1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Dealing with criminals

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Dealing with criminals

This topic contains 67 replies, has 26 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of xiagos xiagos 4 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 68 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #6870
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Michael wrote:

    If two people get into a fight, why should it be the concern of the state or any state-actor? Let the aggreved party seek out whatever retribution or recompense they desire, using what ever means are at hand. If someone uses excessive means, the rest of the society, through the friends/family of the newly injured person(s) will settle it.

    As far as getting into fights in the first place: “An armed society is a polite society”.

    Retribution is not something to be left to one party. E.g. suppose you antagonise somebody with a background in biochemistry and he thinks that a botulin shell would be an adequate form of retribution. Fast forward a bit and there’s a seastead with a couple of hundred corpses and no friends and familly to do anything about it. Not how I would picture a proper seastead.

    [/quote]

    Retribution is left to only one party now – the state. The victims have little to do with the process, and receive nothing from the guilty.

    If people were armed, however, after a few shootings of truly stupid people the rest would decide that life was easier elsewhere. Criminals are lazy, but not usually stupid.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #6873
    Avatar of Michael-Hawkins
    Michael-Hawkins
    Participant

    Hey, I agree with most of that, the state should be cut out as much as possible. That’s why I advocated arbitration so that acts of wrongdoing can be setteled peacefully between the parties involved.

    Most crimes to be expected aren’t exactly “kill or die” scenarios. Drunken fights, theft, debts, fraud … sit yourself down with a neutral party and work it out.

    There might be more serious matters such as piracy or murder (piracy/robbery goes wrong, things escalate …) that might call for some vigillante justice, but I think arbitration can somve most everything.

    #6874
    Avatar of thief
    thief
    Participant

    I completely disagree. You can’t put the punishment in the hands of the victims, that’s simply unfair on the criminals, to be quite honest.

    Again, it comes down to each Stead having its own system, but on my Stead, the punishment would still be decided by trial. Though with a very different trial system than we have here and now.

    Doc, if you’re going to allow the victim to decide the punishment, surely there should still be an independent party who can override if the punishment is far out of proportion?

    And if you’re going to allow family members to decide the punishment on behalf of people who can’t (such as people murdered), surely then the murderers family members are subject to punishment? For example, if a man murders 10 people, just killing him or sentencing him to a life of labour couldn’t possibly be enough retribution, right?

    And actually, that brings up another point. Most people here are agreed that it’s against the nature of Seasteading to stop people leaving a Stead. But what if someone is convicted of breaking a law they don’t agree with, or didn’t know about? Is it fair to hold them in custody on your Stead, rather than allow them to leave?

    - Nick

    #6877
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    I don’t like the whole Wild West / anarchy system because it quickly builds to a might-makes-right mess. I can do whatever I want as long as I am more heavily armed than everyone else. This is how you get warlords and gangs.

    If I kill your wife because she looked at me funny, how are you going to get your retribution when I have plenty of guns and several posse members backing me up with their own guns? You get your own guns and posse, and we go at it? Doesn’t exactly sound like a very civil society.

    I understand the point about having some measure of self-reliance. But I’m sure you’d be making a very quick call to that distant patrol officer if 5 heavily armed thugs showed up on your property with the intent to do you harm…hoping that he’d show up with a bunch of backup pretty soon.

    #6903
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    thief wrote:

    I completely disagree. You can’t put the punishment in the hands of the victims, that’s simply unfair on the criminals, to be quite honest.

    Again, it comes down to each Stead having its own system, but on my Stead, the punishment would still be decided by trial. Though with a very different trial system than we have here and now.

    Doc, if you’re going to allow the victim to decide the punishment, surely there should still be an independent party who can override if the punishment is far out of proportion?

    And if you’re going to allow family members to decide the punishment on behalf of people who can’t (such as people murdered), surely then the murderers family members are subject to punishment? For example, if a man murders 10 people, just killing him or sentencing him to a life of labour couldn’t possibly be enough retribution, right?

    And actually, that brings up another point. Most people here are agreed that it’s against the nature of Seasteading to stop people leaving a Stead. But what if someone is convicted of breaking a law they don’t agree with, or didn’t know about? Is it fair to hold them in custody on your Stead, rather than allow them to leave?

    - Nick

    The family/friends (if any) of the criminal.

