The private sector can NOT provide a benevolent police/security service [proof]

[wachtwoord]

Nor can the public sector.

[dotcom]

Nobody thinks the state is there to protect them

I don't know where the fuck you live that you actually think that, but I wanna live there.

[hawkeye]

 
Nobody thinks the state is there to protect them, except for two guys in Nebraska.  
Nobody thinks restaurants are in the business of feeding the rats either, but the rats get fed anyway -- as a byproduct.  
And restaurants are also not in the business of feeding people -- they're in the business of making money, but you get fed in the process, see how that works?

The "state" is not your friend, but it's not your enemy, either.  No more than it is the enemy of oil, halcyon skies or amber waves of grain.
It's plain embarrassing when grist for the mill become politically conscious

Restaurants provide a service for the money that they want.  I can choose to give them money for their product or not.

The state offers me no such choice.  It's pay for our product or else.  Or rather pay our exorbitant, extortionate rates or else.

And what happens when the state realises it needs even more money?  If it can't tax enough, it starts counterfeiting.   And the more taxes the more of a security setup is required to make sure they are all paid.  Hence, the police state, NSA, etc.

[crumbs]

 
Nobody thinks the state is there to protect them, except for two guys in Nebraska.  
Nobody thinks restaurants are in the business of feeding the rats either, but the rats get fed anyway -- as a byproduct.  
And restaurants are also not in the business of feeding people -- they're in the business of making money, but you get fed in the process, see how that works?

The "state" is not your friend, but it's not your enemy, either.  No more than it is the enemy of oil, halcyon skies or amber waves of grain.
It's plain embarrassing when grist for the mill become politically conscious

Restaurants provide a service for the money that they want.  I can choose to give them money for their product or not.

The state offers me no such choice.  It's pay for our product or else.  Or rather pay our exorbitant, extortionate rates or else.

And what happens when the state realises it needs even more money?  If it can't tax enough, it starts counterfeiting.   And the more taxes the more of a security setup is required to make sure they are all paid.  Hence, the police state, NSA, etc.

You're missing my point.  I'm not trying to convince you that the state is benevolent or fair -- arguments like that are childish, and usually degenerate into pillowfights about personal definitions of fairness & goodness.  All i'm saying that by [dubious?] virtue of protecting itself & the status quo, the state protects you.

If you wish to see the state as a villain, fine.  Think of it as a slaver, and its citizens as the slaves. 
It's not in slaver's interests to have his slaves stealing from each other -- he gives each one just enough to survive & work.  Some of the slaves may starve & not be able to work, so the slaver makes stealing unattractive -- by flogging.  Enlightened self-interest.  Same goes for other interslave transgressions -- murder, rape, etc.

The slaver also protects his property from other slavers, just as you would protect your trash cans from being stolen or vandalized.  You don't have to like them, it's enough that they are useful to you.  Everything works out just fine, security's taken care of, villainous state or not.

[compro01]

No, a private goon squad can not enter my home and take stuff with them because this would constitute an armed robbery and then the next buildings they would "enter" would be a court room and a prison.

Who's going to haul them into the courtroom?  Their fellow private police goons?  Somehow I don't think so.

[hawkeye]

If you wish to see the state as a villain, fine.  Think of it as a slaver, and its citizens as the slaves. 
It's not in slaver's interests to have his slaves stealing from each other -- he gives each one just enough to survive & work.  Some of the slaves may starve & not be able to work, so the slaver makes stealing unattractive -- by flogging.  Enlightened self-interest.  Same goes for other interslave transgressions -- murder, rape, etc.

The slaver also protects his property from other slavers, just as you would protect your trash cans from being stolen or vandalized.  You don't have to like them, it's enough that they are useful to you.  Everything works out just fine, security's taken care of, villainous state or not.

And to that I say, why don't we just abolish slavery?   

[crumbs]

If you wish to see the state as a villain, fine.  Think of it as a slaver, and its citizens as the slaves.  
It's not in slaver's interests to have his slaves stealing from each other -- he gives each one just enough to survive & work.  Some of the slaves may starve & not be able to work, so the slaver makes stealing unattractive -- by flogging.  Enlightened self-interest.  Same goes for other interslave transgressions -- murder, rape, etc.

The slaver also protects his property from other slavers, just as you would protect your trash cans from being stolen or vandalized.  You don't have to like them, it's enough that they are useful to you.  Everything works out just fine, security's taken care of, villainous state or not.

And to that I say, why don't we just abolish slavery?    

