Topic: Competing police forces/laws (Read 2281 times)

Everything will always be controlled by force since it's the most primal way of control. And the only way to control everyone  including low-lives is force. Nothing really new much.

The government has a monopoly on force.

How are laws imposed?

Force.

How are taxes collected?

Force.

Guess so. Are you referring to gun control laws in the US? Since I don't live there, I don't really know.

Guess that's the other side of the coin: both the lack of control and too much control yield problems. And as I have seen the superpowers like US, Russia and China are skilled in mass control.

The top sheriff in a rural part of northern Nevada told residents this week that one of his deputies acted appropriately by confiscating tens-of-thousands of dollars and a handgun from two men who were never charged with crimes.

Humboldt County Sheriff Ed Kilgore defended his department during an open meeting on Tuesday this week in Winnemucca, NV, where around 40 residents of the region turned up to talk to law enforcement about two headline-making lawsuits that have propelled the area into the national spotlight as of late.

The federal suits — both filed last month in United States District Court — allege that Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office acted unlawfully when he pulled over two drivers in September and December of last year for routine traffic violations, only to confiscate large sums of money and, in one instance, a handgun, without ever charging either individual with a crime.

In each case, the plaintiffs were stopped by Dove for minor infractions and eventually released without being booked. Both times, however, he came upon large amounts of cash in their vehicles and confiscated it by evoking a controversial “civil forfeiture” provision that lets law enforcement take money if an officer thinks it was either obtained illegally or will be used for illicit means.

Both cases attracted the attention of Associated Press reporter Scott Sonner, who profiled the lawsuits earlier this month in a story that set the stage for Tuesday’s meeting in the county center.

“Two men who were traveling alone through the high desert last year offer strikingly similar accounts of their stops by the same Humboldt County deputy near the town of Winnemucca, about 165 miles east of Reno,” Sonner wrote last week. “Neither search produced drugs or an arrest, but in one case Deputy Lee Dove took a briefcase filled with $50,000 and in the other he seized $13,800 and a handgun, according to the lawsuits filed in US District Court in Reno.”

Attorneys for Tan Nguyen, 37, filed their suit on February 12, and in it they alleged that Dove pulled over their client the previous September for driving 78 miles-per-hour in a 75 mph zone.

“Dove stopped Plaintiff in a ‘profile stop,’ suspecting that Plaintiff was transporting illegal drugs, which he was not,” they wrote. Upon inspecting the vehicle, however, the deputy came across a briefcase containing $50,000 in US currency and two cashier’s checks, which were promptly confiscated.

“Plaintiff was neither arrested nor cited for any violation of the law in relation to this encounter with Dove,” attorneys wrote. “Rather, Dove gave the plaintiff only a warning.”

According to the suit, Dove told Nguyen that he would be arrested unless he “got in his car and drove off and forgot this ever happened.” The fifty-grand — winnings from a Nevada casino, according to Nguyen’s attorneys — was never returned.

http://rt.com/usa/nevada-lawsuits-forfeiture-kilgore-610/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

Precisely why it's a bad idea to have a monopoly on force.

Also, zero control brings out the worst in people.

That's the fallacy about anarchy.  The fact of the matter is that, as you said, only a small percent of people are psychopaths and wish to go and take people's stuff.  As it is now, these psychopaths are in charge and protected to ransack anyone and anything they desire with the power of armies.

If we were in a true anarchist state, with no government or money, the 2-3% of sociopaths would have no way to leverage their powers, thus, if they continued with their ways, they would be killed as the numbers are astronomically against them.

That's the fallacy about anarchy.  The fact of the matter is that, as you said, only a small percent of people are psychopaths and wish to go and take people's stuff.  As it is now, these psychopaths are in charge and protected to ransack anyone and anything they desire with the power of armies.

If we were in a true anarchist state, with no government or money, the 2-3% of sociopaths would have no way to leverage their powers, thus, if they continued with their ways, they would be killed as the numbers are astronomically against them.

1. In an possible in the real world anarchistic society, you'd get ransaked if you possesed anything of value. Surviving a day without having lots of goods/currency to hire and maintain armed forces would be an achievement. The stringest would win.
2. Anarchy where every person respects and helps each other is a utopian idea. It's due to the violent and selfish nature of man and the fact that a small group of psychos can ruin the whole situation

1. So those defending would be more important thus making descisions thus it is anothef government, possibly totalitarian or authoritarian at best.
2.You elect the government, you choose who you want to be ruled by. And yes I understand how limited choice the two-party system is, however, it can be changed. In my country, there are lots of parties competing for getting seats in the parliament. If you don't like the current politicians, become one and be better.