    And if the criminals don’t want to be treated unfairly, there is a simple solution: DONT BE A CRIMINAL. A concept that would work just fine under current laws, except for the unreasonable deference given to the rights of the accused. Why exactly do you think that someone who assaults the rights and person of another is somehow entitled to more protection than the person who was attacked?

    As far as a person who owes a debt to another (work bondage to repay a harm) why should that person be allowed to leave, until they have repaid their debt?

    The logical extent of your plan includes a system where criminals are protected, where the injured parties are not made whole in any way, and the criminals are allowed to go and be antisocial elsewhere. Kind of what we have in the US today. Thanks, but it doesn’t work. Doing more of it still won’t work

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #6904
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    I don’t like the whole Wild West / anarchy system because it quickly builds to a might-makes-right mess. I can do whatever I want as long as I am more heavily armed than everyone else. This is how you get warlords and gangs.

    If I kill your wife because she looked at me funny, how are you going to get your retribution when I have plenty of guns and several posse members backing me up with their own guns? You get your own guns and posse, and we go at it? Doesn’t exactly sound like a very civil society.

    I understand the point about having some measure of self-reliance. But I’m sure you’d be making a very quick call to that distant patrol officer if 5 heavily armed thugs showed up on your property with the intent to do you harm…hoping that he’d show up with a bunch of backup pretty soon.

    Yet historically, it was a very safe society. In the 1880′s (up until the 1920′s or ’30′s) a single woman could travel from one side of the country to another (a trip that took weeks) carrying a valise full of gold coins, and was statistically safer than a secretary walking to the Metro Station in the District of Columbia today. Why? Because women were considered a more or less protected class by the members of society who were allowed to be armed, and would stand to their defense. These days it is the construct of the state-actor’s society (police, justice systems, laws) that is supposed to protect everyone and fails. How many shoot-outs at the OK Coral were there? One, thats why it’s in the history books.

    Warlords and gangs develop in a power vacuum – usually one in which society as a whole is dissuaded from stopping them: Either by laws that limit what defenses law abiding citizens can use (all of the gun control laws), or those in which an inefficient ‘criminal justice’ system prevents the injured or threatened from being responsible for their own safefty. Aside from criminals not surviving long enough to form gangs, until a gang is stronger than the whole of the polity (which can only happen under the two conditions I mentioned) they cannot form a threat before that polity stops them. This is how such disparate groups as the Nazis, the Cambodian Communists of Pol Pot, the Soviets in Georgia prior to WWII, the Turks in Armenia prior to WWI, and warlords in Sudan and Somalia today are able to wreck havock and death – the various laws prevent the polity from being strong enough (having effective weapons) to stop them. It is also why most so-called peacekeeping efforts (Rwanda, Balkans, Middle-east) fail: The peace-keepers are prevented by their rules of engagement from actually STOPPING the criminals using force.

    Also, fatal force isn’t necessary (at first) to stop criminals. If you stop small crimes (assaults against persons and property) then big crimes don’t happen. This was seen in New York City in the early 1980′s: It was a horrible place (much more so than now), very high crime rates, dangerous to walk around. Mayor Giuliani takes over and starts requiring even small offenses like turnstile jumpers be prosecuted, broken windows and grafitti cleaned up, along with major crimes being prosecuted, and the crime rate goes down. Criminals are lazy – and the more the system is designed to annoy/stop/hurt them, the less crime there is.

    BTW, try and kill my wife and she’ll kill you first, harder – her prefered firearms are a single-action colt peacemaker in .45 Colt, and a Mosin-Nagant rifle (that with bayonet is longer than she is tall). But she is more than proficient with modern weapons (and edged weapons – she was an Olympics caliber fencer) too. Just a friendly warning

    To answer your question, if 5 heavily armed thugs showed up on my property with the intent to do me harm I guess I’d shoot each one 6 times with the AR, or three times with the Glock, and then reload the (single) magazine (I always have at least 2, usually 3, handy). Then call the refuse cleanup crew (law enforcement) or fire up the backhoe and clean up the mess myself. Where I live it can take over an hour for a single law enforcement officer to arrive (assuming the roads are clear), calling for that one officer (at night it can take several MORE hours, once the first officer requests help, to get the second officer) and hoping they will show up in time to do more than draw chalk outlines around our cold corpses is tantamount to comitting suicide. Once the criminals have decided to do me harm then I have no problem with showing them the foolishness of their actions. And since I actually am trained by professionals, and practice how to do that, with better doctrine and equipment, who do you think will be left standing? Fortunately, I haven’t had to give that lesson to anyone, in my state people assume it is coming, for the most part. Lots of guns, very little crime, most of that in the cities.

