An acre of medicinal / recreational Cannabis would be nice, but it might be more practical to have several acres of
Hemp.
You do know that part of your job entails protecting the Pharmaceutical drug cartels and other businesses that would prefer to keep Hemp prohibited?
If you don't know the history of Cannabis prohibition you might be one of thousands of anonymous henchmen that have worked in ignorance. Essentially part of your job entails being part of "protection racket".
Do you realize this or refute this?
http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html
*Hemp has been grown for at least the last 12,000 years for fiber (textiles and paper) and food. It has been effectively prohibited in the United States since the 1950s.
*George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp. Ben Franklin owned a mill that made hemp paper. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper.
*When US sources of "Manila hemp" (not true hemp) was cut off by the Japanese in WWII, the US Army and US Department of Agriculture promoted the "Hemp for Victory" campaign to grow hemp in the US.
*Because of its importance for sails (the word "canvass" is rooted in "cannabis") and rope for ships, hemp was a required crop in the American colonies.
INDUSTRY FACTS
*Henry Ford experimented with hemp to build car bodies. He wanted to build and fuel cars from farm products.
*BMW is experimenting with hemp materials in automobiles as part of an effort to make cars more recyclable.
*Much of the bird seed sold in the US has hemp seed (it's sterilized before importation), the hulls of which contain about 25% protein.
*Hemp oil once greased machines. Most paints, resins, shellacs, and varnishes used to be made out of linseed (from flax) and hemp oils.
*Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run on hemp oil.
*Kimberly Clark (on the Fortune 500) has a mill in France which produces hemp paper preferred for bibles because it lasts a very long time and doesn't yellow.
*Construction products such as medium density fiber board, oriented strand board, and even beams, studs and posts could be made out of hemp. Because of hemp's long fibers, the products will be stronger and/or lighter than those made from wood.
*The products that can be made from hemp number over 25,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So which is it are you toiling in ignorance as an anonymous henchmen or are you comfortable knowing that you part of the largest protection racket scheme ever pulled off in the history of the world?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50884#msg50884 date=1299840241]
Seriously? I'm poking holes into your idea of the enforcer-less society and this is the best insult you can hurl?
Get your head in the game and debate as to HOW an enforce-less society or a lawless society will operate amicably and together for the GREATER good. It will be anarchy in its truest sense, with no rules of law, moral beliefs that differ for everyone, and hardships had by everyone with no infrastructure. But there will surely be an acre of weed in everyone's back yard.
[/quote]
Euhm… point out to me where I've ever claimed to want an enforcer-less society?
I didn't hurl any insults to you, I asked some serious, critical questions to you based on statements YOU have made about yourself.
I will repeat my position for you, yet again:
I do not want to be forced to pay somebody like you, who by self-admittence agrees that he will harm innocent people for annoying him slightly, if and when he can get away with it.
Now explain to me why it's so wrong for me to NOT want to pay the salary, for somebody to be in a position of power over others, who ADMITS that the only thing that keeps him acting moral is the constant fear for and supervision of others.
If you're the type of man who is kept from beating up random strangers ONLY by the law, like you claim, the LAST thing on Earth you should be is a cop, and the last thing on Earth I want to do is to be force to pay for you being a cop.
Um Crappy…if I were keeping basketball score here, I'd say Ishtar just hit a shot from outside the 3 point line.
His logic makes perfect sense. You got some thinking to do bro'. Bet you can't answer him.
[quote author=free libertarian link=topic=4846.msg50908#msg50908 date=1299869877]
Um Crappy…if I were keeping basketball score here, I'd say Ishtar just hit a shot from outside the 3 point line.
His logic makes perfect sense. You got some thinking to do bro'. Bet you can't answer him.
[/quote]
Thanks… and I'm a girl… 
You're welcome. Sorry about the gender assumption…took a guess that Ishtar was masculine. I think you gave Crappy something to think about and he will be hard pressed to address your concerns in any sensible way.
3 points called back on a traveling penalty is more like it.
