Let's talk cops

[OrionStang]

Nobody in this thread can even agree on what the problems with police and the laws are, so how are you going to change it? Got to figure an agreement out as a group before trying to change anything.

[bbeljefe]

Answer my question I asked you. I'll ask again in case you missed it.

If someone were to break into your shop and steal everything in it are you going to call the police?

Yes I did miss it. Sorry about that.

And yes, of course I am. What other choice do I have? If I have insurance, it won't pay without a police report. And since I'm not allowed to recover my stolen property using force (without being viewed by the law as the aggressor), I would have to call the police to come get it for me if I were to find it.

Now, the better question would be, given the option, would I call police or some other agency of choice if one were available to me. And the answer would obviously be yes. Matter of fact, my shop has been broken into and just like my truck, all my personal audio gear that's been stolen over the years, a boat and one of my wife's cars.... none of that property has ever been recovered by police. Everything I've ever recovered from a theft has been because someone called either me or the police, who in turn called me. And only because those vehicles were abandoned in plain sight. The only audio gear I ever got back from a theft was actually recovered by a customer of mine.

Had there been no government police and had my insurance company been responsible for either paying me for that stuff or finding it, you can bet that the lion's share of it would have actually been recovered... because a private insurer has a financial stake in that loss while government police have absolutely no incentive or obligation to even look for it.

If you don't believe that last comment, research some of the supreme court rulings that clearly state police are under no obligation to protect or provide service to citizens. They work for the state enforcing the rules of the state and protecting you, me & our property is ancillary at best.

In the end, you basically asked a slave if he would eat the food his master feeds him. But of course he will, lest he starve to death. But eating that food doesn't mean he approves of slavery. ;-)

[Broke_Audio_Addict]

Insurance companies are regulated by laws though so without laws forcing them to honor your insurance what makes you think they'd pay out or even make an attempt to locate your stuff?

[bbeljefe]

You guys are living in fantasy land plain and simple, the mafia existed long before they even came to this country, tyrant existed long before democracy, evil people did evil things long before laws existed, people had drug addictions long before drugs were made illegal, and if drug are legal someone still has to sell them so you still have drug dealers.

Also In a anarchist society localized tyrants would take over basically every city and make there own laws anyways so like them or not there will always be laws and I'd rather have the ones we have than the ones some tyrannical mad man creates (see isis).

The mafia was formed where there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. It showed up in the US only after there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. Do you see the pattern?

Tyrants exist in any form of government but only in government. Individuals who would be tyrants cannot afford to pay for armies or police to enforce their will on the masses. The only way a tyrant becomes a success is when he has the masses convinced that he is their savior. That's been the case with every known tyrant in the history of nation states and it will continue to be until such time as people begin to reject the notion that they must be ruled. The only exception is tyrannical religious movements and the leaders thereof endear themselves to the masses in exactly the same way government tyrants do. In fact, religious leaders formed the first nation states. But in both cases, a massive dose of mind fuckery must occur in order that a tyrant can perpetrate his evil. To put it simply, everything Hitler did was legal and was supported by the majority of voters in Germany.

Lastly, you're arguing that most people are bad and because of that, we must have a state. However, as I said above, if most people are bad then the worst people will gravitate to the positions of power offered by the state. Even if only some people were bad, the worst among them would still be the ones who gravitate to state power. After all... do you think nice people become tyrannical government leaders? Do you think honest, hard working people who mind their business and abide by a live and let live principle actually want to join the state and make laws that prohibit others from peaceful behaviors?

Your comment reminds me of this....

The problem with your theory of "no state" is that it doesn't take in account individualism and emotions. The only way you would ever be able to abolish a government and expect everyone to live peacefully and act accordingly, is if everyone one was the same and didn't have emotions. Even if you were to get rid of the government, humans are colonizing creatures by nature and soon you would have smaller/more local governments popping up instead of one big one. A large group of people cannot survive without some form of government. If you cut off the head, then the body will die and decay.

You do understand that I've spent a lot of years being flamed by statists for being an individualist, do you not? If not, you don't understand libertarian theory in the least. We are strong individualists who understand very well that not all people think alike or want the same things. That's exactly why we cannot have the same rules for everyone, save the most basic of rules I mentioned at the beginning of this conversation.

In the current society, if a small group of people don't like prostitution, no one in that society is allowed to participate in it. If that same small group of people doesn't want to drink raw milk, laws against the sale of raw milk are put in place and enforced with violence.... and that's not an fanciful example, that's a fact right now today in the US. Raw milk sellers have had their businesses raided and destroyed by federal agents for the disastrous crime of selling unprocessed milk to people who want to buy and consume unprocessed milk. These people have lost everything they worked for and saved just to defend themselves from the state you're supporting. Is that what you call support and tolerance for individualism? Is that how statism protects the individual? If so, from what have these people been protected?

