A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre

[Hawker]

...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?  
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

[FirstAscent]

...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?  
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Post-apocalyptic books and stories are fun. It is fun to fantasize what it would be like to live in a world without laws and be self sufficient amongst a world ravaged by any of the following: asteroid impact, zombies, time rifts, armageddon, etc.

Ultimately, such stories involve militia types banding together, and building peaceful communities.

Fantasy is fun. Lots of people on this board are fantasists.

[justusranvier]

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Some people don't need to pretend.

[Hawker]

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Some people don't need to pretend.

Same fallacy again and again.  You say the police system isn't perfect so lets hand ourselves over to mob rule.  How about coming up with something better?

[justusranvier]

Same fallacy again and again.  You say the police system isn't perfect so lets hand ourselves over to mob rule.  How about coming up with something better?

No, I say we have mob rule right now. The "something better" is to stop handing over power and control to psychopaths to limit the amount of damage they are able to inflict on society.

[FirstAscent]

Same fallacy again and again.  You say the police system isn't perfect so lets hand ourselves over to mob rule.  How about coming up with something better?

No, I say we have mob rule right now. The "something better" is to stop handing over power and control to psychopaths to limit the amount of damage they are able to inflict on society.

There comes a point where some of us just have to say you're deluded, naive, and on a childish little rant.

Prove me wrong: point out how the absence of that which you moan about will not create a vacuum in which the worst of what you fear will move in and replace exactly that which you despise.

[FirstAscent]

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Some people don't need to pretend.

The Cato Institute. They're one of the brownlashers. They're on the same pedestal as the Heartland Institute, the creators of the Oregon Petition, Frederick Seitz, and others. They can all be summarized as organizations who place political ideals over research.

[justusranvier]

Prove me wrong: point out how the absence of that which you moan about will not create a vacuum in which the worst of what you fear will move in and replace exactly that which you despise.

I have two questions for you first. 1) What do you use as a standard for proof? 2) If I do prove it will you change your position?

[memvola]

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

FWIW, my only personal violent encounters so far has been with the police. Things like getting beaten up because I looked at them the wrong way, or being forced to give bribes to let them give up their random searches for drugs in my shop. In none of these encounters have I been breaking the law or performing a violent act, and I have never been vindicated. Not to mention that going after the police has its risks.

Your argument is, this happened to me because I have lived in a shitty country. I don't think this claim helps your point. Police accountability may be a slightly better preventive measure against corruption in the West, but that's not because the police force is more powerful. It's a cultural thing. While people won't stand for this specific kind of abuse in the West, they easily accept harsh punishments which would result in a slap on the wrist in Middle East.

So existence of police can't be the only requirement for the climate you advocate. It is a very intricate issue.

Now, I don't know if anyone here is claiming that if the State disappeared, a spontaneous anarchy would form and we will all prosper. For me, it's rather about speculations on what can be done, what sort of people can do it, is it worth it, etc.

(edited for clarification)

[Hawker]

Same fallacy again and again.  You say the police system isn't perfect so lets hand ourselves over to mob rule.  How about coming up with something better?

No, I say we have mob rule right now. The "something better" is to stop handing over power and control to psychopaths to limit the amount of damage they are able to inflict on society.

You have to have some kind of security force.  You say "I don't like the security force we have now" and when challenged to come up with something better you repeat "I don't like the security force we have now."

Come up with something better.  

[justusranvier]

Come up with something better.

What criteria will you accept as "better"? It does no good for me to explain something if we don't agree on a common definition.  It's especially a waste of time if your questions are not asked in good faith, but rather are just diversions and smoke screens.

[FirstAscent]

Prove me wrong: point out how the absence of that which you moan about will not create a vacuum in which the worst of what you fear will move in and replace exactly that which you despise.

I have two questions for you first. 1) What do you use as a standard for proof? 2) If I do prove it will you change your position?

1. Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd mentality from the latest libertarian 'think tanks', reasonable extrapolation of data, and a solid acknowledgement of historical cases when proposing ideas.

