Privatized police department.

[Sibirsky]

The police do have oversight. There are internal affairs departments, and the very same people they serve are voters, which means they decide who the boss of the police will be. In the city where I live, the head of police is a democratically elected office. If someone wants the job, they have to show how they're qualified in their campaign. That means that crime statistics are more important then bank statements for the police.

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch12.pdf

Speaking of crime statistics, according to this graph, the murder rate is on a massive decrease. The murder rate is the only one that's been reliably tracked over the past century, so that's why I'm looking at it. As you can see, the average murder rate in 1999 was the same as it was in the 40s and early 60s.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/cri ... index.html

According to FBI reports, crime rates are dropping, and the most significant drops are in the large cities. You know, the ones which would have the most police?

Police go after easy to deal with, low risk drug users and prostitutes to pad their arrest numbers. This increases their budgets.

Not fucking rocket science.

[Sibirsky]

Victimless crimes are far easier to address. They do so to increase their budgets.

Then change the way they are paid by law such that they do not get paid for stopping victimless crimes.

I still don't see why the market approach would change this in a way that simply making the government follow the same laws you would make the private security follow would not.

That's nearly impossible. Cali's prop 19 was defeated behind a massive campaign against it, supported by law enforcement. Why? Because it's easy, low risk work, with massive hours and the pay that goes with it.

You deal with murders with guns. I'll deal with the hookers and stoners.

[Natapoc]

Then change the way they are paid by law such that they do not get paid for stopping victimless crimes.

I still don't see why the market approach would change this in a way that simply making the government follow the same laws you would make the private security follow would not.

That's nearly impossible. Cali's prop 19 was defeated behind a massive campaign against it, supported by law enforcement. Why? Because it's easy, low risk work, with massive hours and the pay that goes with it.

You deal with murders with guns. I'll deal with the hookers and stoners.

LOL did you mean it to sound like that? Sounds like sib is going to have a "night on the town"

*this post is not intended to endorse any illegal activities. If sib, going, having, nights, hookers, towns, hugs, stoners, hookers, or anything else happens to be illegal in your area please do not read the above post.

[Natapoc]

Then change the way they are paid by law such that they do not get paid for stopping victimless crimes.

I still don't see why the market approach would change this in a way that simply making the government follow the same laws you would make the private security follow would not.

That's nearly impossible. Cali's prop 19 was defeated behind a massive campaign against it, supported by law enforcement. Why? Because it's easy, low risk work, with massive hours and the pay that goes with it.

You deal with murders with guns. I'll deal with the hookers and stoners.

Seriously though sib, how would you prevent "private law enforcement" from doing the exact same thing? Would not private law enforcement prefer to rough up kids who are experimenting with a bit of marijuana over trying to find murderers?

Did you not just describe the motivational forces of the market as the fundamental reason for why you believe changing public police policy is not possible?

[United Dependencies]

Police go after easy to deal with, low risk drug users and prostitutes to pad their arrest numbers. This increases their budgets.

Not fucking rocket science.

How does increasing arrest numbers help their budget? Law enforcement in this state has been steadily losing funding for the past few years.

[Natapoc]

Police go after easy to deal with, low risk drug users and prostitutes to pad their arrest numbers. This increases their budgets.

Not fucking rocket science.

How does increasing arrest numbers help their budget? Law enforcement in this state has been steadily losing funding for the past few years.

It's the economy. People can't afford hookers and weed anymore. Poverty: The market solution to the war on drugs! or... am I missing something here?

[United Dependencies]

How does increasing arrest numbers help their budget? Law enforcement in this state has been steadily losing funding for the past few years.

It's the economy. People can't afford hookers and weed anymore. Poverty: The market solution to the war on drugs! or... am I missing something here?

The war on drugs will be replaced by the war on larceny and car jackings.

[Natapoc]

It's the economy. People can't afford hookers and weed anymore. Poverty: The market solution to the war on drugs! or... am I missing something here?

The war on drugs will be replaced by the war on larceny and car jackings.

The war on identity theft has a chance of taking off.

[United Dependencies]

The war on drugs will be replaced by the war on larceny and car jackings.

The war on identity theft has a chance of taking off.

The current political state does not favor an increase of funding towards law enforcement or law enforcement programs of anykind.

[Terra Agora]

That's nearly impossible. Cali's prop 19 was defeated behind a massive campaign against it, supported by law enforcement. Why? Because it's easy, low risk work, with massive hours and the pay that goes with it.

You deal with murders with guns. I'll deal with the hookers and stoners.

Seriously though sib, how would you prevent "private law enforcement" from doing the exact same thing? Would not private law enforcement prefer to rough up kids who are experimenting with a bit of marijuana over trying to find murderers?

Did you not just describe the motivational forces of the market as the fundamental reason for why you believe changing public police policy is not possible?

Depends on the society. If they want marijuana to be illegal then thats what will be enforced.

