor the Corporation of City X, nor the Corporation of the United States, nor any other corporation. There must be actual separation, between actual separate, independent orgs with independent revenue sources, for separation of powers to be really effective and meaningful to me.

This is why their powers always hold subordinate to the rights of the individual. Currently, the emphasis appears to be this highly neurotic obsession not only with perfect justice that is ALWAYS meted out by the "state", but that Theye are apparently wholly captive of the notion of time... "We can't have him walking free... every breath he takes as a free man injures his victims further....", or some similar nonsense. This, of course, is the pretext Theye employ to justify their rushing about willy-nilly... so they can "get" the bad guy. This is the sort of thing that leads to sloppy work which in turn leads to raiding the wrong houses and babies getting their faces blown off by grenades. Better to let every criminal go free than to unjustly harm the innocent. But the "system" will have none of that. "We're in charge and we MUST see justice served, no matter who gets hurt." Then, when a baby's face is blown off, they deny all culpa and will go so far as to actually blame their victims after having madly cast about for some shred of evidence by which they may rest their accusations and relieve themselves of all accountability. These people are devils in the flesh; mentally ill demons with little to no chance for recovery. They need to be retired and disallowed from ever holding such positions again because in this they are like child rapists - rehabilitation is effectively impossible.

I especially like the part of your proposal that almost eliminates any standing enforcement arm and instead involves the normal people in the community as volunteers. That's less a separation of power and more a taking back of power. That would almost definitely be a big improvement.

It eliminates the vestment of power and it forces the "people" to remain involved in governing themselves. How many of the common $#@!-ups that these stupid and endlessly corrupt cops commit daily would we see if regular citizens were executing warrants and stood naked before the courts when they brought unjust harm to others during service?

How many judges would do what so many do daily if their judgments were scrutinized and they were similarly made to stand in the buff before another to account for their inept or corrupt pronouncements?

This is all about accountability and the moment you place anyone beyond its reach, tyranny and crime follow directly and all too soon. It is the nature of things.

[helmuth_hubener]

Could you elaborate on your notion of a poly-centric legal order in terms of a practical implementation? I have hints of what you may mean floating about in my head but have not been able to zero-in on anything concrete that I can positively attach to that term.

Multiple competing firms providing service such as:

Dispute resolution
Law creation/discovery
Property protection

which are traditionally provided by a sole monopoly with any competition violently prohibited. Thus, instead of mono-centric: poly-centric. We have poly-centric systems of grocery distribution and computer manufacture, for instance.

[osan]

Multiple competing firms providing service such as:

Dispute resolution
Law creation/discovery
Property protection

which are traditionally provided by a sole monopoly with any competition violently prohibited. Thus, instead of mono-centric: poly-centric. We have poly-centric systems of grocery distribution and computer manufacture, for instance.

OK, I understand. I tend to agree with the possible exception of the notion of them being in competition. I am not convinced that a market-style arrangement is what is needed here. If the markets are truly free, then there is nothing in principle that prevents the rise of an oligopoly or even monopoly. Such a monopolistic entity may have arrived at its position by eminently fair and just means, but once that power rests in that single pair of hands, what is to prevent them from very carefully and cleverly manipulating circumstance such that their placement becomes entrenched and unassailable such that they are then practically empowered to tyrannize, materially unchallenged? Let us also not ignore the microeconomic reality that monopolies acting in their rational self-interest will always underproduce in order to maximize profit. What, I ask, would that look like in the case of, say, a court? Intentionally giving rise to scarcity in justice does not strike me as a desirable result; we have precious little as it is.

What I see as the proper arrangement is your poly-centric notion implemented not in accord with my (possibly flawed) understanding of a free-market scheme, but one where the incentives are contrived such that each player's best interest lies in the firmly avaricious support of the properly established status quo where freedoms and rights are respected; where short-sighted greed incentives fall flat in the face of the longer term and proper drivers that reinforce freedom in the context of proper human relations.

Once again we see that words can be devilish things.

Whatever the specific mechanics, the broader and deeper principles that need to survive the vicissitudes of human impulse, frailty, and fashion must be preserved such the rightful will of the one perfectly countervails those of the many arrayed as one against him. Without this, humanity is forever lost to the whim of tyrants grand and petty.

In even a far better world tyranny may yet abide at times and in places, but let there remain at least a body of truth so well and correctly understood and so broadly and deeply accepted that no tyrant would ever have good legs to assert with even the thinnest veneer of credibility that what they do is just, rightful, and proper. Whatever other circumstance might prevail, let the great plurality of men see and know without doubt, reservation, or equivocation that that to which they bear witness and to which they are subjected is wrong in its whole and all its parts so that at least the tiniest wisp of hope remains that one day a return to propriety might be realized.