You are forced to pay for the greater good. This has already been addressed. Whether or not you WANT the service is not your choice. You've heard about the idiot that didn't buy fire protection and the town allowed his house to burn down, right? He was just like you- "Screw this. They do nothing. I don't need their services. If something happens, I'll take care of it myself. I'm John Rambo." And then when the shit hit the fan, he begged for the fire dept to put out his fire, and they said tough shit. WHO'S wrong? The firemen for not helping their fellow man or the idiot for not buying the protection to begin with?
You will be the FIRST people in line calling for help from me when grandma stops breathing or there's some noise downstairs and you are too scared to check it yourself.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-firefighters-allow-house-to-burn-because-resident-did-not-pay-fee/
I LOVE this story because it flies in the face of everything you preach. Bitch and moan like a little girl about paying for a blanket protective service, but then cry me a river after your house burns down or someone dies because you were a man of principle.
And again, this entire thread seems to be based on weed, weed, and more weed. Maybe if you smoked some more, you wouldn't be so rabid toward me. I already told you weed is pretty low on my priority list, and I've done my share of looking the other way. Yes, hemp is very useful and should be used to manufacture things, and yes it is stupid that almost no one can make it for industrial use. But again, I'm not the bad guy. The guys making the laws are the bad guys. If you want it changed, make them change it.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50921#msg50921 date=1299890895]You will be the FIRST people in line calling for help from me when grandma stops breathing or there's some noise downstairs and you are too scared to check it yourself.[/quote]
Uh, no. I'd rather deal with an armed intruder, than a cop.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50921#msg50921 date=1299890895]I LOVE this story because it flies in the face of everything you preach. Bitch and moan like a little girl about paying for a blanket protective service, but then cry me a river after your house burns down…[/quote]
Or, you know, I could install proper fire prevention devices, making that almost impossible.
What most folks pay in property taxes, in one year, would easily cover the cost of installing a sprinkler system in their home. Of course, if they make that choice, the cops will come and attack them. So they pay their taxes, instead of making their home safer. And then there's a fire, and a family burns to death, because of the cops.
Guess you don't save lives, do you?
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50921#msg50921 date=1299890895]
3 points called back on a traveling penalty is more like it.
You are forced to pay for the greater good. This has already been addressed. Whether or not you WANT the service is not your choice. You've heard about the idiot that didn't buy fire protection and the town allowed his house to burn down, right? He was just like you- "Screw this. They do nothing. I don't need their services. If something happens, I'll take care of it myself. I'm John Rambo." And then when the shit hit the fan, he begged for the fire dept to put out his fire, and they said tough shit. WHO'S wrong? The firemen for not helping their fellow man or the idiot for not buying the protection to begin with?
You will be the FIRST people in line calling for help from me when grandma stops breathing or there's some noise downstairs and you are too scared to check it yourself.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-firefighters-allow-house-to-burn-because-resident-did-not-pay-fee/
I LOVE this story because it flies in the face of everything you preach. Bitch and moan like a little girl about paying for a blanket protective service, but then cry me a river after your house burns down or someone dies because you were a man of principle.
And again, this entire thread seems to be based on weed, weed, and more weed. Maybe if you smoked some more, you wouldn't be so rabid toward me. I already told you weed is pretty low on my priority list, and I've done my share of looking the other way. Yes, hemp is very useful and should be used to manufacture things, and yes it is stupid that almost no one can make it for industrial use. But again, I'm not the bad guy. The guys making the laws are the bad guys. If you want it changed, make them change it.
[/quote]
Excuse me, but did you say anything about hurling insults at anybody?
Can you please keep this debate calm and rational in tone.
As far as your points go…
You asked who is wrong, the fire department for not putting out the fire or the man for not buying protection.
I'd say neither was wrong, because the fire department had no obligation, and the man had ever right to not buy protection.
It would seem, however, that the guy later felt he made a mistake when not paying the fire department fee.
However, your example isn't really relevant at all for the scenarios discussed in this topic, because of what our current culture is promised by it's government.
We are told that we have rights, and that the government's job is to ensure those rights, and when that's advertised, nobody ever mentions that those rights are depended on PAYMENT.
After all, if you are only entitled to something when you pay for it, it's not a right, it's a SERVICE you are buying, which means that the responsibility for acquiring the service lays with YOU instead of with some magical government agency that's supposed to ensure it.