Well, the TL;DR is 'coz the slavers like it.
Long version:
Slavery was popular for quite a while, and probably would still be with us if it remained profitable.  It isn't.  It took a big civil war to free the suckers in US, along with inevitable economic change.  Industrialization & skyrocketing population were important.  Steam obsoleting muscle, carding machines & Jacquard loom's punch cards replacing unreliable people.  In the end, it became cheaper to automate tasks than to feed & police the slaves.
If you still insist on getting rid of slavery, consider going to 2nd & 3rd world countries where people work for a pittance or starve to death.  They're not technically slaves, but when getting out of the frying pan means jumping into the fire, the distinction is purely academic.

[dotcom]

 
Nobody thinks the state is there to protect them, except for two guys in Nebraska.  
Nobody thinks restaurants are in the business of feeding the rats either, but the rats get fed anyway -- as a byproduct.  
And restaurants are also not in the business of feeding people -- they're in the business of making money, but you get fed in the process, see how that works?

The "state" is not your friend, but it's not your enemy, either.  No more than it is the enemy of oil, halcyon skies or amber waves of grain.
It's plain embarrassing when grist for the mill become politically conscious

Restaurants provide a service for the money that they want.  I can choose to give them money for their product or not.

The state offers me no such choice.  It's pay for our product or else.  Or rather pay our exorbitant, extortionate rates or else.

And what happens when the state realises it needs even more money?  If it can't tax enough, it starts counterfeiting.   And the more taxes the more of a security setup is required to make sure they are all paid.  Hence, the police state, NSA, etc.

You're missing my point.  I'm not trying to convince you that the state is benevolent or fair -- arguments like that are childish, and usually degenerate into pillowfights about personal definitions of fairness & goodness.  All i'm saying that by [dubious?] virtue of protecting itself & the status quo, the state protects you.

If you wish to see the state as a villain, fine.  Think of it as a slaver, and its citizens as the slaves. 
It's not in slaver's interests to have his slaves stealing from each other -- he gives each one just enough to survive & work.  Some of the slaves may starve & not be able to work, so the slaver makes stealing unattractive -- by flogging.  Enlightened self-interest.  Same goes for other interslave transgressions -- murder, rape, etc.

The slaver also protects his property from other slavers, just as you would protect your trash cans from being stolen or vandalized.  You don't have to like them, it's enough that they are useful to you.  Everything works out just fine, security's taken care of, villainous state or not.

Is this like the modern day equivalent of the white-man's burden? If let alone the primitive masses will abuse each other, therefore we should forcefully rule over them, abuse them ourselves, and violently suppress anybody who disagrees?

What right do you have to decide the fate of others?

[Severian]

Nor can the public sector.

Well done.

[crumbs]

 
Nobody thinks the state is there to protect them, except for two guys in Nebraska.  
Nobody thinks restaurants are in the business of feeding the rats either, but the rats get fed anyway -- as a byproduct.  
And restaurants are also not in the business of feeding people -- they're in the business of making money, but you get fed in the process, see how that works?

The "state" is not your friend, but it's not your enemy, either.  No more than it is the enemy of oil, halcyon skies or amber waves of grain.
It's plain embarrassing when grist for the mill become politically conscious

Restaurants provide a service for the money that they want.  I can choose to give them money for their product or not.

The state offers me no such choice.  It's pay for our product or else.  Or rather pay our exorbitant, extortionate rates or else.

And what happens when the state realises it needs even more money?  If it can't tax enough, it starts counterfeiting.   And the more taxes the more of a security setup is required to make sure they are all paid.  Hence, the police state, NSA, etc.

You're missing my point.  I'm not trying to convince you that the state is benevolent or fair -- arguments like that are childish, and usually degenerate into pillowfights about personal definitions of fairness & goodness.  All i'm saying that by [dubious?] virtue of protecting itself & the status quo, the state protects you.

If you wish to see the state as a villain, fine.  Think of it as a slaver, and its citizens as the slaves.  
It's not in slaver's interests to have his slaves stealing from each other -- he gives each one just enough to survive & work.  Some of the slaves may starve & not be able to work, so the slaver makes stealing unattractive -- by flogging.  Enlightened self-interest.  Same goes for other interslave transgressions -- murder, rape, etc.

The slaver also protects his property from other slavers, just as you would protect your trash cans from being stolen or vandalized.  You don't have to like them, it's enough that they are useful to you.  Everything works out just fine, security's taken care of, villainous state or not.

Is this like the modern day equivalent of the white-man's burden? If let alone the primitive masses will abuse each other, therefore we should forcefully rule over them, abuse them ourselves, and violently suppress anybody who disagrees?

What right do you have to decide the fate of others?

No, not white man's burden.  It is the modern equivalent of reality, which is to this day called reality.