1) Non-aggressors who could defend themselves (and be defended by other non-aggressors) would win, if we were no longer subject to innocent victim-only disarmament laws.
2) The last sentence is government in a nutshell - sociopaths, protecting themselves and psychopaths, from innocent victims.

1. In an possible in the real world anarchistic society, you'd get ransaked if you possesed anything of value. Surviving a day without having lots of goods/currency to hire and maintain armed forces would be an achievement. The stringest would win.
2. Anarchy where every person respects and helps each other is a utopian idea. It's due to the violent and selfish nature of man and the fact that a small group of psychos can ruin the whole situation

Sorta like how it is now?  People living in fear of being blown up by a drone, people living in fear being spied on by their government, people living in fear of a nuclear holocaust.



Anarchy is not chaos though.  Anarchy is nature, a perfect equilibrium of forces.  An anarchist world is controlled by the universe rather than man.  Just because there is no man made law does not mean there are no laws of physics.

I think something that is underestimated in an anarchic system is fear. The majority of people will have elevated fear levels which will lead to all sorts of problems.
Illnesses related to stress, more people going postal, a poorer quality of life in general.

Ruthless and powerful gangs may dominate, the sort who will kill anyone at the first sign of conflict, before their opponents  'police force' is even aware there is a problem.


Compassion and karma in the majority is unfortunately outweighed by greed in the few.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
absence of government

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaos
complete confusion and disorder : a state in which behavior and events are not controlled by anything

The latter definition applies to the status quo.

Anarchy is not synonymous to chaos.

Open your mind for a moment and imagine a few hundred people on an island starting with no laws.

With no laws and no way to enforce them they start to run into problems, some murders, theft, property is taken, people build a house and assume they own the land only to have their neighbors think that they own a different part, etc...

People start arming themselves and try to protect themselves and their property but most find that they have to go to work, they cannot stay at home all of the time so a private police force offers to protect peoples' properties for them, some people like it and pay for this police force to protect their home from intruders. The police force is given boundaries of peoples' properties and disputes are worked out to come up with clear property lines.

Some people do not agree with the lines and go with their own police force, a few police forces pop up and pretty soon there are property line disputes between police forces. One guy says an acre is his while another says it is his. They both call out their police forces to keep the other off of their property and soon there is a stand off between forces. Both are right, they are protecting lawful property and a firefight between forces breaks out.

The next time funding for the force comes up, both forces raise rates for those home owners to deal with the extra cost of a firefight with the other force. After some time both land owners realize it is cheaper to come to an agreement on property lines than keep paying higher costs to the police. So they make compromises and the rates go down.

Now imagine one group of people really hates gays, they pass a 'law' against gay marriage. Basically they authorize their police force to go in and kidnap and punish a gay couple. The gay couple is paying another police force to protect their property from intruders (including police) and protect them from kidnapping. The gay law police come to kidnap and imprison the couple and the kidnap protecting police are called to protect them. Another stand off and possible gun fight ensues...

At this point the people who hate gays are told their rates will go up in order to pay for gun fights with other police forces. The battles are costly so the gay haters have to decide if it is fiscally worth it to have such a law. Over time it would not make sense to pay for gun fights.

After a while, the cheapest route for all users of the police forces would be to agree on what 'laws' to impose, and it would gravitate toward such a common agreed law of the land with very few subtle differences. You would also have to factor in people who do not use a police force and protect their own properties and lives. Any outside force used against them or their lifestyle would bring with it a cost that would likely not be worth the higher rate.

Thoughts? With no laws and people willing to pay for competing police protection, how do you think things would end up?

Larger amount of weapons and disposable manpower holding those... Where would the force go? Rich would just give up using the old style force?

Where? And if someone comes and take that land?

How does the rich control the poor without force?  If there's no centralized bank destorying the poor's currency, or tax system stealing all their wealth, or welfare system keeping them dependent, or minimum wage destroying employment, or regulations denying any opportunities, what's to stop the poor from rising up?