[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29495#msg29495 date=1266285812]
[quote author=PraeterIdiot link=topic=2518.msg29490#msg29490 date=1266283506]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
During one of the last marijuana shindigs I was in front of the PD talking with anyone who wished, when one yelled at me equating the arrest of this pot "activist" with burning Jews in ovens. Come on. (Of course, despite the fact there were six or eight video cameras in my face THAT little nugget never made the edit!) [/quote]
wow.
did anyone in the group call that person out on it right then? Even just a "shut up" or "hey come on?"
[/quote]
No, no one did that I heard. That was actually one of three times someone said that (different people each time). The first time no one said anything to them, and I didn't call them on it either. The third time someone was saying it one of you DID come up to me and say that fellow didn't represent most of your thinking. The chap who talked to me then also has always been decent and mature, which I appreciate.
[/quote]
Oh were Max's little feelings hurt?
Still the same smug risking his life for us little people Maxfield.
The fact is the minute one of Max's supervisors gives him the word, Max will
arrest who ever he is pointed at for whatever reason the powers that be say
to.
If you don't come along he will hurt and kill you for it.
Then blame the victim for making him do it.
No matter what he writes or says on here trying to explain to the little
folk who he risks his very life for, that is the bottom line fact.
[quote author=And Stuff link=topic=2518.msg29496#msg29496 date=1266286188]
[quote author=PraeterIdiot link=topic=2518.msg29490#msg29490 date=1266283506]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
During one of the last marijuana shindigs I was in front of the PD talking with anyone who wished, when one yelled at me equating the arrest of this pot "activist" with burning Jews in ovens. Come on. (Of course, despite the fact there were six or eight video cameras in my face THAT little nugget never made the edit!) [/quote]
wow.
did anyone in the group call that person out on it right then? Even just a "shut up" or "hey come on?"
[/quote]
It sounds similar to the stuff Ian and Mark say on FTL. I've heard several activists in Keene stay stuff like this. Or we are all slaves. Mark defends both of these sayings on FTL. To the average person, this type of talk may seem absurd or even insane. I'm not sure because I'm not the average person.
[/quote]
I'm not entirely sure that the "we're slaves" rhetoric makes a lot of sense…especially when people also in the same vein talk about how they're "living free."
If Ian and Mark say it on FTL and other people copy the line because it sounds edgy, or simply because Ian and Mark say it, is it more appropriate or fitting of a piece of rhetoric to use to someone's face? Or as a voice in a near-mob?
The one time I was at the police station with others and there was a "talking to the KPD person who's willing to talk to a group of people at once" after the arrested person was released, I was unsettled by it. I found it muchly emotionally charged relative to my understanding of the situation, and perhaps that is what I was not expecting and was unsettled by.
[quote author=Pat K link=topic=2518.msg29498#msg29498 date=1266287666]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29495#msg29495 date=1266285812]
[quote author=PraeterIdiot link=topic=2518.msg29490#msg29490 date=1266283506]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
During one of the last marijuana shindigs I was in front of the PD talking with anyone who wished, when one yelled at me equating the arrest of this pot "activist" with burning Jews in ovens. Come on. (Of course, despite the fact there were six or eight video cameras in my face THAT little nugget never made the edit!) [/quote]
wow.
did anyone in the group call that person out on it right then? Even just a "shut up" or "hey come on?"
[/quote]
No, no one did that I heard. That was actually one of three times someone said that (different people each time). The first time no one said anything to them, and I didn't call them on it either. The third time someone was saying it one of you DID come up to me and say that fellow didn't represent most of your thinking. The chap who talked to me then also has always been decent and mature, which I appreciate.
[/quote]
Oh were Max's little feelings hurt?
…
[/quote]
I am interested in how a particular instance of someone saying something melodramatic played out from the perspective of someone who has no reason (that I can tell) to even pretend to have any sympathy for such a comment. I myself have little for it, but I'm biased.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29494#msg29494 date=1266285566]
[quote author=Sovereign Curtis link=topic=2518.msg29488#msg29488 date=1266282016]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
Many people … won't cooperate, they'll abscond, they'll just whack your security guard when he comes over.
[/quote]
Are you kidding me? You are a police officer, and you REALLY believe this? You, who has a career's worth of experience leveraging the threat of force to coerce compliance?!? If we get rid of police, and re-label them all private security, all of a sudden people will stop respecting an authoritative individual? They'll stop fearing for their physical safety? I dont think so.
[/quote]
Though I work for little KPD, if someone murders me on the job it's probable that every other agency able to will pull out the stops to help bring my killer in. That's a benefit (for me, anyway) of that "monopoly" if you will. Now imagine several (or many) different Private Security Firms. Some may be pretty big, more probably will be smaller. These individual companies would be competing, so there might not be much effort put into helping each other out. The resources available to that little security company would probably be pretty limited. One could argue that there could be a few GIANT security firms, who could muster the economy of scale to be able to conduct a huge investigation or manhunt, but then you run into virtual monopolies there, with them gobbling up the smaller firms until there's no way to hold them accountable for anything.