As long as we have a government that keeps lying about our RIGHT to their service, and then keeps treating that promised right as an asset we must first buy, people are going to be confused, because nobody is getting what they payed for, nor does anybody really have the rights we're supposed to have.
Not only that, but the government charges us so much for the services it's failing to provide us with half the time, that it's impossible to say what kind of protective measures people would financially be able to take on their own if their hard earned money wasn't constantly stolen from them.
I'd much rather keep my own money and make sure that I was set up to fend for myself than to pay the thousands and thousands I spend every year to get the half-ass, undependable, never complete, government service I get now.
If we lived in a world where it's understood that not paying the fire department will actually result in them not coming to your rescue, because protection is a SERVICE you yourself are responsible for acquiring and not something other people will trow in your lap because you've got some sort of magical claim to the right of protection, we would see people react completely different to situations like described in your article.
Sure, there still would be people who where stupid and didn't get fire protection services and end up regretting it… however, it would be culturally understood that that was the person's own fault.
And as far as that person themselves making the mistake and bearing the regret?
Well… did you know that the freedom to make mistakes is the right and hallmark of a free person?
Only slaves are not allowed to make mistakes…
But then again, we already knew you where advocating slavery, so I can understand your aversion to the idea that people besides yourself would be allowed to make mistakes for themselves…
As far as me being the first one in line to cry for more services…
Now, that's completely laughable, considering that I deliberately and willingly moved here from an absolutely socialistic regime that provides me with a LOT (and I do mean a LOT) more services than the USA ever has, or ever will.
I willingly, knowingly and deliberately gave up a whole shitload of "free" services and rights "my" government offered me to come to a country that doesn't even come close to my former one as far as the entitlements I used to get from mommy government go.
And yet, now that I'm here, instead of pissing and moaning and whining about all the things I'm not getting anymore, I'm fighting to get even LESS "services" from the government.
I'm also finding that now that I'm no longer forced to partake in certain government service, and my tax burden is lower than it was, because the less complete service that is offered in this country, I'm capable of providing BETTER services for myself than I ever got from the government when I was forced to pay them to take care of certain things…
Thirdly…
I don't know why you're so obsessed about weed that you keep bringing it up. But I haven't mentioned it in ANY of the posts I've made, and really don't get what your issue with the stuff seems to be.
I personally don't smoke weed, though I come from a country where the stuff is legal and readily available, and don't really have an interest in discussing it with you, considering the fact that I don't see the relevance to the subject at hand. I will say that it's again interesting to note that you claim to be a cop, yet now you're telling me that I should go smoke weed. Is it in your ethical code to try and provoke people to do things you'll later arrest them for?
Now…
Could you please be so kind and explain to me why it is that you are moral in your duty as a police officer when you freely and readily admit that you would beat up innocent people for slightly annoying you, if and when you could get away with it.
Would you also be so kind as to explain why exactly it is that I need to be forced to pay for somebody like you to be a police officer, and why the fact that I'm paying for protection services doesn't mean that I have the right to veto anybody who would beat up people for annoying them slightly from the operation I chose to pay to protect me.
I have no problem with paying cops, because I think they're a useful service.
I have a problem with being FORCE to pay cops who freely admit that they would beat up innocent people if they could get away with it.
Costumer is king ya know… and I'd like to reserve the right to take my dollar elsewhere and not pay people like you to "protect" me.
After all, I wouldn't like to end up in a situation where I've annoyed you slightly with my driving style and you decide that you can get away with beating the snot out of me… ON MY FREAKING DIME!
Further, you claim to be the "good guy" who just happens to have the desire to beat the snot out of random strangers, but doesn't do so because of the law.
That makes me curious as to what your definition of a "good guy" is, and how you quantify it internally. Would you say that a slave who is forced to behave according to the rules is the moral equal to a free person who, out of personal self-determination, choses to behave in the most utilitarian way?
Are you smart enough to understand hypothetical examples like the driving one I described? I thought so, but apparently you aren't. So let me break it down for you- that was a HYPOTHETICAL example, meant to show you how your idea of a enforcer-less society will not work. Again, let me repeat- that was a HYPOTHETICAL example, one in which the point was clearly emphasized.