2. If can't rip apart your arguments based on criteria listed above, I will at least shut up.

[Hawker]

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

FWIW, my only personal violent encounters so far has been with the police. Things like getting beaten up because I looked at them the wrong way, or being forced to give bribes to let them give up their random searches for drugs in my shop. In none of these encounters have I been breaking the law or performing a violent act, and I have never been vindicated. Not to mention that going after the police has its risks.

Your argument is, this happened to me because I have lived in a shitty country. I don't think this claim helps your point. Police accountability may be a slightly better preventive measure against corruption in the West, but that's not because the police force is more powerful. It's a cultural thing. While people won't stand for this specific kind of abuse in the West, they easily accept harsh punishments which would result in a slap on the wrist in Middle East.

So existence of police can't be the only requirement for the climate you advocate. It is a very intricate issue.

Now, I don't know if anyone here is claiming that if the State disappeared, a spontaneous anarchy would form and we will all prosper. For me, it's rather about speculations on what can be done, what sort of people can do it, is it worth it, etc.

(edited for clarification)

I've been in custody in Turkey.  I know what exactly you mean and how you need to see people for papers and bring presents.  But even in Turkey, the police have improved as the democratic state got stronger over the last 2 decades.  The truly dangerous people are the leftist and the religious who put you in the boot of a car and administer their own justice.  

What I am saying is that we know violence is inevitable but that a police force in a democratic state is a better bet than letting anyone with a money to hire militias and do what they want.  I think that is true in countries that are half democratic with police forces that are sort of accountable as well.  The better way is to have more democracy and more accountability.

[justusranvier]

1. Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd mentality from the latest libertarian 'think tanks', reasonable extrapolation of data, and a solid acknowledgement of historical cases when proposing ideas.

I was hoping for something a bit less subjective. How do I know ahead of time if a logical statement will sound reasonable to you, or if a set of facts comes from an organization that you approve of and avoids anything you consider to be a meme or herd mentality?

I feel like what you're saying is that if I write something that you agree with it you'll accept it and if you don't agree you won't. If that's the case I'm not at all interested in that conversation.

[FirstAscent]

1. Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd mentality from the latest libertarian 'think tanks', reasonable extrapolation of data, and a solid acknowledgement of historical cases when proposing ideas.

I was hoping for something a bit less subjective. How do I know ahead of time if a logical statement will sound reasonable to you, or if a set of facts comes from an organization that you approve of and avoids anything you consider to be a meme or herd mentality?

I feel like what you're saying is that if I write something that you agree with it you'll accept it and if you don't agree you won't. If that's the case I'm not at all interested in that conversation.

The burden lies with you to be convincing and, since you seem to want to prove something, then the burden further lies with you to prove your arguments.

I suggest you get to proving. If you've got proof, then how could I refute it?

[FirstAscent]

1. Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd mentality from the latest libertarian 'think tanks', reasonable extrapolation of data, and a solid acknowledgement of historical cases when proposing ideas.

I was hoping for something a bit less subjective.

On further analysis, your statement seems rather sad. Are you saying you can't adhere to what I listed as criteria for convincing argumentation? Please tell me which of those listed above are too difficult to adhere to?

[hashman]

...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?  
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Where I live is irrelevant to the conversation, sorry I asked you but thanks for not answering  

Armed and uniformed gang members can get away with quite a bit of corruption and destruction in most places..  asset confiscation, indefinite detention, all the way to torture, murder..  the examples are so endless and daily there is no need to post links.  You might want to consider your own health and that of your family before you go supporting that kind of madness.  It will seem like somebody else getting the stick and you will find some way to rationalize that they deserve it until it is you or the people you love.  Then what will you do or say? 

 

 

[Hawker]

...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?  
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Where I live is irrelevant to the conversation, sorry I asked you but thanks for not answering  

Armed and uniformed gang members can get away with quite a bit of corruption and destruction in most places..  asset confiscation, indefinite detention, all the way to torture, murder..  the examples are so endless and daily there is no need to post links.  You might want to consider your own health and that of your family before you go supporting that kind of madness.  It will seem like somebody else getting the stick and you will find some way to rationalize that they deserve it until it is you or the people you love.  Then what will you do or say? 