[Sibirsky]

That's nearly impossible. Cali's prop 19 was defeated behind a massive campaign against it, supported by law enforcement. Why? Because it's easy, low risk work, with massive hours and the pay that goes with it.

You deal with murders with guns. I'll deal with the hookers and stoners.

LOL did you mean it to sound like that? Sounds like sib is going to have a "night on the town"

*this post is not intended to endorse any illegal activities. If sib, going, having, nights, hookers, towns, hugs, stoners, hookers, or anything else happens to be illegal in your area please do not read the above post.

Precisely. Hookers don't have guns. Easy arrest numbers. Same with stones. Overtime pay. Early retirement.

And if a particularly curvy hooker comes around, we can arrange an arrest free interaction

Plus I got tons of weed. Catch a guy with 5 bags, report 3. Easy.

Yes, I meant it to sound like that. For the wrong reasons. Most cops don't coerce hookers into any sexual acts in return for letting them go. Most cops do not steal marijuana out of evidence for personal use. They do it simply because it's easy, low risk, and time consuming.

I don't have nights out on the town that often anymore. I don't smoke reefer anymore. I don't go out often. Last night I went out, but it certainly was not a night out on the town. I have never hired a hooker. But when I was 16 we would go to DC and there was this church in a nasty part of town where hookers were on parade. It was nuts. There was not much else around so there wasn't much traffic at 2-3 AM. And you get like a block away from the church and it's like rush hour. It was packed.

And I saw some girl get beat pretty bad by a pimp. It was sad.

[Sibirsky]

That's nearly impossible. Cali's prop 19 was defeated behind a massive campaign against it, supported by law enforcement. Why? Because it's easy, low risk work, with massive hours and the pay that goes with it.

You deal with murders with guns. I'll deal with the hookers and stoners.

Seriously though sib, how would you prevent "private law enforcement" from doing the exact same thing? Would not private law enforcement prefer to rough up kids who are experimenting with a bit of marijuana over trying to find murderers?

Did you not just describe the motivational forces of the market as the fundamental reason for why you believe changing public police policy is not possible?

Those aren't market forces. Also, I doubt marijuana would be illegal.

[ZombieRothbard]

Left anarchists have burnt some down. Not that I would ever advocate something like that. First of all, there could be a mouse infestation in that building and I don't think the mice should be burned.

Hehehe

But there has been luck right? I mean really minor improvements. Disgustingly minor. But yeah I can link to some cases where activists have gotten money back from the police and it's lead to at least discussion if not some slight consideration at improvement? lol. And records do get released to the public.

Not sure if you are familiar with the Free Keene or CopBlock stuff. Keene New Hampshire is where a lot of the voluntaryists and agorists go to practice civil disobedience etc. They actually have had major success. Since it is in New Hampshire, there are also minarchists who moved that work within the system, and are actually getting elected and changing laws. CopBlock.org has also done some awesome work. They haven't really brought about any reforms in the system per-se, but they have exposed it. They have footage of cops, and the cops will lie in the courtroom, even when the video evidence is contradictory. And you have judges who don't even care. Its insane, it is so disgustingly corrupt.

But we do need to keep it in context, although I hate to use the analogy, it could be much worse. The cops could have judge, jury, executioner power in this country. They don't, although sometimes their actions speak otherwise.

Here in the U.S. is could be worse. But in the historical context of the state, we are pretty well off.

[Sibirsky]

Police go after easy to deal with, low risk drug users and prostitutes to pad their arrest numbers. This increases their budgets.

Not fucking rocket science.

How does increasing arrest numbers help their budget? Law enforcement in this state has been steadily losing funding for the past few years.

Yeah, the last few years the shit hit the fan, you heard? Police are funded primarily by property taxes.

More arrests means they are doing their job, and are good at it. Give them more money so they can do even better!

[The Parkus Empire]

I have no clue how anarchists can disagree on how their stateless societies should function. It seems to me that anarchists all tend to have this in common: a detestation of coercion. So how exactly would you achieve your vision? Any anarchist who wasn't a hypocrite would support whatever the people decided without government interference.

[Natapoc]

I have no clue how anarchists can disagree on how their stateless societies should function. It seems to me that anarchists all tend to have this in common: a detestation of coercion. So how exactly would you achieve your vision? Any anarchist who wasn't a hypocrite would support whatever the people decided without government interference.

There are a few levels of disagreement.

1. Actual legitimate healthy disagreement between anarchists. This is good and will always happen as long as there are anarchists. Since anarchists are people and are part of their own communities they will have a present their ideas of how they think things should run. Healthy debate is critical to the democratic process and even more critical to any system of anarchism where no one has greater say then anyone else.

2. Disagreement because one person is advocating a form of coercion that is inconsistent with what anarchism means (at least anarchism as a socio-political philosophy )

3. Disagreement because of confusion about what exactly the other person is talking about.

[The Parkus Empire]

I guess it might have something to do with how one defines coercion and whether exploitation can be considered such.

[Natapoc]

I guess it might have something to do with how one defines coercion and whether exploitation can be considered such.