    Which, by the way, is about the same as the other societal benefit most people throw up as a strawman: FIre protection. Our volunteer department (which I am the EMS director for), equipment is 45 minutes away on clear roads (once someone gets to the fire house to get it). Because of that we are very careful about fires on our land, and have our own fire fighting tools including water, fire hoses, sprinkler systems and pumps. I don’t rely on ‘society’ for much, and I’d appreciate it if society didn’t limit my ability to protect my family, especially in light of it’s inability to fulfill it’s promise (not obligation, there is sufficient legal precedent that says government is not liable for it’s failure to protect citizens) to us.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #6905
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Michael wrote:

    Hey, I agree with most of that, the state should be cut out as much as possible. That’s why I advocated arbitration so that acts of wrongdoing can be setteled peacefully between the parties involved.

    Most crimes to be expected aren’t exactly “kill or die” scenarios. Drunken fights, theft, debts, fraud … sit yourself down with a neutral party and work it out.

    There might be more serious matters such as piracy or murder (piracy/robbery goes wrong, things escalate …) that might call for some vigillante justice, but I think arbitration can somve most everything.

    I agree – and the arbiters should be members of common society agreeable to each side, not some special class of people (lawyers, judges). People who actually have to live with the results of their decisions, if for example they decide that a bully who terrorizes weaker people is just a misunderstood kid. Well, let the arbiter be at as much risk of that bully beating the crap out of HIM, next.

    Such a system also has the advantage of actually delivering restitution to the injured party. Today if someone starts a fight and gets arrested, the loser is still hurt (potentially with medical bills, loss of work, etc) and the criminal gets free legal advice, room and board, and possibly a graduate level education in a penitentary for being a more effective criminal – all at the expense of the society he assaulted.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #6934
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    To answer your question, if 5 heavily armed thugs showed up on my property with the intent to do me harm I guess I’d shoot each one 6 times with the AR

    That’s assuming the 5 thugs are just walking towards you and letting you shoot at them one-by-one. What if they are well-trained, and are using suppressive fire to cover their advance? Or what if 3 of them flank you? I will agree that it isn’t always the biggest guns that have the advantage…training is important. I mean, I could easily take out one of those armed thugs at 80-100m with my .22 Winchester!

    But none of this disproves my point that in a highly-armed anarchy it will always be might-makes-right. Luckily for us you are content to stay at home and not use your high level of training and well-stocked armory to do what you please. If you can easily take out 5 heavily armed thugs then imagine what you (together with your eaually well-armed and well-trained wife) could do running amok on a seastead…no matter how many people rise up against you. And in the end, if enough people do stop you, it will just be because THEIR might made them right.

    I’d appreciate it if society didn’t limit my ability to protect my family, especially in light of it’s inability to fulfill it’s promise

    I agree with this 100%. If you cannot rely on the state to protect you, you should be able to do it yourself. But on a seastead, most people will probably not be 45 minutes away from firefighting equipment or protective forces. You are not making a case for anarchy or libertarianism…you are making a case for self-reliance when you cannot rely on the state. I totally agree with you there. But this doesn’t show that private firefighting systems are better than a single, state-sponsered system.

    #6942
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    But none of this disproves my point that in a highly-armed anarchy it will always be might-makes-right.

    And how is this different from how todays’ goverments work? Do they rule because of some divine righteousness or because they can?

    In an anarchy at least the protection agencies would have to compete for customers. Ask yourself, would you hire a protection agency if you knew it routinely murdered people? Or would you try to choose one that only used reasonable force in defense? Which agency would be more succesful in the long run?

    #6945
    Avatar of thief
    thief
    Participant

    Probably the murdering one. Because it can run a protection racket quite easily.

    Or one day two or three of the agencies declare mutiny and everyone onboard loses all their posessions.

    - Nick

    #6947
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    thief wrote:

    Probably the murdering one. Because it can run a protection racket quite easily.