Look up a few posts and read what the other guy wrote about …dun dun dun… WEED.
The reason you should be FORCED to pay for cops is we provide a government service that keeps society running as smoothly as can be. Who do you call when the traffic lights go out in a blinding rain storm? The cops. Who do you call when someone gets hurt? The cops. Who do you call when you smash up your car? The cops. Who do you call for a break-in, robbery, assault, domestic, etc? The cops. You pay for these services because you never know when you are going to need them. You can not say that you won't or don't use them, since you do EVERY day. You just may not SEE it, or might have missed it by a few minutes. Maybe you made it to work on time today because one of us was out there directing traffic, or pushing the guy with the flat tire off the road.
YA HEARD?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50924#msg50924 date=1299895324]Who do you call when the traffic lights go out in a blinding rain storm? The cops. Who do you call when someone gets hurt? The cops. Who do you call when you smash up your car? The cops. Who do you call for a break-in, robbery, assault, domestic, etc? The cops. You pay for these services because you never know when you are going to need them. You can not say that you won't or don't use them, since you do EVERY day. You just may not SEE it, or might have missed it by a few minutes. Maybe you made it to work on time today because one of us was out there directing traffic, or pushing the guy with the flat tire off the road.[/quote]
This is truly hilarious.
What happens when the traffic lights go out? Which they do on occasion, up here, since we have ice storms and the like… um, we take turns. It's really complex. If we actually need folks to direct traffic, something tells me we can go to the local McDonald's and find plenty of folks who are more than qualified for the job.
Reminds me of when my wife's family was visiting from NJ, and they said that we need the government to collect the trash, or it would rot on the side of the road. Um, no, we don't need them for that - and they didn't even offer that service. You either take it to the dump, yourself, or you hire someone to do it for you.
If someone got hurt, why would I call the cops? It's the job of the cops to hurt people, so calling them because someone was hurt makes no sense. What, do I need to have my bleeding friend tazed, or something?
If I smashed up my car, why use would cops be? If it wasn't a crime not to call them, I can't imagine why anyone would.
If my house was broken into and my stuff stolen, I think I'd probably call a carpenter and my insurance company. I can't imagine what cops would do for me.
Taking care of someone with a flat tire? Yeah, one obviously needs to be an armed thug to do that. Them tires are dangerous. I've never seen a cop fix anyone's flat tire. I've seen cops impede traffic and cause accidents, but never prevent one, or actually repair any damage.
Joe
OhCrapItsTheCops,
sheesh, you show up and it's a free for all
you have made some very good points about the need for "law" enforcement, but only governments make laws
your current employer is actually a corporation which can only make public "policy", that is why you are a policy enforcer or police
real crime is committed under law and has to have a victim, the current powers that be throw real crime in with revenue collection activities where the real victim is the man or woman that is being "forced" to pay up
the current United States corporation operates mainly by deceit and you are being used as a tool in this deceit, you are probably unaware of this
hats off to you for following your conscience on not following through on implementation on some of the policies that you felt were unconstitutional
as far as this collective and individual thing goes, remember we are taught that we are in a constitutional republic when in fact we are in a legislative democracy, lied to and deceived again
collective is a word that gets thrown around alot in communist regimes, hmm
oh yeah that's right , the United States corporation is a commie, fascist organization
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50924#msg50924 date=1299895324]
Are you smart enough to understand hypothetical examples like the driving one I described? I thought so, but apparently you aren't. So let me break it down for you- that was a HYPOTHETICAL example, meant to show you how your idea of a enforcer-less society will not work. Again, let me repeat- that was a HYPOTHETICAL example, one in which the point was clearly emphasized.
Look up a few posts and read what the other guy wrote about …dun dun dun… WEED.