That's certainly a big part of it...

By the way... I will soon drop a bomb on this form... No no call off the ATF not that type of bomb.

Which will demonstrate why according to Lord Almighty Rothbard himself a minimum of egalitarian wealth redistribution if not punishment against the current ruling classes is necessary!

[Keronians]

I guess it might have something to do with how one defines coercion and whether exploitation can be considered such.

That's certainly a big part of it...

By the way... I will soon drop a bomb on this form... No no call off the ATF not that type of bomb.

Which will demonstrate why according to Lord Almighty Rothbard himself a minimum of egalitarian wealth redistribution if not punishment against the current ruling classes is necessary!

*Pulls out AK-47*

I'm ready for anarchism!

[ZombieRothbard]

I have no clue how anarchists can disagree on how their stateless societies should function. It seems to me that anarchists all tend to have this in common: a detestation of coercion. So how exactly would you achieve your vision? Any anarchist who wasn't a hypocrite would support whatever the people decided without government interference.

I don't think anarchists have to resign themselves to whatever the people decided without a government. Granted, I don't think anybody should COERCE others into accepting their ideas. But having blind adherence to what the majority rules isn't an "anarchistic" ideal, at least not in anarcho-capitalists understanding of anarchism. For example, you get people who blindly adhere to the constitution, and support what the constitution says. This is, in a sense, democracy worship (if you are willing to accept the idea that we live in a democracy, and that our democratically elected leaders represent the people (neither are true, but for the sake of argument we will assume they are)). Blindly adhering to whatever the majority rules is sorta sick. You have to basically forfeit your own personal ethics. This is a statist mindset. It is most apparent, when you read a thread on here about whether drug use is right or wrong, and the blind statists will say it is wrong, because it is illegal. They cannot even mentally separate the law from ethics.

[The Parkus Empire]

But having blind adherence to what the majority rules isn't an "anarchistic" ideal, at least not in anarcho-capitalists understanding of anarchism.

From what I understand from the ancap ideal, your blind adherence is to self-interest, particularly financial self-interest (just about every ancap I've seen in this thread thought it rational for businesses to instruct guards to fend off armed robbers in places chock-full of bystanders, for instance).

[ZombieRothbard]

But having blind adherence to what the majority rules isn't an "anarchistic" ideal, at least not in anarcho-capitalists understanding of anarchism.

From what I understand from the ancap ideal, your blind adherence is to self-interest, particularly financial self-interest (just about every ancap I've seen in this thread thought it rational for businesses to instruct guards to fend off armed robbers in places chock-full of bystanders, for instance).

If they shot bystanders, they would have to make payouts on them, and deal with their insurance company. So there is no incentive to mow down crowds of people.

[Trotskylvania]

Police are motivated by a sense of duty to the community that they serve. With a few exceptions, they're not hired guns. They put their lives on the line for an ethic of public service.

Why do people assume that in a privatized society, people would cease caring for each other? Why do you need to brainwash people with the public good shit to make them care about others? I think caring about others makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, and I enjoy doing it. Caring about others is completely selfish for me, I don't need this whole "public good" to convince me to do something I already want to do.

You've literally privatized everything. There is no public to serve, not community to situate one's self in.

A private police force would discourage its cops from doing anything but strictly protecting its clients. If you're not a client, there's no economic motive to protect you.

When you add private law into the mix, not only do you just make a big mess of unclear jurisdictions, you also further make service a liability.

[Lomenore]

The police do have oversight. There are internal affairs departments, and the very same people they serve are voters, which means they decide who the boss of the police will be. In the city where I live, the head of police is a democratically elected office. If someone wants the job, they have to show how they're qualified in their campaign. That means that crime statistics are more important then bank statements for the police.

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch12.pdf

Speaking of crime statistics, according to this graph, the murder rate is on a massive decrease. The murder rate is the only one that's been reliably tracked over the past century, so that's why I'm looking at it. As you can see, the average murder rate in 1999 was the same as it was in the 40s and early 60s.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/cri ... index.html

According to FBI reports, crime rates are dropping, and the most significant drops are in the large cities. You know, the ones which would have the most police?

Police go after easy to deal with, low risk drug users and prostitutes to pad their arrest numbers. This increases their budgets.

Not fucking rocket science.

I was showing statistics for murder rates, not drug use or prostitution. That's not rocket science either, it's basic literacy.

[The Parkus Empire]

If they shot bystanders, they would have to make payouts on them, and deal with their insurance company.

What is this I don't even.

So there is no incentive to mow down crowds of people.

Dude.

Man.

Whoa.

What?

Just because they're not trying to "mow down crowds of people" doesn't mean that they won't accidentally hit them.

This doesn't even begin to address the robbers mowing people down in frantic response.

But of course, who gives a rat's ass about innocent lives. We have fucking money and self-interest, the only important things in an ancap society. If you blow a woman's head off, you can estimate the damages and pay her next of kin (if she has any, lol). Selfishness is the name of game.