[helmuth_hubener]

OK, I understand.

Awesome, thanks. I'm very glad. To be understood is a rare gift.

I tend to agree with the possible exception of the notion of them being in competition. I am not convinced that a market-style arrangement is what is needed here. If the markets are truly free, then there is nothing in principle that prevents the rise of an oligopoly or even monopoly. Such a monopolistic entity may have arrived at its position by eminently fair and just means, but once that power rests in that single pair of hands, what is to prevent them from very carefully and cleverly manipulating circumstance such that their placement becomes entrenched and unassailable such that they are then practically empowered to tyrannize, materially unchallenged?

What prevents a monopoly? What prevents, in other words, essentially a new state from arising, getting us back to where we are now, back to the "square one" of tyranny?

Ideology.

The same force that brought about the freedom of the poly-centric order in the first place is the force that maintains it. We will never get a polycentric legal order without a massive ideological sea change. And it could never be maintained without the continuance of that widespread ideological support for the polycentric way of doing things. But with that ideology in place, the people will never permit one firm to rise to dominance, knowing the risks that would entail, and they would certainly never permit any firm to start down the road of trying to enforce their market position with violence ala our current monopolists.

This is, of course, no news to you. It is exactly what you just wrote:

Whatever the specific mechanics, the broader and deeper principles that need to survive the vicissitudes of human impulse, frailty, and fashion must be preserved...

In even a far better world tyranny may yet abide at times and in places, but let there remain at least a body of truth so well and correctly understood and so broadly and deeply accepted that no tyrant would ever have good legs to assert with even the thinnest veneer of credibility that what they do is just, rightful, and proper. Whatever other circumstance might prevail, let the great plurality of men see and know without doubt, reservation, or equivocation that that to which they bear witness and to which they are subjected is wrong...

Truth, widely understood and believed, is what gets us to freedom, and it is what keeps it... if it does. The knowledge and love of the principles of freedom must be renewed each and every generation.

Or else, as you say:

"Without this, humanity is forever lost to the whim of tyrants grand and petty."

[HVACTech]

I had a brain fart months ago and have now decided to allow the little <fup> to escape my mental anus for your aromatic pleasure and consideration.


Thoughts?

an educated person knows what the difference is between the "police" and the sheriff.

if it says "police" they work for a corporation. if it says Sheriff, they work for the people.

a better idea would be to get rid of the legal fictions known as "corporations"

[osan]

Awesome, thanks. I'm very glad. To be understood is a rare gift.

What prevents a monopoly? What prevents, in other words, essentially a new state from arising, getting us back to where we are now, back to the "square one" of tyranny?

Ideology.

Insufficient. Attitude is the bulk of the solution, but how does one prevent drift in vigilance? As the nation prospers in the face of men willing to kill those of their fellows who endeavor to violate the rest, times improve. As a new generation grows up without the problems of the past, they know nothing in their hearts of what it means to live under tyranny. They relax. After all, life is good, eh? And we all see where that leads, do we not?

I have a possible solution that would be very practical. More later.

The same force that brought about the freedom of the poly-centric order in the first place is the force that maintains it.

Yes, but as per my bit about attitude above, how is the force itself maintained? Brakes stop the car from careening uncontrolled down the steep mountain road, but what maintains the brakes? See my concern?

We will never get a polycentric legal order without a massive ideological sea change.

Agreed. Moreover, that sea change will not be forthcoming so long as people are satisfied with that which they now have. They may gripe about the "economy" and so forth, but they will not peel their fat asses off the couch to do something. Rather, they either do nothing at all or they attach themselves mentally to some cult of personality, going "RAH RAH RAH!" on the sidelines, all the while hoping - nay expecting - someone else to do all the heavy lifting that is required to get done that which they want. Therein lies the core of the problem - FAIL has settled in like a severe infection deep in the bones of people's minds. The only way they will recover from this state of stupor will be through the force of necessity, and even then I believe there are those - plenty in fact - who will sooner go to their doom than change.

And it could never be maintained without the continuance of that widespread ideological support for the polycentric way of doing things. But with that ideology in place, the people will never permit one firm to rise to dominance, knowing the risks that would entail, and they would certainly never permit any firm to start down the road of trying to enforce their market position with violence ala our current monopolists.