The reason you should be FORCED to pay for cops is we provide a government service that keeps society running as smoothly as can be. Who do you call when the traffic lights go out in a blinding rain storm? The cops. Who do you call when someone gets hurt? The cops. Who do you call when you smash up your car? The cops. Who do you call for a break-in, robbery, assault, domestic, etc? The cops. You pay for these services because you never know when you are going to need them. You can not say that you won't or don't use them, since you do EVERY day. You just may not SEE it, or might have missed it by a few minutes. Maybe you made it to work on time today because one of us was out there directing traffic, or pushing the guy with the flat tire off the road.
YA HEARD?
[/quote]
I'm not the guy a few post up… I don't see a reason for you to tell me that this is all about weed when I've never mentioned it.
Considering that I and several other people never mentioned weed, your argument that this is all about weed is clearly a false one.
If you feel this shouldn't be about weed, then quit bringing it up yourself and answer the people who aren't making points about it.
As far as hypothetical examples go… I fully comprehend how they work.
However, a prerequisite for a hypothetical is that they deal with potential situations based on factual data.
The difference between those two piece of a hypothetical is in the way they are presented and phrased.
Your hypothetical dealt with your assumption of the potential situation that would be created in a stateless society; namely the possibility that people would beat the shit out of random strangers who annoyed them.
The factual data you used to support your hypothesize that people would react this way, and not a different way was the admission that you yourself would react that way in the hypothetical scenario you proposed.
You basically said: "My argument is that people would beat the snot out of people who annoyed them in a stateless society. The premise I used to support this argument is the fact that I myself would beat the snot out of people who annoy me in a stateless society."
If you want to retract your statement, and claim that you've misspoken, and say that you would not beat the snot out of innocent people if you could get away with it, that's fine with me.
But realize that if and when you retract that statement, your hypothetical that people would do this in a stateless society is no longer supported by ANY premise whatsoever, and instead defaults to an empty claim, and therefor becomes an invalid argument.
So if you want to continue your claim that people would beat the snot out of innocent people in a stateless society, you either need to come up with a new premise to support that conclusion, or you need to not retract your original premise that you yourself would beat up people if you could get away with it… either way, no sweat off my back… I'm just going by YOUR words and your own argument here…
As far as your argument goes as to why I need to pay for the cops.
First of all, don't tell me for which things I do and do not call the cops. You don't know me, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions for me. I don't need you to tell me what I would and would not do, it's bad enough as it is that you can order me on what I should and should not do.
For your information, for about half the things you've listed, I wouldn't personally call the cops, but that's besides the issue, considering that I've already said I have no problem with paying for cops.
I've never said I had an issue with paying for cops. I appreciate having cops, and there are items on your list for which I would enjoy their services.
I've said that I have an issue with being FORCED to pay for cops.
More specifically, I have a problem with being forced to pay for cops, because if I'm forced to pay for cops, that means that the cops are not accountable to serve me with what I'm paying for them to serve me with.
The reason the free market works so well is that money keeps business accountable to the consumer. If a business does not deliver what it's payed to deliver, people will vote with their dollar and their their business elsewhere.
The problem I have with being forced to pay for your services is that it makes you, and your fellow cops be untouchable by the very people you are supposed to serve.
There are no consequences for you, if your protection agency does not actually provide the services it's payed to provide, because all enforcement is done for within, with people equally unaccountable for their actions.
I have no problem with paying for cops. I will always pay for cops when given the choice, because I don't want to deal with the consequences of not having cops.
I have a problem with being FORCED to pay for people who I'm not able to hold accountable for their actions in any way shape or form.
I have a problem with being a slave.
So again, please, stop putting spin on the situation and simply explain to me why it's moral for you to force me to be a slave.
Explain to me what gives you the right to be unaccountable to the people you claim to be protecting.
And if you don't have a problem with being accountable to the people you're supposedly service… why are you so afraid that those people will refuse to pay you for the services you are so well providing them with.
If you're half the cop you claim to be, I -and I'm sure others- would gladly freely pay you to take care of the things I enjoy the cops taking care of for me.