In the real world, people are violent and that includes police.  Police are generally restrained by rules and by law.  Mobs are not.  Police generally have to get evidence and go to court.  Mobs kill on suspicion.  For example, mobs riot to get rid of paedophiles and they attack paediatricians.  Police don't do that.  In my case, some Irish people were jailed for murder after being tortured by British police.  Far far more were killed by British mobs.  At least the victims of the police were eventually released and paid damages. 

So given the choice between a mob and  a police force, its obvious that the police force is better.  If you don't like that, suggest something even better rather than say the police are not perfect so we have to endure mob law.

[hashman]

...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?  
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Where I live is irrelevant to the conversation, sorry I asked you but thanks for not answering  

Armed and uniformed gang members can get away with quite a bit of corruption and destruction in most places..  asset confiscation, indefinite detention, all the way to torture, murder..  the examples are so endless and daily there is no need to post links.  You might want to consider your own health and that of your family before you go supporting that kind of madness.  It will seem like somebody else getting the stick and you will find some way to rationalize that they deserve it until it is you or the people you love.  Then what will you do or say? 

In the real world, people are violent and that includes police.  Police are generally restrained by rules and by law.  Mobs are not.  Police generally have to get evidence and go to court.  Mobs kill on suspicion.  For example, mobs riot to get rid of paedophiles and they attack paediatricians.  Police don't do that.  In my case, some Irish people were jailed for murder after being tortured by British police.  Far far more were killed by British mobs.  At least the victims of the police were eventually released and paid damages. 

So given the choice between a mob and  a police force, its obvious that the police force is better.  If you don't like that, suggest something even better rather than say the police are not perfect so we have to endure mob law.

Yeah let me suggest something better, because I disagree completely.  I'm sure you realize the statistics are against your argument.  How many people are jailed by mobs?  How many are killed by mobs?  How many killed or jailed by police / representatives of the state?  Do mobs create nuclear weapons, solitary confinement, guantanamo bay, etc etc? 

But you are right to look for ideas for improvement rather than criticisms.  Some ideas that have had some success around the world:

1) require state/police actions to be monitored and reviewed by peers
2) require patrols to have 1 male / 1 female to help defuse situations
3) maintain a well armed and trained militia
4) maintain procedures / rights such as "innocent until proven guilty" that combat the "people are violent" instincts you outline
5) consider psychological screening and testing for positions which invite abuse
6) eliminate laws such as prohibition which are designed to reward corruption

These things are not easy to maintain.  fight the power:  freedom requires constant vigilance. 

[Hawker]

...snip...

Yeah let me suggest something better, because I disagree completely.  I'm sure you realize the statistics are against your argument.  How many people are jailed by mobs?  How many are killed by mobs?  How many killed or jailed by police / representatives of the state?  Do mobs create nuclear weapons, solitary confinement, guantanamo bay, etc etc? 

But you are right to look for ideas for improvement rather than criticisms.  Some ideas that have had some success around the world:

1) require state/police actions to be monitored and reviewed by peers
2) require patrols to have 1 male / 1 female to help defuse situations
3) maintain a well armed and trained militia
4) maintain procedures / rights such as "innocent until proven guilty" that combat the "people are violent" instincts you outline
5) consider psychological screening and testing for positions which invite abuse
6) eliminate laws such as prohibition which are designed to reward corruption

These things are not easy to maintain.  fight the power:  freedom requires constant vigilance. 

All things we can agree on   especially "freedom requires constant vigilance."  Without transparency, there is a process called regulatory capture that means every institution ends up being corrupted by the problem it was set up to solve.  For example, in the UK, the Department of Education is really the Department of the National Union of Teachers and the Financial Services Authority is really controlled by the banks its meant to regulate.