But here you describe a very delicate balance, for the "people" themselves are equally capable of becoming the tyrants. When one boils things down to their bare essences, frightful stands the true position of men in relation to each other. The minds of men have been corrupted into the ways of horror. That thought should be keeping us all up at night.

Truth, widely understood and believed, is what gets us to freedom, and it is what keeps it... if it does. The knowledge and love of the principles of freedom must be renewed each and every generation.

I would call truth an essential element, but not sufficient... depending of course on what you mean by "truth".

Now, to my solution.

The problem, restated in summary, is that with good times comes laxation of vigil and the alteration of world view to narrower channels, does it not? "We're not fighting a war... we don't need guns..." Methinks that pretty well sums it up. It is the natural way of the human being not to carry his BAR with him if he perceives himself as being under no threat. Is it lassitude, or perhaps a sense of efficiency that drives people to make such choices? I leave that for the philosophers. Suffice it to know that it is the common phenomenon. Summer comes, people put away their coats and cloaks in favor of shorts and no shoes. Life is good... until it is not. But the bad no longer comes at us in grim raiment, but rather slowly, garbed as are we, and smiling. That is the way of the clever tyrant and enemy. And so it has been in America that Theye have plied their stocks in trade with patience, great cunning, and even boldness at times. The result: here we sit almost as chattel, it almost being miraculous that there remains even this opportunity to hold this discussion in this manner.

What if every person of every generation were to experience tyranny? What if some of the years of their schooling and perhaps even early adulthood were to be devoted in part to tyrannizing them such that they would come to understand what tyranny is, especially vis-à-vis their inborn freedoms, in the effort to cultivate a deep appreciation of those rights?

Perhaps the twelve years of schooling, were we to maintain those dens of insanity, would be the place. Perhaps a mandatory stint of 2 years in the armed forces, no exceptions, could serve as the vehicle.

The point here, would be to subject every child to an increasingly strident tyranny that would illustrate to them just what a blessing freedom really is; to traumatize in a way that is not damaging, but drives home just how evil it is for one man to master another without consent. Employ methods that show the young the various methods of stealth that are employed to lull them into a false sense of security and how their minds can be perverted by bringing into question the soundness of their most fundamentally held beliefs. This is PRECISELY what happened here during the 60s and 70s with the spike of the hippies, thereafter being perverted to fit the progressive agenda and cultivated up until this very day such that what we now regard as ho-hum would have been looked upon as outrageous a mere forty years ago.

Put into each child the terror of tyranny that they will be able to smell it ten miles off in a dead sleep and will act instinctively to remove all such threats by whatever means proves necessary, up to and including separating the ghosts of would-be tyrants from their respective carcasses.

This maintains the state of "warfare" artificially and in a controlled fashion such that no real damage is sustained but the lesson is made.

There ARE solutions. The question remains: are we really interested in them?

[helmuth_hubener]

Well, it is a creative solution.

But I am not a "the means justifies the ends" kind of a guy. Or is that the other way around? Anyway, the point is, the ends and the means start getting scrambled up, if they weren't to begin with. There is no end; there is only a series of actions, an endless series of means.

It can never be acceptable to tyrannize other human beings, even if your goal, your "end" so-called, in doing so, is to ultimately prevent tyranny. We tyrannize to immunize against tyranny? Sounds like having a war to end all wars.

That said, perhaps you are envisioning some sort of "voluntary tyranny" experience, wherein the youth agrees to live under these rigors, due to social pressure from his parents and peers, to go through that shared ordeal and thus be accepted as a brother, and sometimes even due to his own appreciation of the logic you set forth here -- understanding the beneficial immunization against tyranny the simulation may provide. Such a system would not truly be tyranny -- any youth who so chooses could opt to forego his period of simulated serfdom -- and thus it would not violate its own stated ideals.

If not, if the youth cannot opt out, it would of course be an evil and a mockery, a contradiction of itself, a dragon eating its own innards.

[osan]

Well, it is a creative solution.

But I am not a "the means justifies the ends" kind of a guy. Or is that the other way around? Anyway, the point is, the ends and the means start getting scrambled up, if they weren't to begin with. There is no end; there is only a series of actions, an endless series of means.

It can never be acceptable to tyrannize other human beings, even if your goal, your "end" so-called, in doing so, is to ultimately prevent tyranny. We tyrannize to immunize against tyranny? Sounds like having a war to end all wars.