[quote author=cerberil link=topic=4846.msg50926#msg50926 date=1299896862]
OhCrapItsTheCops,
sheesh, you show up and it's a free for all
you have made some very good points about the need for "law" enforcement, but only governments make laws
your current employer is actually a corporation which can only make public "policy", that is why you are a policy enforcer or police
real crime is committed under law and has to have a victim, the current powers that be throw real crime in with revenue collection activities where the real victim is the man or woman that is being "forced" to pay up
the current United States corporation operates mainly by deceit and you are being used as a tool in this deceit, you are probably unaware of this
hats off to you for following your conscience on not following through on implementation on some of the policies that you felt were unconstitutional
as far as this collective and individual thing goes, remember we are taught that we are in a constitutional republic when in fact we are in a legislative democracy, lied to and deceived again
collective is a word that gets thrown around alot in communist regimes, hmm
oh yeah that's right , the United States corporation is a commie, fascist organization
[/quote]
You have no arguments from me with most of it. I disagree that it's a fascist organization, it's more of an oligarchy where the select few rule all. If it were truly communist or socialist, then the rich would have paid their fair share, and they don't. There is no doubt whatsoever that this and most governments make rules to and deal to keep themselves in charge and in business, which is disgusting, but it is still better than living in North Korea.
I am a individualist and collectivist, depending on which topic we are discussing. I do believe in the doing some things for the greater good, like having a justice system, emergency services, and food stamps, but I also agree that some personal freedoms are stepped on, and the reasons given don't match the truth. Let's look at the idea of the 'internet kill switch' they would like to give to the POTUS. Why should one person, in the name of 'national security,' be able to shut down the most efficient communication medium ever created? He shouldn't, but they NEED to keep control, and will use the threats of terrorism or cyber attacks as the crux of their reasoning. Most of us know it's bullshit, but what can the little man ever do about it?
[quote author=MaineShark link=topic=4846.msg50925#msg50925 date=1299896350]
I've never seen a cop fix anyone's flat tire. I've seen cops impede traffic and cause accidents, but never prevent one, or actually repair any damage.
[/quote]
It's really funny you'd say that Joe, my husband said the same thing.
However, I have seen cops change tires and repair damages.
Not in the USA though, but in the socialistic country I left behind…
A country where people generally don't fear the cops, like is habitual for people here.
But then again… this is also a country where most cops aren't allowed to carry guns, on or off duty… and where cops are still for the most part accountable to the population for their action to the point that if and when a cop is caught committing a crime, they tend to get a harsher punishment than ordinary citizens because they're supposed to be role models… instead of the payed vacation they get here.
I actually liked having cops around when they where still semi-accountable to me… they where actually mostly helpful then…
That's not to say that the system was perfect, it has it's own flaws which are where all directly related to… jeez, imagine that… the fact that people where forced to pay for them…
Holy long winded Ishtar…
Would YOU like the free market to enforce the laws? Let me tell you exactly what would happen, and IS happening. Ever hear of red light camera or those speed cameras? THAT is the free market cashing in. Let me ask you, would rather take your chances with me giving you a ticket, or the automated machine spitting out a thousand tickets a day?
Second, say there IS a free market 'security force' and no cops (Blackwater anyone?) How exactly would this security force operate? Now remember, there is ZERO government infrastructure requiring the registration of vehicles, a fingerprint database, NCIC, SCIC, or anything available to them other than the information YOU can provide to find the bad guy. And let's say your car was broken into at 3am while you were asleep, and your wallet with all your credentials and money was taken. What resources will they have to solve the crime?
I forgot to add, WHO exactly will oversee this 'security force?'
As for changing tires- I've changed plenty in my career, against SOP. We are not 'allowed' to do it by the PD for liability reasons. That's the same reason we no longer open locked doors, or give you jump starts. YOU people and your lawsuits are what stopped those practices. You are your own worst enemies.