The state does nothing at all to protect or preserve peace in society. Wars are started by states. Victimless crimes are created and enforced by states. And the productive class in any statist society are extorted and forced to finance these wars and unjust laws that do nothing but destroy families, lives and property. Moreover, there is nothing provided by the state that isn't actually provided by people.... because government is just a concept. It cannot exist unless human beings want it to and it cannot take unless human beings take in its name. This notion that it somehow must exist is fundamentally absurd and void of any philosophical or empirical rigor whatever. That's like saying cancer must exist. And the idea that we just need to make government smaller is like a surgeon who claims that only 80% of a tumor needs to be cut out.

I'll leave you with this quote by Robert Higgs.....

"In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy's mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state's is undeniably, factually horrendous."

[bbeljefe]

Insurance companies are regulated by laws though so without laws forcing them to honor your insurance what makes you think they'd pay out or even make an attempt to locate your stuff?

How much business do you think a dishonest insurance company would have in a society where there was no state forcing people to buy insurance or pay a certain premium for it?

Put simply, how does a shitty car audio shop manage to go out of business without the state shutting it down? Why would it go out of business?

[Broke_Audio_Addict]

So you're a individual who subscribes to a belief with others?

Doesn't that make you a group?

Also what you're saying is you recognize that everyone thinks and wants different things but you're failing to register that most don't want what you do or share your beliefs.

[Jhunt94]

You guys are living in fantasy land plain and simple, the mafia existed long before they even came to this country, tyrant existed long before democracy, evil people did evil things long before laws existed, people had drug addictions long before drugs were made illegal, and if drug are legal someone still has to sell them so you still have drug dealers.

Also In a anarchist society localized tyrants would take over basically every city and make there own laws anyways so like them or not there will always be laws and I'd rather have the ones we have than the ones some tyrannical mad man creates (see isis).

The mafia was formed where there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. It showed up in the US only after there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. Do you see the pattern?

Tyrants exist in any form of government but only in government. Individuals who would be tyrants cannot afford to pay for armies or police to enforce their will on the masses. The only way a tyrant becomes a success is when he has the masses convinced that he is their savior. That's been the case with every known tyrant in the history of nation states and it will continue to be until such time as people begin to reject the notion that they must be ruled. The only exception is tyrannical religious movements and the leaders thereof endear themselves to the masses in exactly the same way government tyrants do. In fact, religious leaders formed the first nation states. But in both cases, a massive dose of mind fuckery must occur in order that a tyrant can perpetrate his evil. To put it simply, everything Hitler did was legal and was supported by the majority of voters in Germany.

Lastly, you're arguing that most people are bad and because of that, we must have a state. However, as I said above, if most people are bad then the worst people will gravitate to the positions of power offered by the state. Even if only some people were bad, the worst among them would still be the ones who gravitate to state power. After all... do you think nice people become tyrannical government leaders? Do you think honest, hard working people who mind their business and abide by a live and let live principle actually want to join the state and make laws that prohibit others from peaceful behaviors?

Your comment reminds me of this....

The problem with your theory of "no state" is that it doesn't take in account individualism and emotions. The only way you would ever be able to abolish a government and expect everyone to live peacefully and act accordingly, is if everyone one was the same and didn't have emotions. Even if you were to get rid of the government, humans are colonizing creatures by nature and soon you would have smaller/more local governments popping up instead of one big one. A large group of people cannot survive without some form of government. If you cut off the head, then the body will die and decay.

You do understand that I've spent a lot of years being flamed by statists for being an individualist, do you not? If not, you don't understand libertarian theory in the least. We are strong individualists who understand very well that not all people think alike or want the same things. That's exactly why we cannot have the same rules for everyone, save the most basic of rules I mentioned at the beginning of this conversation.

In the current society, if a small group of people don't like prostitution, no one in that society is allowed to participate in it. If that same small group of people doesn't want to drink raw milk, laws against the sale of raw milk are put in place and enforced with violence.... and that's not an fanciful example, that's a fact right now today in the US. Raw milk sellers have had their businesses raided and destroyed by federal agents for the disastrous crime of selling unprocessed milk to people who want to buy and consume unprocessed milk. These people have lost everything they worked for and saved just to defend themselves from the state you're supporting. Is that what you call support and tolerance for individualism? Is that how statism protects the individual? If so, from what have these people been protected?

The state does nothing at all to protect or preserve peace in society. Wars are started by states. Victimless crimes are created and enforced by states. And the productive class in any statist society are extorted and forced to finance these wars and unjust laws that do nothing but destroy families, lives and property. Moreover, there is nothing provided by the state that isn't actually provided by people.... because government is just a concept. It cannot exist unless human beings want it to and it cannot take unless human beings take in its name. This notion that it somehow must exist is fundamentally absurd and void of any philosophical or empirical rigor whatever. That's like saying cancer must exist. And the idea that we just need to make government smaller is like a surgeon who claims that only 80% of a tumor needs to be cut out.