Bottom line, in my opinion, is for the evil person predilected to that sort of behavior there would be a lot less deterrent with a PrivateSecurity Firm.
Maybe private industry could do everything better. Just remember that the bigger firms would end up dominating their market, probably driving smaller firms out, or gobbling them up. End result might be a few huge companies duking it out, maybe even in open warfare. Maybe you'd end up with defacto government, or at least virtual serfdom for we little people. Like the robber barons of old.
Just my opinion. Where can I watch Molyneux?
[/quote]
I seriously think its a lack of exposure to these lines of thought, or truly a lack of imagination, that keeps you from imagining what is possible.
1st, say the voluntary society comes about and State police agencies go extinct. What people will staff the new private security firms? When these veterans are on the job, and they are ONLY required to protect life and property, and not forced to waste 99% of their time doing otherwise, just how long do you figure until the "bad guys" realize the new sheriff is ten times more efficient and 10 times less restricted than the old sheriff?
2nd, when the voluntary society comes about, fraternal association will STRENGTHEN, NOT WEAKEN. When one of the boys in off-blue in the town next door gets murdered, why would the private protection firms in neighboring towns not help out, out of professional courtesy or what not? Why wouldnt the private individuals that employ the neighboring security firms, not let the CEO's and such of said firms know that they'd like to pay to help out; they're willing to take care of their own protection, or a larger percentage of it, while their protection firm is out helping to hunt down the killer of a Protector?
Let me see if I can find you that Molyneux video I watched article I read not too long ago about DROs and private insurers.
Paydirt!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html
[quote author=Sovereign Curtis link=topic=2518.msg29505#msg29505 date=1266290050]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29494#msg29494 date=1266285566]
[quote author=Sovereign Curtis link=topic=2518.msg29488#msg29488 date=1266282016]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
Many people … won't cooperate, they'll abscond, they'll just whack your security guard when he comes over.
[/quote]
Are you kidding me? You are a police officer, and you REALLY believe this? You, who has a career's worth of experience leveraging the threat of force to coerce compliance?!? If we get rid of police, and re-label them all private security, all of a sudden people will stop respecting an authoritative individual? They'll stop fearing for their physical safety? I dont think so.
[/quote]
Though I work for little KPD, if someone murders me on the job it's probable that every other agency able to will pull out the stops to help bring my killer in. That's a benefit (for me, anyway) of that "monopoly" if you will. Now imagine several (or many) different Private Security Firms. Some may be pretty big, more probably will be smaller. These individual companies would be competing, so there might not be much effort put into helping each other out. The resources available to that little security company would probably be pretty limited. One could argue that there could be a few GIANT security firms, who could muster the economy of scale to be able to conduct a huge investigation or manhunt, but then you run into virtual monopolies there, with them gobbling up the smaller firms until there's no way to hold them accountable for anything.
Bottom line, in my opinion, is for the evil person predilected to that sort of behavior there would be a lot less deterrent with a PrivateSecurity Firm.
Maybe private industry could do everything better. Just remember that the bigger firms would end up dominating their market, probably driving smaller firms out, or gobbling them up. End result might be a few huge companies duking it out, maybe even in open warfare. Maybe you'd end up with defacto government, or at least virtual serfdom for we little people. Like the robber barons of old.
Just my opinion. Where can I watch Molyneux?
[/quote]
I seriously think its a lack of exposure to these lines of thought, or truly a lack of imagination, that keeps you from imagining what is possible.
1st, say the voluntary society comes about and State police agencies go extinct. What people will staff the new private security firms? When these veterans are on the job, and they are ONLY required to protect life and property, and not forced to waste 99% of their time doing otherwise, just how long do you figure until the "bad guys" realize the new sheriff is ten times more efficient and 10 times less restricted than the old sheriff?
2nd, when the voluntary society comes about, fraternal association will STRENGTHEN, NOT WEAKEN. When one of the boys in off-blue in the town next door gets murdered, why would the private protection firms in neighboring towns not help out, out of professional courtesy or what not? Why wouldnt the private individuals that employ the neighboring security firms, not let the CEO's and such of said firms know that they'd like to pay to help out; they're willing to take care of their own protection, or a larger percentage of it, while their protection firm is out helping to hunt down the killer of a Protector?
Let me see if I can find you that Molyneux video I watched article I read not too long ago about DROs and private insurers.
Paydirt!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html
[/quote]
These are good points that I hadn't thought of…
[quote author=And Stuff link=topic=2518.msg29496#msg29496 date=1266286188]
[quote author=PraeterIdiot link=topic=2518.msg29490#msg29490 date=1266283506]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
During one of the last marijuana shindigs I was in front of the PD talking with anyone who wished, when one yelled at me equating the arrest of this pot "activist" with burning Jews in ovens. Come on. (Of course, despite the fact there were six or eight video cameras in my face THAT little nugget never made the edit!) [/quote]
wow.
did anyone in the group call that person out on it right then? Even just a "shut up" or "hey come on?"