    Or one day two or three of the agencies declare mutiny and everyone onboard loses all their posessions.

    - Nick

    So you have no moral problems with murdering people?

    And you believe the majority of humans think like this?

    The murdering agency will obviously encounter resistance from the non-murdering ones, hired by their intended victims. Thus initiating force will be both risky and costly. Evil agency will make more money by peaceful trade and cooperation than they ever could by extortion.

    Only in a population where the majority thinks war is better than peace in the long run will the evil agencies win. And that is a pretty stupid population if you ask me.

    #6949
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    To answer your question, if 5 heavily armed thugs showed up on my property with the intent to do me harm I guess I’d shoot each one 6 times with the AR

    That’s assuming the 5 thugs are just walking towards you and letting you shoot at them one-by-one. What if they are well-trained, and are using suppressive fire to cover their advance? Or what if 3 of them flank you? I will agree that it isn’t always the biggest guns that have the advantage…training is important. I mean, I could easily take out one of those armed thugs at 80-100m with my .22 Winchester!

    But none of this disproves my point that in a highly-armed anarchy it will always be might-makes-right. Luckily for us you are content to stay at home and not use your high level of training and well-stocked armory to do what you please. If you can easily take out 5 heavily armed thugs then imagine what you (together with your eaually well-armed and well-trained wife) could do running amok on a seastead…no matter how many people rise up against you. And in the end, if enough people do stop you, it will just be because THEIR might made them right.

    I’d appreciate it if society didn’t limit my ability to protect my family, especially in light of it’s inability to fulfill it’s promise

    I agree with this 100%. If you cannot rely on the state to protect you, you should be able to do it yourself. But on a seastead, most people will probably not be 45 minutes away from firefighting equipment or protective forces. You are not making a case for anarchy or libertarianism…you are making a case for self-reliance when you cannot rely on the state. I totally agree with you there. But this doesn’t show that private firefighting systems are better than a single, state-sponsered system.

    OK, then the thugs you’re talking about are government agents of some sort – and I didn’t see them. If I didn’t see them, my having the ability to stop them would be minimal and irrelevant – they could just kill me, and probably would. Criminals are lazy, and generally don’t have the patience or discipline for that sort of thing – if they did, the wouldn’t be criminals, Hollywood scriptwriters to the contrary. Calling the authorities wouldn’t do me any good in that case, either. However, what would one deputy, an hour out, do that would materially change the situation?

    However, my home is designed with defense in mind. What kinds of defense are unimportant for this discussion, suffice it to say that unless they had equipment that could take out a tank, I doubt they could hurt my house. And no matter what CNN, the Mexican or US Governments say, it’s not easy to buy LAW rockets on the street, much less larger.

    Might-makes-right, yes. Thats how it is today. The state has the most might, and the most rights (at least they think so) – examples abound, in addition to those places I mentioned earlier where the ‘state’ killed hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people, more recent examples, right here in the USA, exist. One good example was the destruction of the MOVE apartments in Philadelphia – that not only killed dozens of absolute innocents, but burned down a few blocks as well.

    As far as my wife and I running amok, keep in mind what one person did at Virgina Tech. Had one or two people in the school been carrying, it is at least arguable that they would have been able to stop Cho before he killed 32 people and himself: The authorities were absolutely immaterial in stopping him. Armed citizens could NOT have made the situation worse in any way, and statistically these sorts of mutants commit suicide at the first sign of armed response – which is why the police doctrine is shifting, so someone (wearing body armor and knowing how to use weapons at least at the low level most police have) goes in as soon as they get on scene (which didn’t happen at Virgina Tech, or at that mass shooting in Binghampton, NY (by a man who was already prohibited, by law, from owning guns, as was Cho). Laws and cops don’t stop criminal behavior, they just provide a cleanup service.

    Some cities contract for firefighting with either the county, adjacent cities, or even private companies. Businesses have private fire brigades – not to replace fire fighting services, but to ensure that a much more rapid response than might otherwise be occurs.

    And city firefighting has it’s faults as well: I recall (in the early 1990′s) an apartment building under construction (not occupied) caught fire in the Beverly Glen area of Los Angeles…the fire, backed by high winds, caused some adjacent apartment buildings to catch fire. Ultimately, every single piece of equipment, and two shifts of firefighters, that was available to the Fire Department of the City of Los Angeles (a Class-1 rated fire department by the ISO) was tasked to the fire – there is a picture taken from a helicopter showing the mass of equipment around the building, quite impressive.