I'll leave you with this quote by Robert Higgs.....

"In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy's mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state's is undeniably, factually horrendous."

So you're a Libertarian? Well that explains all of this then..

[bbeljefe]

So you're a individual who subscribes to a belief with others?

Doesn't that make you a group?

Also what you're saying is you recognize that everyone thinks and wants different things but you're failing to register that most don't want what you do or share your beliefs.

Nothing wrong with being a part of a group bro. But, being a part of a group doesn't mean that group is necessarily organized. Anarchists come in a lot of flavors and some of us are more socialist thinking, just like statists. I'm an anarcho capitalist who lives by the non agression principle. I do not use violence or coercion in any way against anyone and I do not condone the use of violence in any instance other than self defense. I won't make you do anything and I won't deny your right to do anything so long as you do no one else any harm in doing it.

And I fully understand that others don't want what I want. However, what you want causes my property to be stolen, my person to possibly be thrown in a cage for doing something you don't like or not doing something you want me to do.

If you don't want to be an anarchist, I'm fine with that. But don't send the cops to my house to extort money from me so you can pay for the things you think government should do for you.

[bbeljefe]

You guys are living in fantasy land plain and simple, the mafia existed long before they even came to this country, tyrant existed long before democracy, evil people did evil things long before laws existed, people had drug addictions long before drugs were made illegal, and if drug are legal someone still has to sell them so you still have drug dealers.

Also In a anarchist society localized tyrants would take over basically every city and make there own laws anyways so like them or not there will always be laws and I'd rather have the ones we have than the ones some tyrannical mad man creates (see isis).

The mafia was formed where there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. It showed up in the US only after there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. Do you see the pattern?

Tyrants exist in any form of government but only in government. Individuals who would be tyrants cannot afford to pay for armies or police to enforce their will on the masses. The only way a tyrant becomes a success is when he has the masses convinced that he is their savior. That's been the case with every known tyrant in the history of nation states and it will continue to be until such time as people begin to reject the notion that they must be ruled. The only exception is tyrannical religious movements and the leaders thereof endear themselves to the masses in exactly the same way government tyrants do. In fact, religious leaders formed the first nation states. But in both cases, a massive dose of mind fuckery must occur in order that a tyrant can perpetrate his evil. To put it simply, everything Hitler did was legal and was supported by the majority of voters in Germany.

Lastly, you're arguing that most people are bad and because of that, we must have a state. However, as I said above, if most people are bad then the worst people will gravitate to the positions of power offered by the state. Even if only some people were bad, the worst among them would still be the ones who gravitate to state power. After all... do you think nice people become tyrannical government leaders? Do you think honest, hard working people who mind their business and abide by a live and let live principle actually want to join the state and make laws that prohibit others from peaceful behaviors?

Your comment reminds me of this....

The problem with your theory of "no state" is that it doesn't take in account individualism and emotions. The only way you would ever be able to abolish a government and expect everyone to live peacefully and act accordingly, is if everyone one was the same and didn't have emotions. Even if you were to get rid of the government, humans are colonizing creatures by nature and soon you would have smaller/more local governments popping up instead of one big one. A large group of people cannot survive without some form of government. If you cut off the head, then the body will die and decay.

You do understand that I've spent a lot of years being flamed by statists for being an individualist, do you not? If not, you don't understand libertarian theory in the least. We are strong individualists who understand very well that not all people think alike or want the same things. That's exactly why we cannot have the same rules for everyone, save the most basic of rules I mentioned at the beginning of this conversation.

In the current society, if a small group of people don't like prostitution, no one in that society is allowed to participate in it. If that same small group of people doesn't want to drink raw milk, laws against the sale of raw milk are put in place and enforced with violence.... and that's not an fanciful example, that's a fact right now today in the US. Raw milk sellers have had their businesses raided and destroyed by federal agents for the disastrous crime of selling unprocessed milk to people who want to buy and consume unprocessed milk. These people have lost everything they worked for and saved just to defend themselves from the state you're supporting. Is that what you call support and tolerance for individualism? Is that how statism protects the individual? If so, from what have these people been protected?

The state does nothing at all to protect or preserve peace in society. Wars are started by states. Victimless crimes are created and enforced by states. And the productive class in any statist society are extorted and forced to finance these wars and unjust laws that do nothing but destroy families, lives and property. Moreover, there is nothing provided by the state that isn't actually provided by people.... because government is just a concept. It cannot exist unless human beings want it to and it cannot take unless human beings take in its name. This notion that it somehow must exist is fundamentally absurd and void of any philosophical or empirical rigor whatever. That's like saying cancer must exist. And the idea that we just need to make government smaller is like a surgeon who claims that only 80% of a tumor needs to be cut out.