[/quote]
It sounds similar to the stuff Ian and Mark say on FTL. I've heard several activists in Keene stay stuff like this. Or we are all slaves. Mark defends both of these sayings on FTL. To the average person, this type of talk may seem absurd or even insane. I'm not sure because I'm not the average person.
[/quote]
Not absurd and not insane. Quite the opposite – it is literally the same violation, and is easy to equate:
Mr. Jew & Mr. Pothead are both equally undeserving to be treated like freaking cattle.
They are innocent human beings just out & enjoying themselves when their lives get violently disrupted by the state agents.
The fact that one's had lower or higher chances of survival (at any particular point in history: 1933 vs 1938 vs 1943 vs 1982) after such an encounter, is unrelated to the original transgression. I would even argue that the fate of that hapless human being can't be foretold by the initial agent.
No they are not intrinsically the same thing.
Does criminalizing people who are harmless lead to the simiar notion of putting jews in cattle cars- yes
But at this stage it is not the same, not by a long shot. That is what leads to the irrational shouting matches and rants like some of the overt, impulsive activists want to convey, (i.e. Jew killer, jack booted thug) etc
[quote author=BJ from Ky link=topic=2518.msg29511#msg29511 date=1266297339]
No they are not intrinsically the same thing.
Does criminalizing people who are harmless lead to the simiar notion of putting jews in cattle cars- yes
But at this stage it is not the same, not by a long shot. That is what leads to the irrational shouting matches and rants like some of the overt, impulsive activists want to convey, (i.e. Jew killer, jack booted thug) etc
[/quote]
You are fooling yourself.
To me, one instant a free person – and a hogtied slave the next, it matters little whether the goon roughing me up has a grandiose Endlosung or a simple extortion scheme in mind. I just lost all control over my life, liberty & property and am at the arbitrary whim of the thugs to do as they please.
No stranger has any right to intrude into my life. They better have a darn good reason or there will be hell to pay. Stop inventing excuses for them.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
ttie,
1. It's unarguable that CivDis has corrected some of the biggest wrongs in this country. I cannot equate, however, remedying the inequities against non-whites (for example), with smoking pot in Central Square[/quote]
Why? Is it not immoral to attempt to dictate what a person may ingest into their own body, just as it is immoral to force a black man to the back of a bus?
Great reform, through history, comes when we broaden moral principles to include people and situations to which they had not formerly been applied. Principled opposition to slavery, for example, was based on the recognition that the word "men" in "all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them … liberty" cannot just mean white men, and the end of slavery marked our willingness to bring our actions into compliance with this moral belief. The principles had existed, but the courage to act upon them rather than make excuses for the status quo took time. Other examples include the delcaration of independence itself, and the bill of rights, which had been formed based on just such an expansion of the application of moral principle, from nobility to commoners, and much later, to blacks and women. Each of these changes, in their turn, appeared to be drastic and unprecidented.
We all recognize that it would be immoral for me to grab a gun, and go kidnap someone, or demand money of them, because they smoked a cigarette, or did something else of which I personally disapprove. Why then is it moral when I hire a politician, or a cop, to do it for me? As in past reform efforts, the point is not to create a new ethics – it is to consistently apply existent ethical principles. We need to apply basic individual ethics, which we all know and understand, to political activity, and activity on behalf of "government".
I suggest that the reason many (and perhaps you) readily draw such a distinction between this generation's injustice and past injustice may be that they were born in this generation, rather than an earlier or later one. Polls were overwhelmingly in favor of Jim Crow laws at the time of the civil rights movement. Upwards of 90% opposed the end of segregation in one Georgia poll, for example, and the numbers elsewhere were similar. Were the people of that generation innately less moral than this one?
No, they simply were not taught in school and elsewhere that MLK and others were heroes, or that segregation is immoral, as this generation has. The civil rights movement appeared to be new, and frightening – just as the abolitionist movement had been new and frightening in its time. There are a multitude of quotes I can pull up by pro-slavery authors, arguing that slavery is inevitable to society and the nature of man, that it had always existed, and that the abolitionists were Utopians and idealists, whose vision could never come to pass. Nearly identical arguments were made against the revolution of the colonies, woman's rights, the end of segregation, and are now made about reform efforts today.
Are we to believe that this is the one generation, in thousands of years of modern history, that has finally gotten it right, and expunged widespread systematic injustice? No. That is what every generation has thought, and every generation has been wrong. It would behoove us to think honestly about what our systematic injustice(s) is/are. Because they do exist – and posterity will judge us on our actions in relation to them.
I would wager that a number of generations from now, there will be one that views the drug war, and other abuses, the same way Jim Crow is viewed now.
