Topic: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre - page 2. (Read 6968 times)

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.

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 Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd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.

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.

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.  

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Some people don't need to pretend.

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.

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

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

It's never happened in history because it's vulnerable to being replaced by governance. Only the deluded believe it would work.

I totally reject that idea.  Take away the security bubble of the state and you are only a few hours away from looting, riots and murders.  In Ireland, it was the Brits deciding not to police certain areas caused hell to break loose.  Only last year, London police took a decision to "prioritise preserving life over preserving property" and the city was racked by violence and riots within 30 minutes.  

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.

Actually I think the pay for the police from taxes is a fine solution.

Unless you are suggesting that if Jaycee wasn't insured, the kidnapping should not be investigated, insurance won't work. 

Yet another example of how something can't be possible because you aren't smart enough to find a solution.. That's all your replies are, all the time. You point out a problem and then lack the imagination and mental capacity to find a non violent solution, and then you make a non sequitur saying it must be only solvable through violence.

News flash, there are no guarantees in life, that's why man invented insurance.

I'm not ignoring the snipped portion, I'll address it below.

I think the blanket statement that it's "immoral to allow" something is a slippery slope. Yes, I believe that generally speaking, someone with the power to do good for someone who needs it, but who doesn't do it, is wrong. But IMO such things should be examined and sometimes taken on a case-by-case basis.

That said, I understand where you're coming from, and tend to agree with the sentiment.

The question becomes, is a formal nation-state the most appropriate (and most effective) way to handle that? After all, all nation-states themselves initiate force on innocents to varying degrees. If you're willing to just settle for the state because it initiates less visible, less damaging force, then why bother trying to argue that it has any level of legitimacy? Why not just state, "they're a less violent gang, so I support them, even if they do wrong," and be done with it? That's what most people arguing against the state resent most... the societal lie that the government has some sort of legitimate authority for what it does.



This happens in situations with police, courts, and the rule of law as well. Even the most tyrannical regimes usually codify the evil they do as legal, for some strange, perverse reason (witness the U.S.'s NDAA and other recent laws.) Even though in some situations a government comes in and actually does good, the overall idea that government = safety, no government = destructive chaos is a false one. Such wrong usually occurs or fails to occur regardless of government presence.

There are a number of modern, wealthy society where most of the people aren't prone to this sort of thing in the first place, which can be seen somewhat by how often such things actually happen... police may act as a deterrent but they rarely actively prevent crimes, and if the populace is set on doing something, they will do it unless forcibly prevented. In such a society, I see no reason to believe that the replacement of a government with other, voluntary means of protection is going to be anything but positive.

Lets go back to the Jaycee Dugard case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

Who should pay for the police investigation?  Her family?  Jaycee herself?  Is that your idea of voluntary payment?