That said, perhaps you are envisioning some sort of "voluntary tyranny" experience, wherein the youth agrees to live under these rigors, due to social pressure from his parents and peers, to go through that shared ordeal and thus be accepted as a brother, and sometimes even due to his own appreciation of the logic you set forth here -- understanding the beneficial immunization against tyranny the simulation may provide. Such a system would not truly be tyranny -- any youth who so chooses could opt to forego his period of simulated serfdom -- and thus it would not violate its own stated ideals.

If not, if the youth cannot opt out, it would of course be an evil and a mockery, a contradiction of itself, a dragon eating its own innards.

I would not make it mandatory, but I believe that it could be made attractive. That aside, it could come in the form of object lessons during one's youth. It does not have to be actual torment - I am sure that humans are abundantly sufficient in their creative capacities to contrive lessons that drive home the salient point with great force without being brutal, which was my whole point. I suppose I was not quite clear.

[helmuth_hubener]

I would not make it mandatory, but I believe that it could be made attractive.

...object lessons during one's youth.
...creative capacities to contrive lessons that drive home the salient point with great force without being brutal, which was my whole point.

Yes, there are lots of ways to do this, to try to instill in the rising generation a love, a passion for freedom, and a character of courage. I understand now what you were saying, I think, and agree. Teaching the young is how we perpetuate all good things, and freedom is no exception. It is absolutely critical, both strategically and tactically, that we direct our message and our efforts largely at the young. That's why I made a thread to recommend good freedom-inculcating books for young people. But books are not enough, you are right. And my choice of word for what will create and preserve freedom, ideology, made it sound too dry and intellectual. It's not.

It is emotional, it is intellectual, it is character, it is willpower, it is a way of approaching problems, it is a way of living life.

It is, in the end, all about people.

There don't have to be many of them, either.

It's all about high quality, motivated, passionate people.

Most people are dispensable. They go with the flow. There are only a very few who are indispensable.

They are the movers.

The movers move things.

That's how the world works.

[osan]

Yes, there are lots of ways to do this, to try to instill in the rising generation a love, a passion for freedom, and a character of courage. I understand now what you were saying, I think, and agree. Teaching the young is how we perpetuate all good things, and freedom is no exception. It is absolutely critical, both strategically and tactically, that we direct our message and our efforts largely at the young. That's why I made a thread to recommend good freedom-inculcating books for young people. But books are not enough, you are right. And my choice of word for what will create and preserve freedom, ideology, made it sound too dry and intellectual. It's not.

OK, we are on the page. I will ass that not only doe need to teach them what to want, but what NOT to want, and how to properly react to invitations and impositions to such things.

It is emotional, it is intellectual, it is character, it is willpower, it is a way of approaching problems, it is a way of living life.

All true.

It is, in the end, all about people.

As simple truth that is apparently obfuscated from the sight of a great many.

There don't have to be many of them, either.

But there must be enough and, in this case, the more the merrier.

Most people are dispensable. They go with the flow. There are only a very few who are indispensable.

They are the movers.

The movers move things.

That's how the world works.

They tend to be movers because the rest sit idly by as the "bosses" do whatever Theye please.


The situation of world political power has trod this approximate trajectory since ancient times: those in power have endeavored to set conditions that give rise to seeley, doltish people. The Roman Church is perhaps the crown example of this strategy. Raise them up to be just the right level of intellect and ability while further setting conditions that sets the individual at war with himself while enticing him always toward that which is base and never toward that which is fine. Then tell everyone, including yourself, that this is the way things are and that there is nothing to be done about it except that the low and crude people be managed so that chaos not ensue, bringing with it the end of all things. This is the self-perpetuating, self-fulfilling system that has been refined over the years, having found its asymptotic rise with the advent of the moving picture and audio.

Predispose your slaves to moral turpitude and perfidy. Then, as they grow into the criminals you have fostered in them, bring out the ban-hammer and strike as a maddened blacksmith beats his iron to flatness.

This is the biggest scam in the history of the human race and it is absolutely right there under our noses, no matter where we look. And the common man is so hopelessly deep in it, he cannot for the life of him see his way out because the Scheme has become one with the flesh of his mind. Any attempt to separate it from him is tantamount to cutting out his heart. He thinks he cannot live without "it", which is the system Theye set into place and made part and parcel of the perceptual landscape of nearly all men across the world. It is become the truest and most widely cast example of a One Size Fits All (OSFA) mind-$#@! ever, and it grows by the minute.

How then does one convince sufficient numbers of people that they will not die a horrible death, physical or spiritual, if they turn their backs to the Scheme and to Theye who administer it? That, my pal, is the $64 question. Until that can be answered with a reliable and practical cure, the race of men goes nowhere but ever downward.