How do I know this will come to pass? Because the current law is immoral, by any self consistent definition – and systematic immorality never lasts forever. It will fall, just as previous injustices have.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
for the sole purpose of zinging "the system" to get a reaction (also for example). [/quote]
Actually, I'm quite certain that activists would prefer to be left alone. The ideal would be that police would recognize the immorality of that law, and refuse to enforce it.
But, you're right to note that activism is taking place in a public setting – people are not hiding somewhere when they break immoral laws. This is absolutely the way civil disobedience should work. Remember Gandhi's salt march, in which he intentionally, publicly, marched to the sea, and made salt, which was illegal at that time? He did not cower in his hut and scratch some salt from the dirt, or sneak off to the sea unannounced. He wanted to make a public statement that being forced to buy salt only from the British was immoral, and he would not tolerate it.
As a side point … we're currently forced to buy alcohol only from the government. How about a march to a distillery ;)?
In any case, injustice of the past always appears different, and each generation is tempted to excuse its own. I encourage you to apply objective standards to both, and to the reform efforts of both. Reformers of the past intentionally, publicly, disobeyed immoral laws – many believed in order to provoke a response. It makes no sense to have holidays in honor of people who did this 50 years ago, but condemn the action today.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
Drug laws, motor vehicle laws etc. can, have and should be fought in the legislative system.
[/quote]
Why? If you recognize that civil disobedience has been the most effective way to end immoral laws of the past, why not today? Or, are you arguing that these laws are moral?
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
During one of the last marijuana shindigs I was in front of the PD talking with anyone who wished, when one yelled at me equating the arrest of this pot "activist" with burning Jews in ovens. Come on. (Of course, despite the fact there were six or eight video cameras in my face THAT little nugget never made the edit!)
[/quote]
Obviously it's not the same – short term kidnapping and small scale extortion are far less serious than murder.
Perhaps he was trying to make the point that the "just doing my job" defense is absolutely bunk. If you were not making that argument, then the comment was entirely inappropriate. I'm sure you appreciate that some people will make inappropriate comments from time to time. Assuming that the situation was as it sounds, I hope he will think more carefully about his rhetoric in the future.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
Ordinances and laws are added, changed and deleted every year, all across the country. There have been several places that have made great strides in the marijuana issue. It can be done, but it takes some organization, some patience and some maturity.
[/quote]
Segregation laws had been added, changed, and deleted as well, prior to, and during the civil rights efforts. There were many who argued that efforts should have been entirely political, and that the law should not have been disobeyed. We recognize now, however, that civil disobedience efforts were the most powerful catalyst for political change.
Do you think there is a substantive, objective, distinction between these two situations? If so, what?
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29477#msg29477 date=1266277544]
From a practical viewpoint, while the 420 things and the great "invasions" of my PD make for great blog and YouTube fodder (and the resultant forum backslapping), I think they're hurting the legalization cause as well as damaging your credibility and standing in this community which you've come to. In short, you're alienating "the body" I referred to earlier.
[/quote]
You must know that many objected to the actions of MLK, and others, for the same reasons. Clearly, history shows that peaceful civil disobedience is not an alienating tactic, and frankly, I have seen it draw a great deal of support, even in these early stages. I'm a Keene native, and I don't feel alienated ;). I think the people who would use civil disobedience as an excuse to support the continuation of drug war, if such people even exist, were never really allies anyway.
However, there may be ways to do civil disobedience that can make it more or less effective – or more or less alienating.
Thanks again for your willingness to engage in honest conversation. I'll respond to your other two replies as soon as I get a chance :).
[quote author=mikey link=topic=2518.msg29514#msg29514 date=1266300332]
[quote author=BJ from Ky link=topic=2518.msg29511#msg29511 date=1266297339]
No they are not intrinsically the same thing.
Does criminalizing people who are harmless lead to the simiar notion of putting jews in cattle cars- yes
But at this stage it is not the same, not by a long shot. That is what leads to the irrational shouting matches and rants like some of the overt, impulsive activists want to convey, (i.e. Jew killer, jack booted thug) etc
[/quote]
You are fooling yourself.
To me, one instant a free person – and a hogtied slave the next, it matters little whether the goon roughing me up has a grandiose Endlosung or a simple extortion scheme in mind. I just lost all control over my life, liberty & property and am at the arbitrary whim of the thugs to do as they please.
No stranger has any right to intrude into my life. They better have a darn good reason or there will be hell to pay. Stop inventing excuses for them.
[/quote]
The Jews were not overnight scapegoats for the previous couple millennia. There was a couple millennia leading up to Nazi Germany. Relatively, the criminalization of pot and pot-heads was instantaneous–what, barely a century old? At best, as soon as whitey realized he was white?
Conversion to Judaism is discouraged; with the exception of those who are sick, putting substance X into your body is a choice (though even the sick people have the "choice" to use different legal drugs; just as someone who's had a Judaistic theophany has the "choice" to ignore it).
At the very least it IS a difference in degree. Unless one is a scholar of Nazi Germany or the Shoah, either academically or otherwise, I don't understand the point of using the connection for any reason other than to shock or have a dramatic effect. Might as well point out that Hitler had a dog the next time a drug-sniffing dog is around, I don't understand what is meant to be gained by saying either thing.