    Unfortunately, the firebrands didn’t limit themselves to just one or two apartment buildings along Wilshire Blvd. They set fire to a few dozen houses nearby, and since all the equipment was tasked, and all the streets were blocked, these single-family homes (which were almost as expensive as the apartment buildings that burned) also burned. The owners didn’t have any recourse, there is NO requirement in the US that a government agency or actor actually DO what they claim they will do – see, for example, Warren v. District of Columbia (“By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police. The court held that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.’), or recent news stories where police dispatches repeatedly hung up on people being actively raped, beaten, attacked.

    Those homeowners that had their houses burned, because all of the attention given to a relatively small number of structures (3-4 threatened, but VERY wealthy homeowners) might have had more luck with a private fire protection service that was actually committed (through the profit motive) to help them. The fire department dispatchers actually told the people they bothered to actually TALK to that they had more important fires to fight, and to quit calling: One even had the police go and arrest a homeowner after repeated calls.

    There is NO single state-run system in the US or Canada. Probably a good reason for that, too. Back before and when Orange County, California, broke off from Los Angeles county, they received their fire protection services from the California Division of Forestry (and fire prevention). A couple of big fires, where CDF was too busy elsewhere, convinced the people in Anaheim, the City of Orange, and eventually the County to form their own fire departments since a single, statewide system didn’t work for them.

    So it is at my house: I don’t prohibit the county volunteers from coming to my house (matter of fact, we host a cookout for them and their families every year), but I don’t expect them to show up in time to do anything but cool down the embers (if that). My private fire protection, provided at some cost to me by me, will stand me in better stead. No knock agains them, but the distances are too great, and unless the county funds a staffed fire station much closer to my home, it won’t change. So rather than wish for a magic unicorn of a fire engine to show up I will take care of it myself. BTW, my private fire protection service also provides a tangible benefit to the County, the State and the US since any fire that I extinguish while it is small will prevent a major forest fire from developing, with the potential for loss of life (citizen and firefighter) and millions of dollars of costs.

    Finally, on a seastead, I would expect EVERYONE who is physically able to participate in fire protection, and in stopping assaults against another. If society goes all “don’t want to get involved’ (see, eg, the horrible case of Kitty Genovese) in a city with a population of millions, thats bad enough. If they wait for someone else to put the fire out, just where will we go? Further, the ‘authorities’ have ulterior motives (usually involving silo-building for themselves). A current case of this was recently in England, where a dog dug up a WWII .50 caliber cartridge – and the ‘authorities’ called the bomb squad, to ‘defuse’ it, after throwing up a cordon around a public camping area: http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED09%20Jul%202009%2007%3A51%3A16%3A980. The same sort of thing happens in Los Angeles every now and then. Someone has a demilled WWII pineapple grenade, someone else sees it, and 5 square blocks are cordoned off, the residents forced from their homes, while the ‘bomb squad’ and firefighters stage to deal with it.

    Even a REAL, LIVE grenade can’t cause that much damage – except the apocryphal ‘atomic hand grenade’. Magic unicorns, again?

    Keep up your practice with the .22 – good skills are good to have.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #6950
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Carl wrote:

    thief wrote:

    Probably the murdering one. Because it can run a protection racket quite easily.

    Or one day two or three of the agencies declare mutiny and everyone onboard loses all their posessions.

    - Nick

    So you have no moral problems with murdering people?

    And you believe the majority of humans think like this?

    The murdering agency will obviously encounter resistance from the non-murdering ones, hired by their intended victims. Thus initiating force will be both risky and costly. Evil agency will make more money by peaceful trade and cooperation than they ever could by extortion.

    Only in a population where the majority thinks war is better than peace in the long run will the evil agencies win. And that is a pretty stupid population if you ask me.

    [/quote]

    Murdering people? Yes, I have morals against it.

    Which is quite different than killing people who are trying to kill me or my family, or even someone else. For example, would I shoot someone about to firebomb a crowd of people?