I'll leave you with this quote by Robert Higgs.....

"In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy's mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state's is undeniably, factually horrendous."

So you're a Libertarian? Well that explains all of this then..

No, I'm not. I'm a philosophical libertarian. There's a difference in that you're referencing the political party. I was once a card carrying Libertarian but I no longer support the state in any way shape or form whatever.

But I'm really interested to hear your thoughts on libertarianism if you can formulate a cogent argument against it. Other than that, your ad hominem, passive aggressive insults don't do much to shore up your argument. ;-)

[Jhunt94]

You guys are living in fantasy land plain and simple, the mafia existed long before they even came to this country, tyrant existed long before democracy, evil people did evil things long before laws existed, people had drug addictions long before drugs were made illegal, and if drug are legal someone still has to sell them so you still have drug dealers.

Also In a anarchist society localized tyrants would take over basically every city and make there own laws anyways so like them or not there will always be laws and I'd rather have the ones we have than the ones some tyrannical mad man creates (see isis).

The mafia was formed where there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. It showed up in the US only after there was government prohibition on peaceful behavior. Do you see the pattern?

Tyrants exist in any form of government but only in government. Individuals who would be tyrants cannot afford to pay for armies or police to enforce their will on the masses. The only way a tyrant becomes a success is when he has the masses convinced that he is their savior. That's been the case with every known tyrant in the history of nation states and it will continue to be until such time as people begin to reject the notion that they must be ruled. The only exception is tyrannical religious movements and the leaders thereof endear themselves to the masses in exactly the same way government tyrants do. In fact, religious leaders formed the first nation states. But in both cases, a massive dose of mind fuckery must occur in order that a tyrant can perpetrate his evil. To put it simply, everything Hitler did was legal and was supported by the majority of voters in Germany.

Lastly, you're arguing that most people are bad and because of that, we must have a state. However, as I said above, if most people are bad then the worst people will gravitate to the positions of power offered by the state. Even if only some people were bad, the worst among them would still be the ones who gravitate to state power. After all... do you think nice people become tyrannical government leaders? Do you think honest, hard working people who mind their business and abide by a live and let live principle actually want to join the state and make laws that prohibit others from peaceful behaviors?

Your comment reminds me of this....

The problem with your theory of "no state" is that it doesn't take in account individualism and emotions. The only way you would ever be able to abolish a government and expect everyone to live peacefully and act accordingly, is if everyone one was the same and didn't have emotions. Even if you were to get rid of the government, humans are colonizing creatures by nature and soon you would have smaller/more local governments popping up instead of one big one. A large group of people cannot survive without some form of government. If you cut off the head, then the body will die and decay.

You do understand that I've spent a lot of years being flamed by statists for being an individualist, do you not? If not, you don't understand libertarian theory in the least. We are strong individualists who understand very well that not all people think alike or want the same things. That's exactly why we cannot have the same rules for everyone, save the most basic of rules I mentioned at the beginning of this conversation.

In the current society, if a small group of people don't like prostitution, no one in that society is allowed to participate in it. If that same small group of people doesn't want to drink raw milk, laws against the sale of raw milk are put in place and enforced with violence.... and that's not an fanciful example, that's a fact right now today in the US. Raw milk sellers have had their businesses raided and destroyed by federal agents for the disastrous crime of selling unprocessed milk to people who want to buy and consume unprocessed milk. These people have lost everything they worked for and saved just to defend themselves from the state you're supporting. Is that what you call support and tolerance for individualism? Is that how statism protects the individual? If so, from what have these people been protected?

The state does nothing at all to protect or preserve peace in society. Wars are started by states. Victimless crimes are created and enforced by states. And the productive class in any statist society are extorted and forced to finance these wars and unjust laws that do nothing but destroy families, lives and property. Moreover, there is nothing provided by the state that isn't actually provided by people.... because government is just a concept. It cannot exist unless human beings want it to and it cannot take unless human beings take in its name. This notion that it somehow must exist is fundamentally absurd and void of any philosophical or empirical rigor whatever. That's like saying cancer must exist. And the idea that we just need to make government smaller is like a surgeon who claims that only 80% of a tumor needs to be cut out.

I'll leave you with this quote by Robert Higgs.....

"In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy's mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state's is undeniably, factually horrendous."

So you're a Libertarian? Well that explains all of this then..

No, I'm not. I'm a philosophical libertarian. There's a difference in that you're referencing the political party. I was once a card carrying Libertarian but I no longer support the state in any way shape or form whatever.

But I'm really interested to hear your thoughts on libertarianism if you can formulate a cogent argument against it. Other than that, your ad hominem, passive aggressive insults don't do much to shore up your argument. ;-)

Well from the looks of it your view do not differ very much from the political party. I do have a question that I have been wondering about. If you would rather there be little to no government, then what would become of the military?