[quote author=PraeterIdiot link=topic=2518.msg29520#msg29520 date=1266322760]
At the very least it IS a difference in degree.
[/quote]
hahahaha…just kidding!
Many people are removed from the most brutal effects of the drug war; I know I am. And many people are removed from the Shoah except for however it's covered in school as a kid, I don't consider that of myself. So if there is a difference in degree, it's dependent upon individual instances, with historical context clouding up the similarities.
Though I still don't understand the use of such lines as anything other than political effect.
The continuation of a comparison of recreational drug crimialization to the burning of human beings is lacking in fortitude. While I have been accused throughout my life of being black and white in my perceptions- this interpretation of coersion overshadows any non-gray predilections I have had in the past, present, or that I could presume to have within the next 10,000 years. Furthemore, dramatizing the civil disobedience culture by referring to the common street cop as a jew killer serves no productive purpose.
Should I then refer to you as a child killer? Every day children that don't have food die from hunger. I assume that unless you live in a cave (if so where did you get internet access?) you are aware of this. You have the significant opportunity to remedy the situation, and if you choose not to, you murder innocent children.
These excessive rants
A) are inconsiderate and disrespectful to many not just including the police
B) non-productive at best, counter productive at worst
C) lack insight and imagination
I consider myself fortunate in possessing the knowledge that those who condone this type of behavior represent an insignicant portion of the activist cohort.
Regarding comparing the drug war (or any tyranny) to the holocaust–
This is an ANALOGY. Of course there is a difference of degrees but the point of making the analogy remains. If you find this analogy tired and redundant, then you have an idea of how tired we are of the excuse:
"I'm just doing my job."
which you, Shane, believe absolves you of moral responsibility for hurting innocent people. And because I don't share your religious views of assigning authority to some people over other people via rituals like elections, I do not define "innocent" based on arbitrary decrees by those so-called authorities. "Innocent" from any rational perspective means that you haven't violated the rights of others, i.e. you have not harmed or infringed on the property of others.
So yes, it's true that those convicted (sometimes wrongly) of using and dealing are not being herded into ovens or poisonous showers and shoveled into mass graves. There is a difference of degrees. But innocent people are being ripped from families that need them and shoved into cages. Children grow up in broken homes and poverty, increasing the likelihood of engaging in crime themselves. Homes of innocent people are raided by SWAT teams where innocent people die, where family pets are killed. People who are overdosing are afraid to seek medical attention for fear of legal repercussions and other cases of people needing help being afraid to seek it due to the drug war. The drug war is the primary justification for intrusive searches of the person and property of innocent people everywhere and it encourages truly violent crime (the war does this, not the drugs) so it is at the root of why this country is now one of the biggest police states in the world. Those are just a few things off the top of my head. It is causing massive harm to innocent people, victims of violence by perpetrators who feel no sense of personal responsibility because they're "just doing their jobs", and if we don't recognize that soon, it won't be a difference of degrees for long.
[quote author=Dalebert link=topic=2518.msg29526#msg29526 date=1266331656]
Regarding comparing the drug war (or any tyranny) to the holocaust–
This is an ANALOGY. Of course there is a difference of degrees but the point of making the analogy remains. If you find this analogy tired and redundant, then you have an idea of how tired we are of the excuse:
"I'm just doing my job."
which you, Shane, believe absolves you of moral responsibility for hurting innocent people. And because I don't share your religious views of assigning authority to some people over other people via rituals like elections, I do not define "innocent" based on arbitrary decrees by those so-called authorities. "Innocent" from any rational perspective means that you haven't violated the rights of others, i.e. you have not harmed or infringed on the property of others.
So yes, it's true that those convicted (sometimes wrongly) of using and dealing are not being herded into ovens or poisonous showers and shoveled into mass graves. There is a difference of degrees. But innocent people are being ripped from families that need them and shoved into cages. Children grow up in broken homes and poverty, increasing the likelihood of engaging in crime themselves. Homes of innocent people are raided by SWAT teams where innocent people die, where family pets are killed. People who are overdosing are afraid to seek medical attention for fear of legal repercussions and other cases of people needing help being afraid to seek it due to the drug war. The drug war is the primary justification for intrusive searches of the person and property of innocent people everywhere and it encourages truly violent crime (the war does this, not the drugs) so it is at the root of why this country is now one of the biggest police states in the world. Those are just a few things off the top of my head. It is causing massive harm to innocent people, victims of violence by perpetrators who feel no sense of personal responsibility because they're "just doing their jobs", and if we don't recognize that soon, it won't be a difference of degrees for long.
[/quote]
HEAR HEAR!
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
ttie,
2. Property rights as you framed it sound great, in theory. Maybe someone could enlighten me on how we would make the transition from public property to private ownership. Auctions? You'd end up with four or five rich / powerful people owning everything in town (probably some of the same who own whole blocks now).
[/quote]
Well, there are roads, and there's everything else. Roads are the stickiest wicket, I readily admit. Freedom when it comes to roads works great when starting from scratch – transitioning will be challenging, but by no means impossible.
I don't think it needs to be as simple as an auction – we can use a little more creativity. For example, if there is a community organization which collects money to buy and maintain a certain local park, or library, it might be preferable to sell it to them, rather than to a developer who collects slightly more money. The proceeds of all sales would be immediately distributed to the taxpayers – so this represents a huge movement of wealth from the rich to the poor, as well. The school property might be turned over to the current school administration, on a payment plan. If the school under the current administration is not able to operate efficiently, and make the payments, the school building could be sold to another educator, for a lump sum or payment plan.
I think we'd want to take a gradual approach with the roads, so that we can find what works best. I think a good starting point would be a couple sparsely populated rural roads, which could be turned over to local property owners. The owners would be exempted from the gas tax, or other road tax, as long as they maintain their road and allow the public on it.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
Then, they'd hire their own Private Security Companies to enforce the rules on their property (like the toll booths that would spring up all over the place (they'd have to recoup their investment somehow)
[/quote]
I think the model of community organizations owning roads is a lot more likely than individuals. Look at how roads were handled in the late 1700s to early 1800s. Private roads were funded by investments from local individuals. The kinds of people who came together to back these projects, were very community oriented, and more often middle class, than wealthy investors. EH.net (Economic History), for example, says this:
[quote author=EH.net]
Although the states of Pennsylvania, Virginia and Ohio subsidized privately-operated turnpike companies, most turnpikes were financed solely by private stock subscription and structured to pay dividends. This was a significant achievement, considering the large construction costs (averaging around $1,500 to $2,000 per mile) and the typical length (15 to 40 miles). But the achievement was most striking because, as New England historian Edward Kirkland (1948, 45) put it, “the turnpikes did not make money. As a whole this was true; as a rule it was clear from the beginning.” Organizers and “investors” generally regarded the initial proceeds from sale of stock as a fund from which to build the facility, which would then earn enough in toll receipts to cover operating expenses. One might hope for dividend payments as well, but “it seems to have been generally known long before the rush of construction subsided that turnpike stock was worthless” (Wood 1919, 63).3
Turnpikes promised little in the way of direct dividends and profits, but they offered potentially large indirect benefits. Because turnpikes facilitated movement and trade, nearby merchants, farmers, land owners, and ordinary residents would benefit from a turnpike. Gazetteer Thomas F. Gordon aptly summarized the relationship between these “indirect benefits” and investment in turnpikes: “None have yielded profitable returns to the stockholders, but everyone feels that he has been repaid for his expenditures in the improved value of his lands, and the economy of business” (quoted in Majewski 2000, 49). Gordon’s statement raises an important question. If one could not be excluded from benefiting from a turnpike, and if dividends were not in the offing, what incentive would anyone have to help finance turnpike construction? The turnpike communities faced a serious free-rider problem.
Nevertheless, hundreds of communities overcame the free-rider problem, mostly through a civic-minded culture that encouraged investment for long-term community gain. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that, excepting those of the South, Americans were infused with a spirit of public-mindedness. Their strong sense of community spirit resulted in the funding of schools, libraries, hospitals, churches, canals, dredging companies, wharves, and water companies, as well as turnpikes (Goodrich 1948). Vibrant community and cooperation sprung, according to Tocqueville, from the fertile ground of liberty:
If it is a question of taking a road past his property, [a man] sees at once that this small public matter has a bearing on his greatest private interests, and there is no need to point out to him the close connection between his private profit and the general interest. … Local liberties, then, which induce a great number of citizens to value the affection of their kindred and neighbors, bring men constantly into contact, despite the instincts which separate them, and force them to help one another. … The free institutions of the United States and the political rights enjoyed there provide a thousand continual reminders to every citizen that he lives in society. … Having no particular reason to hate others, since he is neither their slave nor their master, the American’s heart easily inclines toward benevolence. At first it is of necessity that men attend to the public interest, afterward by choice. What had been calculation becomes instinct. By dint of working for the good of his fellow citizens, he in the end acquires a habit and taste for serving them. … I maintain that there is only one effective remedy against the evils which equality may cause, and that is political liberty (Alexis de Tocqueville, 511-13, Lawrence/Mayer edition).
Tocqueville’s testimonial is broad and general, but its accuracy is seen in the archival records and local histories of the turnpike communities. Stockholder’s lists reveal a web of neighbors, kin, and locally prominent figures voluntarily contributing to what they saw as an important community improvement. Appeals made in newspapers, local speeches, town meetings, door-to-door solicitations, correspondence, and negotiations in assembling the route stressed the importance of community improvement rather than dividends.4 Furthermore, many toll road projects involved the effort to build a monument and symbol of the community. Participating in a company by donating cash or giving moral support was a relatively rewarding way of establishing public services; it was pursued at least in part for the sake of community romance and adventure as ends in themselves (Brown 1973, 68). It should be noted that turnpikes were not entirely exceptional enterprises in the early nineteenth century. In many fields, the corporate form had a public-service ethos, aimed not primarily at paying dividends, but at serving the community (Handlin and Handlin 1945, 22, Goodrich 1948, 306, Hurst 1970, 15).
Given the importance of community activism and long-term gains, most “investors” tended to be not outside speculators, but locals positioned to enjoy the turnpikes’ indirect benefits. “But with a few exceptions, the vast majority of the stockholders in turnpike were farmers, land speculators, merchants or individuals and firms interested in commerce” (Durrenberger 1931, 104). A large number of ordinary households held turnpike stock. Pennsylvania compiled the most complete set of investment records, which show that more than 24,000 individuals purchased turnpike or toll bridge stock between 1800 and 1821. The average holding was $250 worth of stock, and the median was less than $150 (Majewski 2001). Such sums indicate that most turnpike investors were wealthier than the average citizen, but hardly part of the urban elite that dominated larger corporations such as the Bank of the United States. County-level studies indicate that most turnpike investment came from farmers and artisans, as opposed to the merchants and professionals more usually associated with early corporations (Majewski 2000, 49-53).
[/quote]
I also think toll booths are an awful business plan, especially for city streets. The best would probably be community organizations, as I say, who allow others to use their streets, in exchange for the free use of the streets maintained by other community organizations.
Alternatives could include subscriptions for services (subscribe, and get a sticker for example), or electronic tolls, which can be collected at full speed.
Suppose all TV and Radio were run by government, and we had never experienced anything else. No doubt we would say, "Of course TV and radio can never be provided privately – how on earth could anyone make any money providing a service that anyone can tune into for free any time? Why, you'd have a coin slot in the side of your TV – you'd have to put a quarter in for every ten minutes!!" But, we would not have imagined the possibilities of ads, or of satellite radio and cable TV, which can operate by subscription. Suppose all food were provided by government. We would surely say, "Of course food distribution can never be privatized – only the rich would eat!" but, we would not have imagined the possibility of the food kitchen, or the homeless shelter, or church based and secular charities – or the greater efficiencies in food production that we have because of competition. Any idea how much a McDonald's hamburger or a pound of rice would cost, if a government monopoly produced it, and people were forced to buy it, no matter what? A lot more than a dollar, that's for sure.
To ask how education, roads, etc, can be provided without forcing everyone into one mandated solution a lot like asking, "No bread lines! Then how shall we eat?" The answer: A lot better.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
and also to man the anti-aircraft guns (they'll want to control their airspace, too, Ian!).
[/quote]
Oh, c'mon, really now.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
Replicate this on a national scale, you'd end up with several large entities, and ultimately either a state of war-like coexistence at the expense of all of us who can't afford to buy any roads or land (like in Mogidishu) or defacto "government" under another name.
[/quote]
Why do you think this doesn't occur now? The economic power of average people blows away that of the wannabe crooks. We had private roads once, you know. As a percentage of GDP, the amount invested in these roads from 1790 to 1830 was greater than the total amount invested by all levels of government in the interstate highway system between 1956 and 1995. These investments produced at least 40,000 to 50,000 miles of road, and built many of the covered bridges we see today, without significant government involvement. In fact, in New Hampshire, there were 51 turnpike incorporations, representing more than 1/6 of all incorporations at the time. As I say, the very first connected Portsmouth to Concord, and formed the basis of what is now route 4.
I'm pretty sure this did not cause the Armageddon you describe. In fact, I think the destruction of community in this country that we have witnessed is the direct result of replacing relationship with policy – all of the reasons neighbors and communities used to need to come together, and work with each other, have been replaced by mechanistic interactions with government.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
If not auctions, how about just giving everyone the road in front of their property. Even if everyone could agree on how that would work (usually have a different property owner on each side of the road), what would happen from then on would resemble a very real Monopoly game. The end result would be the same as in the Auction scenario.
[/quote]
Again, I think you underestimate people's ability to work together. There exist jerks, but the best way to deal with them is by bringing considerable community pressure to bear – not creating a one sized fits all policy custom made to handle jerks, and then enforcing it on everyone.
We need to have these relationships in our community. We used to have it in the past – reread Tocqueville's quote, for example. We live in modern isolation for the exact reason that we have destroyed the necessity for us to work together, and farmed what used to be community activities out to one central authority.
Also, it's worth noting that the problem with Monopoly as an economic analogy is that there's a fixed amount of property in the game. This is the view many people have about real economies-- that there is a fixed pie, which we must all fight over – but it's dead wrong. Every time you work, and produce a good or service of value, the pie expands. Such work really is making money. The fact that you are paid does not mean you have taken purchasing power from someone else – rather, you have created wealth that did not previously exist. You have expanded the pie, then traded your newly created pie piece for someone else's. Voluntary interactions always benefit both individuals involved – otherwise they would not do it.
Forced interactions benefit one person at the expense of another (or even harm both).
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
The first step, returning all public property to "the people," seems impossible. Unless you're already rich. For most of us, it would be like starting Monopoly with just a couple 20's and a ten.
[/quote]
If a rich person buys a park, the money goes to the folks trying to scrape by with a couple 20's and a ten. I don't know about you, but if I'm trying to pay rent, I'd rather have the money myself, and the freedom to decide what to do with it.
If I want to use it to buy a share in a park, I still can – but at least I have that choice.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
The "consequences" you mention would be different for every property owner. You'd have to have a billboard at each entrance of the block you own (you're rich!)
[/quote]
I think we should use a little more imagination. If you make your property a blight, no one's going to want to do business with you, and your reputation in the community will plummet.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
because the penalty for drunk driving on your land is death,
[/quote]
No respectable protection agency would tolerate this. I would not subscribe to any protection agency which would have this policy, or do anything but fight this kind of policy tooth and nail. I suspect others would have similar attitudes.
If a person disobeys the rules you have set for your property, you have a right to evict them – not to kill them. Again, why do you think this is not the policy today? Because people recognize that it would be outrageous and immoral. That's not going to suddenly change.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
while the penalty for drunk driving on this other guy's land is you have to buy everyone a round of Scotch.
[/quote]
Again, if we're going to go with individual ownership, which I think is unlikely for local roads, and this were the policy, I'm guessing few people would drive there. The owner would go out of business, and his land would be sold to someone with more responsible policies.
But hey, if some group somewhere with some road wants to have that policy, and if there are a big enough handful of people who think the risk is worth it, and support it, more power to them.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
The Market For Liberty sounds great, until you inject the "human condition" into the formula.[/quote]
The market for liberty is just one book, it's not some infallible document. I certainly disagree with quite a few things in it.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
Many people are just assholes, they won't cooperate, they'll abscond, they'll just whack your security guard when he comes over.
[/quote]
Again, I think you underestimate people. We have had much less government, and much more community in the past, and the results were far better.
And if someone "whacks" a security guard the results for them would be at least as bad as what happens if someone "whacks" a police officer today. They'd be either dead, or working for the rest of their lives in a secure camp, with the proceeds going to the beneficiaries of the security guard's will.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29478#msg29478 date=1266278824]
Sounds great, but it's fantasy.
[/quote]
That's what people called the idea of "self government" when the colonists rebelled, that's what people called abolitionism, that's what people called the end of segregation, etc.
The question to ask is this: Is the current system moral? If the answer is no, then it needs to be changed. Fear of the unknown has been a major impediment to every reform effort, and it always seems silly in retrospect.
[quote author=Sovereign Curtis link=topic=2518.msg29418#msg29418 date=1266176355]
[quote author=FTL_Ian link=topic=2518.msg29410#msg29410 date=1266170805]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29387#msg29387 date=1266119944]
Ian, I just changed days, am on Sat. through Tuesdays (except tomorrow, I took a day off for my daughter's birthday party). I could be ammenable to a "Well-met Wednesday" or a "Thoughtful Thursday" or even a "Familiar Friday." Where is it these days?
[/quote]
There was a weeknight Karaoke - not sure what is happening with that these days.
[/quote]
I dont think karaoke night would make a good forum.
[/quote]
I agree. I just wanted to see Shane belt out a tune. 
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29471#msg29471 date=1266275274]
Ian, I'm not a big fan of Mexican, but I can tolerate it. Also, with whom can I negotiate the purchase of a copy of the footage from the other night?
[/quote]
The Pedraza's idea was Curtis', for the record, but I like it. I think Yadra is the person to talk to about the footage. I'll give him a heads-up.
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29508#msg29508 date=1266294765]
These are good points that I hadn't thought of…
[/quote]
In one line, Shane has summed up why he's one of my favorite cops. 8)
[quote author=FTL_Ian link=topic=2518.msg29548#msg29548 date=1266349133]
[quote author=Shane Maxfield link=topic=2518.msg29508#msg29508 date=1266294765]
These are good points that I hadn't thought of…
[/quote]
In one line, Shane has summed up why he's one of my favorite cops. 8)
[/quote]
I must admit that I never had more hope inside me, since moving to NH, than when I read that response for the first time last night
(I have since re-read it over and over. Years of pessimism, right out the window!). I whole-heartily look forward to sitting down and continuing this discussion in person.
[quote author=Sovereign Curtis link=topic=2518.msg29549#msg29549 date=1266350770]
I must admit that I never had more hope inside me, since moving to NH, than when I read that response for the first time last night
(I have since re-read it over and over. Years of pessimism, right out the window!). I whole-heartily look forward to sitting down and continuing this discussion in person.
[/quote]
If I'm not working when it is scheduled, I'll be there. Brad J. is expected to be in town on 2/23, I think, FYI. Maybe he would be someone useful to invite along?