Left alone, "the primitive masses" are exactly where they are now -- governed by their governments.  That's how governments happen, you know  If you discount the Lizard People landing here & creating governments, that's what's left -- the masses.  People, through their actions & inactions, make governments happen.  Congratulations.

I'm not interested in deciding the fates of others.  At the very least i hope i didn't mislead you into thinking i was seeking your approval.
I'm simply trying to be helpful & explain how this IRL thing works.

[Rassah]

Don't mind crumbs. If you read through his prior posts, you'll see that he's an ex-Soviet socialist commie, who pretty much wants things to remain the way they are, because that's the way they are, and he can't imagine them being any different. You know, "reality."

[Rassah]

Regarding private security and corruption, go to Wikipedia, and read up on crime statistics in Italy, and on Cosa Nostra. You'll find out that crimes like murder, theft, and rape in southern Italy is some of the lowest in the world, that the mafia there actually does run a business that people actually actively seek, that most of the horrible crimes we hear associated with mafia are primarily between mafias themselves of politicians that interfere, and that the mafia actually has a code of conduct that uses the "have a reputation of violence so great, that you never actually have to use violence" system. I.e. they maintain an image of being very scary, while being very courteous and resorting to violence as a last resort. Also, what they charge for protection is way way lower than what governments charge for protection.
So hell, even mafia is better, cheaper, more effective, and more fair than police.

[crumbs]

Don't mind crumbs. If you read through his prior posts, you'll see that he's an ex-Soviet socialist commie, who pretty much wants things to remain the way they are, because that's the way they are, and he can't imagine them being any different. You know, "reality."

  Sorry i didn't share your wet dreams about being policed by the mafia & didn't care for your visionary coup de grace:  Drones delivering  ...  wait for it...

Groceries!!1!

Operation Bag 'em & Tag 'em.  Friendship is Magik™

*Interwebz never forgets!  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244258.msg2643601#msg2643601

[Rassah]

^ See good example of someone who can't imagine shipping being done by automated drones, and over-reacts at the idea as if it's some sort of voodoo magic 

[TheButterZone]

LOL!

Could attach chutes to insulated pizza box carriers, even. Just be ready to run at the LZ so nobody jacks your shit.

[wdmw]

^ See good example of someone who can't imagine shipping being done by automated drones, and over-reacts at the idea as if it's some sort of voodoo magic 

They already have this.  It's called Tacocopter.  Also, I ignored Crumbs a long time ago, since he has nothing of value to add, and you might want to consider doing the same.

[crumbs]

^ See good example of someone who can't imagine shipping being done by automated drones, and over-reacts at the idea as if it's some sort of voodoo magic 

They already have this.  It's called Tacocopter.  Also, I ignored Crumbs a long time ago, since he has nothing of value to add, and you might want to consider doing the same.

I'mah tarinin' mah bear for speedier deliveries!  Prepare for serious competition

[Rassah]

^ See good example of someone who can't imagine shipping being done by automated drones, and over-reacts at the idea as if it's some sort of voodoo magic 

They already have this.  It's called Tacocopter.  Also, I ignored Crumbs a long time ago, since he has nothing of value to add, and you might want to consider doing the same.

I think the Tacocopter may have been a joke, but this isn't
http://singularityhub.com/2013/05/21/matternet-building-quadcopter-drone-network-to-transport-supplies-in-developing-world/

I don't really put anyone on ignore. I can just ignore them "manually"

[crumbs]

I think the Tacocopter may have been a joke...

I'm certain wdmw is a fine example of Anarcap/Liber mental fortitude.  Wouldn't you agree?  

BTW, Grocery Drone & Transgender Mishka have been elected to chair the Anarcap Bestest Ideah Evah Committee.  
Selection was made by traditional Libertarian means: Not Voting.  

[mateo]

Regarding private security and corruption, go to Wikipedia, and read up on crime statistics in Italy, and on Cosa Nostra. You'll find out that crimes like murder, theft, and rape in southern Italy is some of the lowest in the world, that the mafia there actually does run a business that people actually actively seek, that most of the horrible crimes we hear associated with mafia are primarily between mafias themselves of politicians that interfere, and that the mafia actually has a code of conduct that uses the "have a reputation of violence so great, that you never actually have to use violence" system. I.e. they maintain an image of being very scary, while being very courteous and resorting to violence as a last resort. Also, what they charge for protection is way way lower than what governments charge for protection.
So hell, even mafia is better, cheaper, more effective, and more fair than police.

People do not seek it, they are forced into it, either pay for protection or get whacked. Your simplistic banter about murder, rape aside, maybe you have an idea how mafia could regulate more complicated things like civil rights or financial regulations?