OhCrapItsTheCops,
if you disagree that it is a fascist organization, perhaps you should look up Benito Mussolini's (spelling?) definition of fascism, then look up the Act of 1871
all ten Planck's of the communist manifesto are in place in the US corporation
in the US corporation, the upper crust uses a fascist approach to soak up the wealth production of the lower classes, whilst the lower classes are living in communism (communism is just a form of feudalism in which you sucker people into thinking that it is good for them and that they have some say in the whole sordid mess)
at least the North Koreans are fully knowledgeable of their plight and while living in abject poverty are actually in a better position of being free than
Americans, the vast majority of whom do not even know that they are "subjects", but believe themselves to be free, as such would not even consider doing anything to free themselves and can even be convinced to fight to maintain the very chains that hold them in bondage
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50930#msg50930 date=1299898345]
Holy long winded Ishtar…
[/quote]
I know, I appoligize, it's a flaw of mine caused by the fact that I actually try to address the points and question people bring up to me… unlike certain cough other people on this topic…
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50930#msg50930 date=1299898345]
Would YOU like the free market to enforce the laws? Let me tell you exactly what would happen, and IS happening. Ever hear of red light camera or those speed cameras? THAT is the free market cashing in. Let me ask you, would rather take your chances with me giving you a ticket, or the automated machine spitting out a thousand tickets a day?
[/quote]
Funny you would ask me that, considering that the country I come from leaves most traffic tickets for speeding and red light are left to cameras.
Cops do not generally EVER give tickets for things like that, and instead focus on helping people that request their service.
You'll never find a cop lay in ambush along a road… EVER… for anything…
As for whether I prefer that or not…
8 years of driving history there, not a single ticket on my name.
A year and a half driving history here and I've got 3… 1 of them with the cop blatantly lying about what I supposedly did.
Yeah, I think I DEFINITELY prefer the cameras to take care of things like that.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50930#msg50930 date=1299898345]
Second, say there IS a free market 'security force' and no cops (Blackwater anyone?) How exactly would this security force operate? Now remember, there is ZERO government infrastructure requiring the registration of vehicles, a fingerprint database, NCIC, SCIC, or anything available to them other than the information YOU can provide to find the bad guy. And let's say your car was broken into at 3am while you were asleep, and your wallet with all your credentials and money was taken. What resources will they have to solve the crime?
[/quote]
What resources do I have now when my wallet gets stole?
The two time it happened I filed a police report and never heard back from them ever since.
The one time my car got hit while parked within regulation, I again filed a report and nothing happened.
When several bikes of me and family members where stolen over the years, the cops again did nothing, even though these bikes where tagged -as mandated- and the accompanying 150 buck mandating tagging fee was payed…
So I got to pay to tag my bike because it would help me when it got stolen and instead ended up loosing a bike AND 150 bucks…
I could go on with my list of example on how the cops didn't help me in situations like your hypothetical…
In the end, what does it really matter?
Now you tell me…
Why on Earth should I have to proof to you that the system I'd like would be utopia before it even exists when you are doing no such thing?
I don't think a voluntary system will be flawless, but the flaws of the system can be addressed as they come along and if it ends up not working out in the end, we can try something else.
However, how is the fact that the next system MIGHT be flawed a justification for keeping the current system which we FACTUALLY KNOW is flawed around?
Before I proof to you that my way of doing things is utopia, why don't you start by explaining how YOUR system is utopia or can ever be made into it…
Further, how about answering my questions instead of accusing me of being long winded for trying to answer yours?
Do you or do you not retract your statement that claimed you would beat up people for annoying you if you could get away with it?
OhCrapItsTheCops,
to elaborate on communism and the ruling oligarchy
I agree that the US corporation is headed up by a oligarchy, one that traces it's genetic roots right back to the royalty of Europe and indeed the same inbred bloodlines that claim a devine right to rule going back thousands of years
as for the definition of communism, the one you described was handed down to us by the very creators of communism, the ruling oligarchy
as the creators of this refashioned feudalism(communism/socialism), they had know intention of actually following the rules themselves(paying their share)
point being that I believe my description of communism is more realistic than the reason you gave for the US corporation not being communist
[quote author=Ishtar link=topic=4846.msg50929#msg50929 date=1299898248]It's really funny you'd say that Joe, my husband said the same thing.
However, I have seen cops change tires and repair damages.
Not in the USA though, but in the socialistic country I left behind…
A country where people generally don't fear the cops, like is habitual for people here.[/quote]
Well, when they have a larger percentage of the population locked up than anyplace in history, save Pol Pot's reign, it's rather hard to think of them as anything other than Gestapo. Except the Gestapo didn't hurt as many people as they do.
Joe