    Damn betcha. Wouldn’t even think about it. What they are doing is a CAPITOL crime, and the use of deadly force to stop it is both legal under the law and moral under my religious and psychosocial precepts.

    Murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of a human life. Defending against death (mine, or an innocent, third-party) is quite legal and also quite moral.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #6955
    Avatar of Melllvar
    Melllvar
    Participant

    OK, then the thugs you’re talking about are government agents of some sort – and I didn’t see them. If I didn’t see them, my having the ability to stop them would be minimal and irrelevant – they could just kill me, and probably would. Criminals are lazy, and generally don’t have the patience or discipline for that sort of thing – if they did, the wouldn’t be criminals, Hollywood scriptwriters to the contrary. Calling the authorities wouldn’t do me any good in that case, either. However, what would one deputy, an hour out, do that would materially change the situation?

    So let me get this straight, your response is that we can count on criminals being lazy and generally worse trained than the law abiding citizens? Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that. I’ve met plenty of people (mainly through martial arts) who were extremely well trained that have no respect for the law or common decency, and I have the stories to back it up although I’d rather not go into them (since, quite frankly, I’m afraid of the people). In my experience the typical path is that the more power someone gets (through martial arts, gun training, etc.) the less respect they have for individuals with less proficiency than themselves. They just declare themselves “alpha males” or something similar and have thereby claimed a genetic destiny to push around everyone else. Maybe you’re an exception, if so more power to you, love to have you around on my seastead, but I’d rather not play the odds of whether or not the guys who are top dog at the time and place happen to share my idea of fairness and justice.

    Besides, leaving it up to the best trained guys to enforce justice is effectively replacing a state-run police system with a vigilante police system. As much as I hate police (and believe me, I’ve been seriously f-ed over by them), they’re still a less volatile system than a vigilante one. You can atleast sue the cops because they tortured you (assuming you live), under your system my only solution would be to get more guns/training (which may not be possible), or make friends with more dangerous people.

    Its my personal opinion that the violent crime rate could be drastically reduced by a) improving education and b) decreasing poverty (although this might cause a proportionate rise in white collar crime). The fact that we even have to discuss what kind of police system will be needed is a reflection on our current society and the people in it, although honestly I don’t expect things to be any different on seasteads. And the reason the police are able to get away with their BS is mainly that society doesn’t care and Internal Affairs divisions suck at their jobs. Society gives guns and badges to uneducated bullies who only applied for the job because they wanted to get paid to push people around. If cops were actually responsible for their actions, we would actually appreciate their presence instead of hating them as much as the criminals they’re supposed to protect us from.

    #6956
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Statisticaly, most criminals are lazy. You may be afraid of the people you meet in martial arts, but that is a datum, not a proof. Here’s one of mine: I can go to the more or less legal shooting areas in the mountains around Los Angeles, and see who the criminal types are – the ones shooting gangsta style (holding the weapon sideways, which means they can’t aim at all), who spray and pray, and basically don’t hit the target.

    On the contrary, I never see any actually taking care to hit the targets, nor do I see any at established ranges practicing. There is also a wealth of data of criminologists interviewiing convicts about their habits.

    I agree with you about the quality of most police – also most others in the criminal justice system. I am not willing to expend any more of societies resources (which are the proceeds of theft from me via involuntary taxes) to establish or maintain such a force for the state. Such organizations too can become corrupt (look, e.g. at whats happened in Chicago,. or look up the “Battle of Athens, Tn”). Just because the state does something doesn’t make it right. All those ‘democratic republics’ in Africa (and now, Venezuela) are an example of one man, one vote, one time.

    Why should I be forced to support people who are unwilling to understand that they can earn a good life for themselves? More education? More jobs? They expect to get a good job with no skills or experience, while looking and acting anti-social. Hit them with a clue bat, get cleaned up, get a crappy job and show up every day on time, and pretty soon you can get a better job – more money and status. Repeat as needed, until you’re living the American Dream ™. I’ve done some horrible jobs in my day, which convinced me that gettting better jobs and an education was a very good idea. I didn’t need any societal program to make it easy for me aside from a public school education, and I have done fairly well following that program.

    The model for any societal system of law enforcement should be a lot more like the wild west – “Gunsmoke” the TV show, rather than the terrible piece of feces we have today, “Law and Order – where everyone wins but the victims”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 68 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate